I just wanted to post an update to this story. Apparently Delegate Cosgrove is guilty of using vague wording. Here’s a link to his response on the earlier linked site.
Here’s some excerpts if you don’t want to follow the link:
This is all well and good if there was no law in place to better cover legal actions in these instances.
and
So it seems his intentions were good, however his wording was not well thought out. If his initial intentions were not really what he has stated above but something more sinister in the hope that they could later turn the law to more nefarious purposes, then at least the hue and cry over this has stopped that outrage and forced him to rephrase his bill to something more acceptable and worthwhile.
So, we can hold off on the mailing of used feminine napkins and tampons to Delegate Cosgrove … for now.
Thanks for the update. Yes, I feel much better now, although I’ll still be watching this closely. I’d like to see how he changes the wording of the bill to more carefully address the problem he’s trying to address.
(On the other hand, is a baby dumpin’ mom likely to care about this bill? And report her own baby’s dumping in time for the coroner to determine the cause of death? Sheesh. Seems like changing tax laws to nab Mob Bosses on tax evasion charges.)
Really, as a lawmaker, he should be extra careful with his language, no? Simply stating “viable” or “fetus of 26 or more gestational weeks” would have made most of this Pitting moot.
I don’t think he expects it to stop this from happening but the point is that there would be something more to charge these women with other than improper disposal of a human body.
Which is why I think there may have been some intention for them to later use the law for other purposes. In which case then it’s a good thing he was called on it and forced to use more specific wording. It almost restores your faith in the democratic system when the representatives actually listen to the people once in a while.
I did say “almost”.
But his assertion in the linked email (I don’t know if this is correct or not) is that after 12 hours, a coroner cannot determine whether a baby was stillborn or died after birth. So all a baby dumping mom has to do is say it was “stillborn” and they can’t prove otherwise.
I’m afraid that the first thing I saw when I saw the OP was that this law wasn’t about first or second trimester losses, but about cases where there was a question of stillbirth vs manslaughter/murder.
I’m not sure what this law will achieve that current laws don’t, however, it’s obvious that the politician concerned didn’t bother to consult any medical professionals while coming up with the initial wording.
You can’t charge her with child neglect or manslaughter unless you can prove that a child was actually born. If you can’t prove that the child was not a stillborn, you can’t prove that there was ever a child to neglect or a person to manslaughter.
Illinois’ solution to this problem was to allow a woman to turn her child over to the state, no questions asked, by leaving it at a fire station, hospital, or certain other places where the child’s safety would not be endangered. Such children become wards of the state without any attempt to collect child support from either mother or father. This is expensive for the state, but saves lives; the tradeoff is deemed worth it.
Hmm. The explanation tracks almost exactly with what I thought might be the case, in my first post in this thread.
I’m happy the matter will be clarified before a vote.
To all those who accused me of being a horrible, horrible person, just because my knee didn’t jerk immediately, I’d like to offer a heartfelt “fuck you.”
Like many of the more regular posters (which I am clearly not), I have been exposed to enough of Mr. Moto’s posts to know about his desire to see abortion illegalised in the USA .
I still believe that any reaction to the original Cosgrove bill, with the original wording, which was any less than horrified, indicates willful ignorance of just how far the far-far-right may be willing to go to punish women at the expense of a fetus/unborn child. That Cosgrove pulled a U-turn does not necessarily mean, as others have pointed out, that his original intentions were any less sinister than anyone here supposed.
Not having accused anyone of being a “horrible, horrible person,” but most definitely having accused Mr. Moto of being someone so married to his own ideology that he is incapable of even imagining the ways in which such a law could potentially hurt other people, and women in particular, I stand by my original assessment that
Furthermore, I offer Mr. Moto no "heartfelt ‘fuck you’ " in return, but rather my hope that someday his eyes may be opened to some of the reasons that make this issue such an emotional one not only for him, but also for those who hold opinions contrary to his own.
No, Mr. Moto, you just looked at something utterly inexcusable and waffled. You lacked the decency to recognize an invasive, overreaching, overly broad and excruciatingly vague excuse for government to intrude upon citizens’ most private anguish for what it was.
