# Small government advocate wants police to harass distraught women **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 22, 2011, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/small-government-advocate-wants-police-to-harass-distraught-women/572176 "2011-02-22T01:36:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/small-government-advocate-wants-police-to-harass-distraught-women/572176/141 "2011-02-23T05:36:55Z")
I had always assumed all “spontaneous fetal deaths” were miscarriages, but I never considered the possibility of suicide. ---
**Author:** ![rooostra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d07c76/32.png) [@rooostra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rooostra)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/small-government-advocate-wants-police-to-harass-distraught-women/572176/142 "2011-02-23T05:57:15Z")
Nevermind - post would just derail the thread ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/small-government-advocate-wants-police-to-harass-distraught-women/572176/143 "2011-02-23T06:01:52Z")
> [@rooostra](#): > > I don’t believe that it is a scare tactic. I think it is a reasonable extrapolation of the effects of the extension of fetal personhood. Do you honestly think that if a State (or the nation, for that matter) recognized fetal personhood and abortion were criminalized, that miscarriages would not be subject to greater scrutiny than in the status quo? A government that instituted the death penalty for abortion? You read the language in the statute - if this guy is indicative of the thinking that would underlie a government that would enforce fetal personhood rights, do you really think there would not be increased investigation of miscarriages. Claiming a miscarriage would be the only way to cover for an illegal abortion. That is my point. If the numbers of reported miscarriages ballooned after abortion were criminalized, do you think law enforcement would not take a closer look? Even if I grant this… _it would have to be a result of a new law._ The proposed law has no such mechanism. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/small-government-advocate-wants-police-to-harass-distraught-women/572176/144 "2011-02-23T06:04:05Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I had always assumed all “spontaneous fetal deaths” were miscarriages, but I never considered the possibility of suicide. No, that’s not it. The law says, “A spontaneous fetal death that that is required to be reported by this section…” This means there are two categories of fetal deaths: those required to be reported under this section, and those that are not. They are all miscarriages. None are suicides. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/small-government-advocate-wants-police-to-harass-distraught-women/572176/145 "2011-02-23T06:08:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. > > By the words you yourself quote, that applies to a spontaneous fetal that _that is required to be reported by this section_. So let’s start with that. > > How is a miscarriage “required to be reported by this section?” > [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Go ahead. You’re the expert on Georgia law here. You tell me. > [@Bricker](#): > > It’s not. > [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > _ **Then which spontaneous fetal deaths are?** _ > [@elucidator](#): > > I had always assumed all “spontaneous fetal deaths” were miscarriages, but I never considered the possibility of suicide. > [@Bricker](#): > > No, that’s not it. The law says, “A spontaneous fetal death that that is required to be reported by this section…” > > This means there are two categories of fetal deaths: those required to be reported under this section, and those that are not. > > They are all miscarriages. None are suicides. Oooohhh. SO close to answering the $64,000 question (hint: It’s the one with all the emphasizing modifications, above). Yet I retain hope. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/small-government-advocate-wants-police-to-harass-distraught-women/572176/146 "2011-02-23T06:22:36Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > “Small government advocate”? That’s like calling Charles Manson a rock musician or Adolf Hitler an author. Sure each of them dabbled in those things, but they are more famous for other stuff. And the particular complaint you have about him in this thread has nothing to do with advocating a small government. > > The way you idiots here use the word “conservative” (i.e., with no regard for whether you are talking about a fiscal or social conservative) is bad enough–this thread title takes that problem up a couple orders of magnitude. The Rand Rover Principle: Conservatives are always right because when they’re wrong, the other conservatives deny they were a conservative. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/small-government-advocate-wants-police-to-harass-distraught-women/572176/147 "2011-02-23T06:36:16Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Oooohhh. SO close to answering the $64,000 question (hint: It’s the one with all the emphasizing modifications, above). > > Yet I retain hope. The proposed bill doesn’t make any changes to reporting requirements under existing Georgia law. So are you asking what Georgia law already requires, or what reporting requirement is added by the new bill? ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/small-government-advocate-wants-police-to-harass-distraught-women/572176/148 "2011-02-23T06:48:40Z")
> [@tnetennba](#): > > I keep joking that I’m going to write a YA romance about a sullen teen girl in love with a Yog Sosoth. Maybe I can drag you in as a consultant? Sure, but just so you know, it’s pedophilia. She’s a teen, and I’m untold vigintillions of years old ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 8:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/small-government-advocate-wants-police-to-harass-distraught-women/572176/149 "2011-02-23T08:45:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In fact, I bet I can see where this one is going to go. Three pages of idiots arguing that I’m wrong, followed by a more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger post explaining that the REAL complaint is the general hostility towards Women’s Reproductive Rights, and that this isn’t a thread about Law, but about Freedom and Justice, amorphous and ever-changing concepts. It’s about FEELINGS, nothing more than feelings, trying to forget my, feelings of… > > Fine. If that’s truly the thread’s purpose, just forthrightly acknowledge it, and I’ll save everyone the effort. Well, then, here’s my predictable response: Seriously? The entire BBQ Pit forum is about fucking FEELINGS. No one smart enough to be on this board should need to be told that. Give this persecution crap a rest. If you want a debate without getting insulted, go open a thread in GD. You want people to have to provide citations, again, GD. In the Pit, none of that is required. You know this, so stop acting like you are so much better than us when you apparently can’t process the purpose of separate forums. In here, we get to insult you when you insult the rest of us. The funny thing is, if you hadn’t stared pulling out your persecution complex, no one would have cared this time. For once, the law is actually relevant. The subject actually is a law, and knowing what it says is actually relevant to knowing whether the outrage (a feeling) is justified. Had you just said, “I had a look at that law. I don’t think it says what you think it says. Here’s the actual text. [insert quote] I think we are getting upset over nothing,” I bet that, not only would everyone not insult you, but (assuming you didn’t miss something) we’d actually be in agreement with you–meaning you’d actually win a debate for once. But, no, that response wouldn’t allow you to keep your illusion that we are horrible people, that we just want to bash conservatives and don’t care about the truth. It could never be that your actions cause the type responses you get. You are _so_ much better than the rest of us. ---
**Author:** ![margin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/65b543/32.png) [@margin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/margin)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/small-government-advocate-wants-police-to-harass-distraught-women/572176/150 "2011-02-23T10:15:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Good grief, you are a moron. > > [Here is the definition of the word.](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hysterical) > > From that page: > > None of those are (I assume you agree) sexist. > > Yes – I know that the _origin_ of the word is “from Greek hysterikos, from hystera womb; from the Greek notion that hysteria was peculiar to women and caused by disturbances of the uteru.” But that does not transform every use of the word into a sexist insult. > > I think I can safely dismiss you in this thread. You’ve claimed that because I characterized your agitated, feverish, ill-informed furor as “hysterical,” that i have behaved in a sexist manner. That defines and highlights your credibility perfectly. You’re a sexist asshole. You’re just cowardly about it. You came stomping into this thread, declaring that everyone who disagreed with you was ignorant and stupid and then when confronted with my own sarcasm, you declared me to be shrieking hysterically. That’s a direct quote. And now it appears that anyone who’s NOT you is correct about this bill because once again you minimized and evaded and shied away away from being honest. This bill would in fact require women to report miscarriages for investigation and certificates. While you’re arguing that a word that’s _flung at women for the purposes of characterizing them as unreasonable and emotional is not sexist_ you’re also being shown to be a liar and a sexist. You just don’t like it when the people you peremptorily dismiss as fools and hysterics fight back. The word hysteria and its derivatives is not as simple as you ever-so-carefully state. Specifically, the ancient Greeks said that it was when a woman lacked a baby her uterus would wander the body searching for one. It’s used to imply that a woman is emotional and, well, hysterical, and so her words can be dismissed, which is exactly how you used it, right off the bat, when I sarcastically asked you if you’d care to fill out paperwork for your wanking. You are dishonest and dishonorable, and you owe me an apology. ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 10:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/small-government-advocate-wants-police-to-harass-distraught-women/572176/151 "2011-02-23T10:23:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why do you ignore “After birth but before seven years of age if the death is unexpected or unexplained?” > > That says, specifically, that only AFTER BIRTH is the requirement triggered. > > Did you forget that? I would just like clarification on one point. Obviously that list is not cumulative but is listing separate individual instances that would trigger a murder investigation. Would not the section “(3) Suddenly when in apparent good health” be good enough to trigger the investigation assuming that the pregnancy was healthy and indications were good that it would be carried to term? There is no “after birth” requirement here and the language seems broad enough that if someone wanted to use the law to harass they could. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 10:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/small-government-advocate-wants-police-to-harass-distraught-women/572176/152 "2011-02-23T10:23:57Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Well, then, here’s my predictable response: > Seriously? The entire BBQ Pit forum is about fucking FEELINGS. No one smart enough to be on this board should need to be told that. Give this persecution crap a rest. > > If you want a debate without getting insulted, go open a thread in GD. You want people to have to provide citations, again, GD. In the Pit, none of that is required. You know this, so stop acting like you are so much better than us when you apparently can’t process the purpose of separate forums. In here, we get to insult you when you insult the rest of us. > > The funny thing is, if you hadn’t stared pulling out your persecution complex, no one would have cared this time. For once, the law is actually relevant. The subject actually is a law, and knowing what it says is actually relevant to knowing whether the outrage (a feeling) is justified. Had you just said, “I had a look at that law. I don’t think it says what you think it says. Here’s the actual text. [insert quote] I think we are getting upset over nothing,” I bet that, not only would everyone not insult you, but (assuming you didn’t miss something) we’d actually be in agreement with you–meaning you’d actually win a debate for once. > > But, no, that response wouldn’t allow you to keep your illusion that we are horrible people, that we just want to bash conservatives and don’t care about the truth. It could never be that your actions cause the type responses you get. You are _so_ much better than the rest of us. I find so much about this post telling. You seem to think that winning a debate is accomplished by having people on this board agree with me? I don’t (ha ha!) agree. Many of the particpants herein, including those most vocal, are unlikely to bend or admit their agreement. I do agree that it’s possible to reach the more fairminded and neutral reader, and I am reasonably confident I do that on a somewhat regular basis. But in the final analysis, this is an aggressively left-leaning board, and so agreement with me is an elusive goal at best. But I do agree that the board’s population seeks comfort from its comfortable majority, telling each other how right they are and reassuring themselves that they must be winning, based on how they all think the same way. I also completely reject your vision of The Pit as some kind of fact-free area. ANY forum on this board ought to be susceptible to basic notions of accuracy and factual support. “Fighting Ignorance,” is not the motto only of GD and GQ, but the entire board. Finally, I think your implicit acknowledgement that the facts are on my side here is hilarious, couched as it is amongst remonstrations about how wrong I am. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 10:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/small-government-advocate-wants-police-to-harass-distraught-women/572176/153 "2011-02-23T10:25:28Z")
> [@Cyros](#): > > I would just like clarification on one point. Obviously that list is not cumulative but is listing separate individual instances that would trigger a murder investigation. Would not the section “(3) Suddenly when in apparent good health” be good enough to trigger the investigation assuming that the pregnancy was healthy and indications were good that it would be carried to term? There is no “after birth” requirement here and the language seems broad enough that if someone wanted to use the law to harass they could. You are aware we’re talking about current Georgia law, on the books for years… right? So is your question about the new, proposed law? Or about current law? ---
**Author:** ![margin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/65b543/32.png) [@margin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/margin)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/small-government-advocate-wants-police-to-harass-distraught-women/572176/154 "2011-02-23T10:32:32Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > As part of a larger program of forcing social changes, aliens who need birth hosts impregnate vocal pro-choice male politicians with alien babies - because they’re clearly the best choice for the job, since they keep going on about the sanctity of the unborn and such. Of course, the ensuing outcry reveals their inherent hypocrisy - but they have to go through with it anyway, they are not allowed to abort, and childbirth is pretty traumatic too (IIRC, it’s off-page, but is hinted at being a surviveable _Alien_-style “birth”). Plus everyone knows who they are, so when they return to Earth, some of them commit suicide. > > Tepper can be a bit axe-grindy. I think the spoiler meant to say “anti” when they said “pro.” ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/small-government-advocate-wants-police-to-harass-distraught-women/572176/155 "2011-02-23T10:51:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You are aware we’re talking about current Georgia law, on the books for years… right? > > So is your question about the new, prop osed law? Or about current law? I was just looking for clarification as you seem to feel that the fact that there is a set of circumstances which state specifically “after birth” to be important in some way. I just wanted to clarify for myself why other aspects of the list were unimportant. Being a layperson I gathered from the discussion that it was possible that redefining fetal death to fetal murder might trigger a murder investigation. Your response was that because there was a section in the requirements indicating “after birth and before 7 years of age…” that this would not happen. If I followed the discussion accurately (and being it is 6:30am and I have not yet had my coffee it is more than possible I did not) it seemed a point that the requirements are individual and not cumulative. I am willing to be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/small-government-advocate-wants-police-to-harass-distraught-women/572176/156 "2011-02-23T12:17:24Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > It’s not. > > Then which spontaneous fetal deaths are? Counselor! Come out, come out, wherever you are. Seems like you’re being evasive. I’m starting to wonder whether in fact you are as expert on Georgia law here as you have presented yourself, and whether or not you have been talking out of your ass. Gee, I sure hope not. It also seems that you are arguing both that an investigation is ALREADY REQUIRED UNDER CURRENT LAW, so there are no changes in the proposed bill, and that there are no investigations required unless the miscarriage occurs AFTER BIRTH. Now, the latter makes no sense to me, but it would seem that if it is AFTER BIRTH, then there really are no investigations required UNDER CURRENT LAW. So, again, which spontaneous fetal deaths are presently required to be investigated? Since you have assured us that the proposed law will bring no changes, you must know what the present law is. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/small-government-advocate-wants-police-to-harass-distraught-women/572176/157 "2011-02-23T14:29:09Z")
> [@Cyros](#): > > I was just looking for clarification as you seem to feel that the fact that there is a set of circumstances which state specifically “after birth” to be important in some way. I just wanted to clarify for myself why other aspects of the list were unimportant. > > Being a layperson I gathered from the discussion that it was possible that redefining fetal death to fetal murder might trigger a murder investigation. Your response was that because there was a section in the requirements indicating “after birth and before 7 years of age…” that this would not happen. If I followed the discussion accurately (and being it is 6:30am and I have not yet had my coffee it is more than possible I did not) it seemed a point that the requirements are individual and not cumulative. I am willing to be wrong. You’re wrong, in he sense that you’re conflating two questions. Put as simply as possible, my point has been that the new bill doesn’t change any reporting requirements. So you’re on the right path when you say: “I gathered from the discussion that it was possible that redefining fetal death to fetal murder might trigger a murder investigation,” but you’ve made a change to that original statement. What’s you’ve said is true. Under the new law, a fetal death might trigger a murder investigation. And this would not happen under current law. But that’s not a result of the new law imposing any additional investigation requirements. Georgia law has always (well, for years) required the reporting of spontaneous fetal deaths under certain circumstances. No event that wasn’t reportable under the old laws is reportable under the new. But under the new system, a miscarriage that results from human intervention would be a murder. That’s the effect to complain about, ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/small-government-advocate-wants-police-to-harass-distraught-women/572176/158 "2011-02-23T14:56:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The proposed bill doesn’t make any changes to reporting requirements under existing Georgia law. > > So are you asking what Georgia law already requires, or what reporting requirement is added by the new bill? What does Georgia law already require? Which spontaneous fetal deaths are already subject to a reporting requirement? ---
**Author:** ![margin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/65b543/32.png) [@margin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/margin)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/small-government-advocate-wants-police-to-harass-distraught-women/572176/159 "2011-02-23T15:21:59Z")
And in all this anal-retentive arguing so as to ignore the fact that Repubs and their apologists are harassing women yet again, we’ve lost sight of what this means in real, practical terms for peoples’ lives. Not theories, not dictionaries, not principles, not vacuums. Real lives–in this case, the lives of women. But making this all theoretical also has the side effect of divorcing it from women, and that makes it easier to ignore that people are cavaliarly dismissing yet again cruelty to women. Bravo again, Bricker. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/small-government-advocate-wants-police-to-harass-distraught-women/572176/160 "2011-02-23T15:31:26Z")
> [@margin](#): > > And in all this anal-retentive arguing so as to ignore the fact that Repubs and their apologists are harassing women yet again, we’ve lost sight of what this means in real, practical terms for peoples’ lives. Not theories, not dictionaries, not principles, not vacuums. Real lives–in this case, the lives of women. But making this all theoretical also has the side effect of divorcing it from women, and that makes it easier to ignore that people are cavaliarly dismissing yet again cruelty to women. > > Bravo again, Bricker. Did you miss the part where he said he disapproves of the bill anyway, jackass, in amid all your hysteria? God dammit, he’s telling you the bill’s adjustments to the language of the Georgia statutes don’t change the required reporting sections (WHICH ALREADY EXIST. If this law does not pass, you are STILL REQUIRED to report miscarriages in Georgia) except to remove the exemption for abortion. Why the hell are you ignoring the entire front half of the bill wherein Georgia is declared to A) be able to ignore the Supreme Court and B) believe that abortion is punishable as murder? The miscarriage language is a speck compared to the huge steaming pile the rest of the bill is. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/small-government-advocate-wants-police-to-harass-distraught-women/572176.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/small-government-advocate-wants-police-to-harass-distraught-women/572176.md?page=9)