There is for an abortion, which is nothing more than an “induced miscarriage”. Now, if a 3rd party is involved who is not a licenses physician, then practicing medicine w/o a license comes into play.
I think the issue here would be like gunshot wounds. IIRC, most states require doctors to report all gunshot wounds to the police. Unless there is a requirement written into the law like that, then it would be up to some 3rd party to actively press charges against the woman-- presumably her husband, parents or someone else. So, it’s up to Annie-Xmas to show us where that enforcement mechanism is written into the law, not just to state that it must be there.
I’m having trouble believing you’re serious here. Punching somebody is practicing medicine without a liscence?
If you’re trying to argue by sarcasm against your stated position, then it’s working.
Again - gunshot woulds? What exactly is the “gunshot wound” for the miscarriage? What could be the clear suspicion-causing peice of evidence to look for?
Putting aside the absurdity, we’re left with “somebody accuses the woman of it”. How is she supposed to argue against that? “I didn’t drink coffee, officer, I swear!”
Sounds like witch-hunt fodder to me. Pro-choice woman has a miscarriage, is accused of inducing it by local preacher, dragged off to jail. Film at 11.
If the 3rd party tried to argue that he didn’t assault her or the fetus, he was just helping her have an abortion. Non-physicians can’t perform medical procedures.
It would be the miscarriage itself. Doctors would be required to report every miscarriage to the police. Does this law require that?
The same can be said of child abuse laws. And yet they’re still on the books. Any law can be abused.
Anyway, that’s tangential to the issue that was being debated-- whether or not all miscarriages would have to be investigated. I’ve seen no proof of that other than a few people making arguments that don’t stand upto any type of scrutiny. Where’s the proof?
“Reckless” has a precise legal definintion which does not match what intraweb pundits (and several in this thread) have decided it means, making this a non-story. It’s the same term used in almost every avenue of criminal law, including murder, criminal damage, and many others, and is totally applicable to any act requiring intention.
In short: don’t read legislative summaries in the press, think you know what the common usage of a word is, apply that as a legal definition to a statute you haven’t even read, and pass a moral judgement and condemn lawmakers. Because the likelihood is that that random word that press agency X plucked out of a document means something else both (a) in context and (b) in a legal sense as opposed to the way you use it in the supermarket.
I think this is a bad, unconstitutional law. I’m not arguing in favor of it. I’m not, however, aware of problems in other states when similar laws are restricted to the 3rd trimester.
Of course. Because right now, when anyone dies, there’s an investigation to see if anyone thought bad thoughts about the deceased, and if anyone did, they are charged with manslaughter.
So it only makes sense to extend the protection against bad thoughts to the unborn.
Or, and I’m just spitballin’ here, maybe this possibility about “bad thoughts” that you raise is kinda sorta exaggerated. But in defense of the right to abortion, no untruth is really unjustified, since it’s for a good cause.
God takes care of this very clearly, in such a state that is know for following biblical principals it is pretty clear that human intervention for any intentional killing of the unborn is covered by:
Anyone who takes the life of their child will fall under the above, unless under the grace of Christ.
Yes, it’s always a wonderful day when the rights of woman are abridged on the concept that an unborn fetus takes precedence over her autonomy.
It speaks loudly as to the truth of the “pro-life” agenda that this is the response they have to the case of a 17 year old girl who was so desperate to retain normalcy in her life that she asked someone to assault her to try to cause a late-term miscarriage. They don’t think about how to make it more possible for a 17 year old to safely terminate her pregnancy. They don’t think about how to make it more possible for a 17 year old to obtain contraceptives to avoid pregnancy. (Minors need parental permission for both birth control and abortion in Utah.) They think about how to put women driven to desperate acts in jail.
Convince me, someone, that this agenda isn’t driven by a need to punish women who dare step out of a carefully prescribed notion of propriety, chastity and obsequiousness?
Look, I think this law is fucking retarded, but you do know that the other side views abortion as murder, right? If it’s murder than your entire post is lunacy. “How dare you have a law against murder when a 17 year old is so desperate to have a normal life that she’d be driven to kill her brother/uncle/whatever.”
Missed the edit window.