15 hours ago
Saturday, February 27, 2010
BlogThis!
BlogThis!
This was the crackdown against the people during the Republican National convention. Isnt it weird that now it is the REPUBLICANS that are complaining about this stuff against the Democrats? The world is a funny place, aint it? This video is three ho9urs long. but it is really worth watching.
This was the crackdown against the people during the Republican National convention. Isnt it weird that now it is the REPUBLICANS that are complaining about this stuff against the Democrats? The world is a funny place, aint it? This video is three ho9urs long. but it is really worth watching.
here come the oathkeepers.
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/
the defenders of the REPUBLIC.
These lunatics who are supposedly sane, professional mena and women are going to march on Washington DC in September, and en masse commit the federal crime of intending to commit the act of treason against the United States en masse by some wierd promise to lay down their arms and not listen to the first black president of the united states if he gives them a certain set of orders. These people claim to be firefighters, police and from all ranges of the military navy marines whatever.
Frankly I think they should all be discharged on grounds of mental incompetency.
This is what regimes do in third world countries.
could you imagine Canadas army refusing to listen to the premier if he told them to comntrol a gun toting population, becasue they didnt like the fact that Canada has universal health care?
Yep. Its all about thye tea baggers, folks. Plus they are afraid a POTUS is about to start the new world order.
Se lets check out this webby sitey thingy shall we? ok thhn, u betcha.
heres the Oathkeepers Oath. Um, ok. lets see if Treason is against the law in the United States and what would constitute treason in the US.
Since these guys have a list of unlawful acts a President might ask them say to disarm a whole group of vigilanties with guns screaming through the streets of ALabama looking for African Americans to hang. If the president said "Hey the situation is dire in there, go in there, make arrests, disarm the group, ect., these guys would not do that. If a state dicided to just go nuts and decide its free day to shoot all mexican americans, get your guns and lets go, these guys are not going to stop them. Why? Becasue opne of their oaths is we will not disarm the American people, and another one is we will not do a lot of things. here is the list c and pd from the site:
OATH KEEPERS: ORDERS WE WILL NOT OBEY
Click here to read full length version.
1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people
3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
This is very interesting. I am finding it hard to really understand what these guys are about. From what I can gather, this came about agfter Katrina. So the Bush administration, that did such a terrible job of caring for the populace, had from what I can gather essentially barricaded people inside new orleans and wouldnt let anybody out. Well, that was Bush. Now we have Obama. For one thing he would never do that. But are there other incidences where the laying down of weapons may spell disaster for unarmed american citizens against roving bands of armed american citizens or mob mentalities?
Such things occurred during the civil rights movement. The feds stepped in into several states where mobs were lynching black poeple, and the police and others were abusing unarmed American citizens, and allowing armed american citizens to threaten, harass, beat and kill them while they essentially "laid down their arms", becasue they stated they would not put down the mobs.
So this could be a good thing in some ways, and a very bad thing in others. The interpretation is too broad.
While I am happy that the oath keepers will protect the poeple from being put into concentration campos and detention centers, and protect us from military tribunals, I am a bit worried about the part where they will not opbey orders for a state of emergency or go into a state where all hell has broken loose and restore order. That really worries me. so lets find out some more, and see what this is really all about.
Now in my opinion Blackwater are the bad bad guys. I would trust a us military guy over a blackwater guy anyday. But I need a hell of a lot more clarification top understand what these rules are, becasue it sounds to me like they arent going to protect people. I mean I would want them out there doing whatever, becasue if they dont maybe these blackwater guys will come in and doi the things they refuse to do and then we are all really screwed. Its confusing. SO I am still searching on the website for some kind of clear understanding. lets see what I can find. Heres something:
About OathKeepers
Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, veterans, peace officers, and firefighters who will fulfill the oath we swore to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God.
Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and we will not obey unconstitutional (and thus illegal) and immoral orders, such as orders to disarm the American people or to place them under martial law and deprive them of their ancient right to jury trial.
We Oath Keepers have drawn a line in the sand. We will not “just follow orders.”
Our motto is “Not on our watch!”
If you, the American people, are forced to once again fight for your liberty in another American Revolution, you will not be alone. We will stand with you.
There is at this time a debate within the ranks of the military regarding their oath. Some mistakenly believe they must follow any order the President issues. But you can rest assured that many others in the military do understand that their loyalty is to the Constitution, and understand what that means.
The mission of Oath Keepers is to vastly increase their numbers. We are in a battle for the hearts and minds of our own troops. To win that battle, Oath Keepers will use written and video testimony of active duty military, veterans (especially combat vets), and peace officers to reach, teach, and inspire our brothers in arms in the military and police to fulfill their oaths and stand as guardians of the Republic.
If you are currently in the military, are a veteran, or are a peace officer, please submit your written and/or video testimony on your oath, so you can help us win that battle for hearts and minds. Your submission may be anonymous.
Guardians of the Republic, fulfill your oath. Join us.
(read a longer description here)
What We Are Not
We are Not advocating or promoting the overthrow of any government whether local, state or national. We want our governments to return to the Constitutional Republic which the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution defined and instituted.
We are Not advocating or promoting violence towards any organization, group or person. We are determined to Keep our Oath to support and defend the Constitution.
We are not advocating or promoting the removal of any person from his or her elected office. We want all elected persons to live up to their Oath to “support and defend the Constitution” as it is written or to leave of their own volition.
We are not advocating or promoting that anyone in the Judicial Branch be removed or replaced. We want the Justices in the Judicial Branch to follow the Constitution as written without interpretation.
We are not advocating or promoting any particular form of government other than the Constitutional Republic which the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution defined and instituted.
We are not advocating or promoting the rewriting of the Constitution nor are we asking for an Amendment thereto. We are insisting on the Constitution being Enforced as it is written.
We are Not advocating or promoting any act or acts of aggression against any organization or person for any
reason including, but not limited to; race, religion, national origin, political affiliation, gender or sexual orientation.
We hope for a return to a Constitutional Republic free from fear and hatred. We hate only tyranny.
We are Oath Sworn Americans who want the Constitution returned to its legal and rightful place, intact, as the ultimate Law of the Land.
About OathKeeper Founder Stewart Rhodes
Stewart is the founder and Director of Oath Keepers. He served as a U.S. Army paratrooper until disabled in a rough terrain parachuting accident during a night jump.
He is a former firearms instructor and former member of Rep. Ron Paul’s DC staff.
Stewart graduated from Yale Law School in 2004, where his paper “Solving the Puzzle of Enemy Combatant Status” won Yale’s Miller prize for best paper on the Bill of Rights. He assisted teaching U.S. military history at Yale, was a Yale Research Scholar, and is writing a book on the dangers of applying the laws of war to the American people.
Stewart currently writes the monthly Enemy at the Gates column for S.W.A.T. Magazine, and has written for The Warrior, the journal of Gerry Spence’s Trial Lawyer’s College; for www.moreliberty.org; and for JPFO.
Stewart has appeared on many radio shows including G. Gordon Liddy, Alex Jones, The Power Hour, Devvy Kidd, Spy Chips author Katherine Albrecht, and many more.
Stewart was invited to speak at Stanford University on unlawful enemy combatant status, and teaches classes on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
OK somehow? I am STILL NOT CONVINCED. It still sounds a bit spooky to me. But I will delve deeper into it. I mean if they march on washington, demand president obama to follow the constitution with some sort of ammendment that they want to it and he tells them no, and they start storming the whitehouse and start shooting poeple im gonna get real freakedout. I mean I cant really tell what they really are about.
But maybe its just like the tea bagger movement. except with guns. But wait no, they are laying DOWN their guns. Ok so they wont be shooting anybody. But will they stop other poeple fgrom shooting? I think so. But I cant tell. it just really isnt clear.
Did the Oath Keepers exist in the Bush administration? I wonder if they existed in the Reagan Administration? Did they march in Washington and threaten to lay doen their arms if given an unlawful order during ANY OTHER PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION? Nope, I dont think so.
So now I am kinda wondering...hmmmmmmmmm. President Obama is a man of color....hmmmmmmm...hes a Democrat.....hmmmmmmmm..........
I will give them all the benefit of the doubt for now. I gotta read up more on this though. Now when I see someone I am gonna ask them if they are Oath keepers or not. If I meet one that is I am going to find out just what this is all about. I urge you to do the same thing.
the defenders of the REPUBLIC.
These lunatics who are supposedly sane, professional mena and women are going to march on Washington DC in September, and en masse commit the federal crime of intending to commit the act of treason against the United States en masse by some wierd promise to lay down their arms and not listen to the first black president of the united states if he gives them a certain set of orders. These people claim to be firefighters, police and from all ranges of the military navy marines whatever.
Frankly I think they should all be discharged on grounds of mental incompetency.
This is what regimes do in third world countries.
could you imagine Canadas army refusing to listen to the premier if he told them to comntrol a gun toting population, becasue they didnt like the fact that Canada has universal health care?
Yep. Its all about thye tea baggers, folks. Plus they are afraid a POTUS is about to start the new world order.
Se lets check out this webby sitey thingy shall we? ok thhn, u betcha.
heres the Oathkeepers Oath. Um, ok. lets see if Treason is against the law in the United States and what would constitute treason in the US.
Since these guys have a list of unlawful acts a President might ask them say to disarm a whole group of vigilanties with guns screaming through the streets of ALabama looking for African Americans to hang. If the president said "Hey the situation is dire in there, go in there, make arrests, disarm the group, ect., these guys would not do that. If a state dicided to just go nuts and decide its free day to shoot all mexican americans, get your guns and lets go, these guys are not going to stop them. Why? Becasue opne of their oaths is we will not disarm the American people, and another one is we will not do a lot of things. here is the list c and pd from the site:
OATH KEEPERS: ORDERS WE WILL NOT OBEY
Click here to read full length version.
1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people
3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
This is very interesting. I am finding it hard to really understand what these guys are about. From what I can gather, this came about agfter Katrina. So the Bush administration, that did such a terrible job of caring for the populace, had from what I can gather essentially barricaded people inside new orleans and wouldnt let anybody out. Well, that was Bush. Now we have Obama. For one thing he would never do that. But are there other incidences where the laying down of weapons may spell disaster for unarmed american citizens against roving bands of armed american citizens or mob mentalities?
Such things occurred during the civil rights movement. The feds stepped in into several states where mobs were lynching black poeple, and the police and others were abusing unarmed American citizens, and allowing armed american citizens to threaten, harass, beat and kill them while they essentially "laid down their arms", becasue they stated they would not put down the mobs.
So this could be a good thing in some ways, and a very bad thing in others. The interpretation is too broad.
While I am happy that the oath keepers will protect the poeple from being put into concentration campos and detention centers, and protect us from military tribunals, I am a bit worried about the part where they will not opbey orders for a state of emergency or go into a state where all hell has broken loose and restore order. That really worries me. so lets find out some more, and see what this is really all about.
Now in my opinion Blackwater are the bad bad guys. I would trust a us military guy over a blackwater guy anyday. But I need a hell of a lot more clarification top understand what these rules are, becasue it sounds to me like they arent going to protect people. I mean I would want them out there doing whatever, becasue if they dont maybe these blackwater guys will come in and doi the things they refuse to do and then we are all really screwed. Its confusing. SO I am still searching on the website for some kind of clear understanding. lets see what I can find. Heres something:
About OathKeepers
Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, veterans, peace officers, and firefighters who will fulfill the oath we swore to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God.
Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and we will not obey unconstitutional (and thus illegal) and immoral orders, such as orders to disarm the American people or to place them under martial law and deprive them of their ancient right to jury trial.
We Oath Keepers have drawn a line in the sand. We will not “just follow orders.”
Our motto is “Not on our watch!”
If you, the American people, are forced to once again fight for your liberty in another American Revolution, you will not be alone. We will stand with you.
There is at this time a debate within the ranks of the military regarding their oath. Some mistakenly believe they must follow any order the President issues. But you can rest assured that many others in the military do understand that their loyalty is to the Constitution, and understand what that means.
The mission of Oath Keepers is to vastly increase their numbers. We are in a battle for the hearts and minds of our own troops. To win that battle, Oath Keepers will use written and video testimony of active duty military, veterans (especially combat vets), and peace officers to reach, teach, and inspire our brothers in arms in the military and police to fulfill their oaths and stand as guardians of the Republic.
If you are currently in the military, are a veteran, or are a peace officer, please submit your written and/or video testimony on your oath, so you can help us win that battle for hearts and minds. Your submission may be anonymous.
Guardians of the Republic, fulfill your oath. Join us.
(read a longer description here)
What We Are Not
We are Not advocating or promoting the overthrow of any government whether local, state or national. We want our governments to return to the Constitutional Republic which the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution defined and instituted.
We are Not advocating or promoting violence towards any organization, group or person. We are determined to Keep our Oath to support and defend the Constitution.
We are not advocating or promoting the removal of any person from his or her elected office. We want all elected persons to live up to their Oath to “support and defend the Constitution” as it is written or to leave of their own volition.
We are not advocating or promoting that anyone in the Judicial Branch be removed or replaced. We want the Justices in the Judicial Branch to follow the Constitution as written without interpretation.
We are not advocating or promoting any particular form of government other than the Constitutional Republic which the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution defined and instituted.
We are not advocating or promoting the rewriting of the Constitution nor are we asking for an Amendment thereto. We are insisting on the Constitution being Enforced as it is written.
We are Not advocating or promoting any act or acts of aggression against any organization or person for any
reason including, but not limited to; race, religion, national origin, political affiliation, gender or sexual orientation.
We hope for a return to a Constitutional Republic free from fear and hatred. We hate only tyranny.
We are Oath Sworn Americans who want the Constitution returned to its legal and rightful place, intact, as the ultimate Law of the Land.
About OathKeeper Founder Stewart Rhodes
Stewart is the founder and Director of Oath Keepers. He served as a U.S. Army paratrooper until disabled in a rough terrain parachuting accident during a night jump.
He is a former firearms instructor and former member of Rep. Ron Paul’s DC staff.
Stewart graduated from Yale Law School in 2004, where his paper “Solving the Puzzle of Enemy Combatant Status” won Yale’s Miller prize for best paper on the Bill of Rights. He assisted teaching U.S. military history at Yale, was a Yale Research Scholar, and is writing a book on the dangers of applying the laws of war to the American people.
Stewart currently writes the monthly Enemy at the Gates column for S.W.A.T. Magazine, and has written for The Warrior, the journal of Gerry Spence’s Trial Lawyer’s College; for www.moreliberty.org; and for JPFO.
Stewart has appeared on many radio shows including G. Gordon Liddy, Alex Jones, The Power Hour, Devvy Kidd, Spy Chips author Katherine Albrecht, and many more.
Stewart was invited to speak at Stanford University on unlawful enemy combatant status, and teaches classes on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
OK somehow? I am STILL NOT CONVINCED. It still sounds a bit spooky to me. But I will delve deeper into it. I mean if they march on washington, demand president obama to follow the constitution with some sort of ammendment that they want to it and he tells them no, and they start storming the whitehouse and start shooting poeple im gonna get real freakedout. I mean I cant really tell what they really are about.
But maybe its just like the tea bagger movement. except with guns. But wait no, they are laying DOWN their guns. Ok so they wont be shooting anybody. But will they stop other poeple fgrom shooting? I think so. But I cant tell. it just really isnt clear.
Did the Oath Keepers exist in the Bush administration? I wonder if they existed in the Reagan Administration? Did they march in Washington and threaten to lay doen their arms if given an unlawful order during ANY OTHER PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION? Nope, I dont think so.
So now I am kinda wondering...hmmmmmmmmm. President Obama is a man of color....hmmmmmmm...hes a Democrat.....hmmmmmmmm..........
I will give them all the benefit of the doubt for now. I gotta read up more on this though. Now when I see someone I am gonna ask them if they are Oath keepers or not. If I meet one that is I am going to find out just what this is all about. I urge you to do the same thing.
Palin tries to sound really really smart talking about the Presidents Health Care summit EPIC FAIL
Sarah Palin (AKA Scarah Failin), scarin up a whole new pot of racists, bigots and nay sayers tries to sound yet again like she knows what she is talking about. DId Sarah Pailin come up with any iodeas for healthcare? No.
Is she a glorified armchair quarterback? Yes. Is her carreer getting close to her doing the sports and weather yet? yes. Very close. Is the Presidency close for her? Yes. As close as Aunty Em and home. ALl she needs is the ruby slippers and three clicks of her heels.
Friday, February 26, 2010
TONIGHTS MEETING REGARDING DHS OFFICE CLOSURES WAS CRAZY NUTS
Ok, I am so wound up I can't sleep. Not to mention my back is in pain because I am not supposed to do anything. But I joined the rest of the handicapped in the front row, with the blind, deaf, and other disabilities. They were awesome. They conducted themselves a lot better then I did myself. After telling everyone to have Sunday manners, I went a little bonkers towards the end.
I kept asking the two people who came to tell us what we already know why the clients cannot also sit at the negotiation table with the Governor and the Union. Apparently we dont count. Our opinion doesnt count. Everyone else knows whats best for us. I was never so enraged in all my life.
THey didn't care. Plus they just straight out lied to everyone. What they are talking about is privatizing services, kicking out all of the state employees putting in unqualified individuals to be essentially paperpushers, and thats it.
Apparently our social workers are just a bit too nicve to us and caring. we cant have THAT in the Lingle administration. NO WAY.
Well, rather then sit down and be quiet I got a little mouthy. I was seeing totally red by the end of that meeting. We need to sue and sue HARD. Howe does 250 million dollars sound? Nice round figure? Yep it sure is. How about calling in the state department to check things out, maybe a Federal lawsuit, or something huh?
DO THE CLIENTS HAVE ANYONES ATTENTION YET? Nope. They were completely unfazed by this and just couldnt care less.
I was surprised when Jimmy Tokioka showed up and said absolutely no one fwas for this in the legislature.
But as Jimmy darn well knows, this whole thing is being passed through WITHOUT Legislative review because it is allowed by law to change the rules without going through the leg. Pretty smart huh? But think thats all? Its not, sadly.
Now, another agency the state housing agency is proposing similar measures meant to streamline but its really not about streamlining its about getting rid of the dead weight....the clients.
Seems as if the state wants a better class oif renter in their public housing units. So they are shakin things up to make that happen. Just like the DHS wants less people on the rolls so they come in with no plan, no numbers, no nothing. Just "We gonna shut everything down". Thats it.
Housing has plans for credit checks, a preference for working people and looking for better tenants, like ones that can afford the market rate. Then they can go on to home ownership. While the elderly, disabled and thoxse on the street are to move DOWN the priority list. Sounds cozy doesn't it/ Way to go to see your community and the people of this state.
Well, guess what? WE THE CLIENTS, as in We The People, have awoken out of our slumber. WE are fully ready for an attorney to come along and help us with a nice , fat, juicy class action lawsuit. One that will name every client in the state, and give each of us a million bucks a pop so that we dont need housing or welfare anymore. Its the least the state can do. Don't you think?
If you dont like this idea, call the Governors office and your rep and tell them to ixnay on the anplay. (NIX DA PLAN). They shut up then we shut up simple. Pull the plug on the WAR AGAINST THE POOR.
Sheesh enough already.
I kept asking the two people who came to tell us what we already know why the clients cannot also sit at the negotiation table with the Governor and the Union. Apparently we dont count. Our opinion doesnt count. Everyone else knows whats best for us. I was never so enraged in all my life.
THey didn't care. Plus they just straight out lied to everyone. What they are talking about is privatizing services, kicking out all of the state employees putting in unqualified individuals to be essentially paperpushers, and thats it.
Apparently our social workers are just a bit too nicve to us and caring. we cant have THAT in the Lingle administration. NO WAY.
Well, rather then sit down and be quiet I got a little mouthy. I was seeing totally red by the end of that meeting. We need to sue and sue HARD. Howe does 250 million dollars sound? Nice round figure? Yep it sure is. How about calling in the state department to check things out, maybe a Federal lawsuit, or something huh?
DO THE CLIENTS HAVE ANYONES ATTENTION YET? Nope. They were completely unfazed by this and just couldnt care less.
I was surprised when Jimmy Tokioka showed up and said absolutely no one fwas for this in the legislature.
But as Jimmy darn well knows, this whole thing is being passed through WITHOUT Legislative review because it is allowed by law to change the rules without going through the leg. Pretty smart huh? But think thats all? Its not, sadly.
Now, another agency the state housing agency is proposing similar measures meant to streamline but its really not about streamlining its about getting rid of the dead weight....the clients.
Seems as if the state wants a better class oif renter in their public housing units. So they are shakin things up to make that happen. Just like the DHS wants less people on the rolls so they come in with no plan, no numbers, no nothing. Just "We gonna shut everything down". Thats it.
Housing has plans for credit checks, a preference for working people and looking for better tenants, like ones that can afford the market rate. Then they can go on to home ownership. While the elderly, disabled and thoxse on the street are to move DOWN the priority list. Sounds cozy doesn't it/ Way to go to see your community and the people of this state.
Well, guess what? WE THE CLIENTS, as in We The People, have awoken out of our slumber. WE are fully ready for an attorney to come along and help us with a nice , fat, juicy class action lawsuit. One that will name every client in the state, and give each of us a million bucks a pop so that we dont need housing or welfare anymore. Its the least the state can do. Don't you think?
If you dont like this idea, call the Governors office and your rep and tell them to ixnay on the anplay. (NIX DA PLAN). They shut up then we shut up simple. Pull the plug on the WAR AGAINST THE POOR.
Sheesh enough already.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
The Next Anti-Choice Target: Miscarriage - Utah miscarriage bill - Jezebel
The Next Anti-Choice Target: Miscarriage - Utah miscarriage bill - Jezebel
Holy crap I thought this was a joke or a typo I couldn't be more wrong.
They will now, in the state of utah put a woman up on MURDER CHARGES if she has a MISCARRIAGE!!!what are they INSANE!!!!! Is this the 15th century???? Is thias WICHBURNING and PITCHFORKS????? Do we know the earth is not flat, and the sky nis blue in SCREWED UP UTAH?????????
Measure on illegal abortions heads to governor
Health » Opponents fear 'reckless' clause could haunt domestic violence victims who stay with their abusers.
By Brandon Loomis
The Salt Lake Tribune
Updated: 02/18/2010 06:20:08 PM MST
The Utah Senate has joined the House in allowing homicide charges against expectant mothers who arrange illegal abortions.
The bill responds to a case in which a Vernal woman allegedly paid a man $150 to beat her and cause miscarriage but could not be charged. The Senate on Thursday approved HB12 on a vote of 24-4, criminalizing a woman's "intentional, knowing, or reckless act" leading to a pregnancy's illegal termination. It specifies that a woman cannot be prosecuted for arranging a legal abortion.
The measure now goes to Gov. Gary Herbert for final action.
Some Senate Democrats attempted a last-minute amendment to remove the word "reckless" from the list of criminal acts leading to miscarriage. They argued that criminalizing reckless acts leaves open the possibility of prosecutions against domestic violence victims who return to their abusers only to be beaten and lose the child.
"It's part of the cycle of domestic violence," said Sen. Luz Robles, D-Salt Lake City.
"I hope none of you ever have to face that situation," she said after realizing the majority would pass the bill as is, "or have a daughter facing that situation, or a granddaughter."
But the bill's sponsor, Sen. Margaret Dayton, R-Orem, said the bill doesn't target victims at all -- only those who arrange to terminate their pregnancies illegally.
"I know it's well-intentioned," Dayton said of the attempt to lift "reckless acts" from the bill,
Advertisement
"but I don't think we want to go down the road of carefully defining the behavior of a woman."
Robles and Sen. Ben McAdams said they had spoken to the bill's original sponsor, Rep. Carl Wimmer, R-Herriman, just before the debate and believed he would support the change on behalf of domestic violence victims. Dayton, though, said Wimmer sent her a text message during the debate asking her to press on.
Wimmer later said he had been open to the Democrats' suggestion, but it had come too late.
"I wasn't about to hold the bill up," he said.
HOLE EEEEEEEE HELLHOLES BATMAN!! BUT WAIT THERES MORE!!
Utah Bill Criminalizes Miscarriage
By Rachel Larris, RH Reality Check
February 20, 2010 - 9:00am
Published under: Access to Abortion | fetal homicide | Utah
Rachel Larris's blog | Printer-friendly version | Login or register to post comments | ShareThis
Rachel Larris's picture
A bill passed by the Utah House and Senate this week and waiting for the governor's signature, will make it a crime for a woman to have a miscarriage, and make induced abortion a crime in some instances.
According Lynn M. Paltrow, executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, what makes Utah's proposed law unique is that it is specifically designed to be punitive toward pregnant women, not those who might assist or cause an illegal abortion or unintended miscarriage.
The bill passed by legislators amends Utah's criminal statute to allow the state to charge a woman with criminal homicide for inducing a miscarriage or obtaining an illegal abortion. The basis for the law was a recent case in which a 17-year-old girl, who was seven months pregnant, paid a man $150 to beat her in an attempt to cause a miscarriage. Although the girl gave birth to a baby later given up for adoption, she was initially charged with attempted murder. However the charges were dropped because, at the time, under Utah state law a woman could not be prosecuted for attempting to arrange an abortion, lawful or unlawful.
The bill passed by the Utah legislature would change that. While the bill does not affect legally obtained abortions, it criminalizes any actions taken by women to induce a miscarriage or abortion outside of a doctor's care, with penalties including up to life in prison.
"What is really radical and different about this statute is that all of the other states' feticide laws are directed to third party attackers," Paltrow explained. "[Other states' feticide laws] were passed in response to a pregnant woman who has been beaten up by a husband or boyfriend. Utah's law is directed to the woman herself and that's what makes it different and dangerous."
In addition to criminalizing an intentional attempt to induce a miscarriage or abortion, the bill also creates a standard that could make women legally responsible for miscarriages caused by "reckless" behavior.
Using the legal standard of "reckless behavior" all a district attorney needs to show is that a woman behaved in a manner that is thought to cause miscarriage, even if she didn't intend to lose the pregnancy. Drink too much alcohol and have a miscarriage? Under the new law such actions could be cause for prosecution.
"This creates a law that makes any pregnant woman who has a miscarriage potentially criminally liable for murder," says Missy Bird, executive director of Planned Parenthood Action Fund of Utah. Bird says there are no exemptions in the bill for victims of domestic violence or for those who are substance abusers. The standard is so broad, Bird says, "there nothing in the bill to exempt a woman for not wearing her seatbelt who got into a car accident."
Such a standard could even make falling down stairs a prosecutable event, such as the recent case in Iowa where a pregnant woman who fell down the stairs at her home was arrested under the suspicion she was trying to terminate her pregnancy.
"This statute and the standards chosen leave a large number of pregnant women vulnerable to arrest even though they have no intention of ending a pregnancy," Paltrow said. "Whether or not the legislature intended this bill to become a tool for policing and punishing all pregnant women, if enacted this law would permit prosecution of a pregnant woman who stayed with her abusive husband because she was unable to leave. Not leaving would, under the 'reckless' standard, constitute conduct that consciously disregarded a substantial risk," Paltrow explained.
While many states have fetal homicide laws most apply only in the third trimester. Utah's bill would apply throughout the entirety of a woman's pregnancy. Even first trimester miscarriages could become the basis for a murder trial.
Bird said she is also concerned that the law will drive pregnant women with substance abuse problems "underground;" afraid to seek treatment lest they have a miscarriage and be charged for murder. She said it directly reverses the attempts made, though a bill passed in 2008, to encourage pregnant women to seek treatment for addiction.
Paltrow added that the commonly thought belief that pregnant women who use drugs are engaging in behavior that is likely to cause a stillbirth or a miscarriage is wrong.
"Science now makes clear that drug use by pregnant women does not create unique risks for pregnant women, although it is likely that among those targeted for prosecutions by this statute will be women who go to term under drug usage," she said.
The bill does exempt from prosecution fetal deaths due to failure to follow medical advice, accept treatment or refuse a cesarean section. Bird said this exemption was likely because of a 2004 case where a woman who was pregnant with twins was later charged with criminal homicide after one of the babies was stillborn, which the state deemed due to her refusal to have a cesarean section.
Planned Parenthood and the ACLU of Utah worked together to "amend the hell out of the bill," Bird said. One of their few accomplishments was at least dropping the legal standard of "negligence" from the bill, a much lower standard than "recklessness."
Bird was shaken with emotion after the Senate vote. "I broke down and cried," she admitted. "I normally never let these kind of [legislative] battles get to me."
"What really sucks is that we had three supposed allies in the Senate, three [Democratic] women, who voted for the bill," Bird said, adding she didn't yet know why the three senators switched votes.
Marina Lowe is legislative and policy counsel for the ACLU of Utah. She worked in tandem with Bird on trying to derail or at least mitigate the worst aspects of the bill. Lowe says at this point she doesn't know if there is a potential constitutional challenge to the law once it is signed by the governor.
But she points to cases like the one in Iowa as exactly the kind of situation that might arise once this law is put into place.
Paltrow says this bill puts a lie to the idea that the pro-life movement cares about women.
"For all these years the anti-choice movement has said ‘we want to outlaw abortion, not put women in jail, but what this law says is ‘no, we really want to put women in jail."
BELEIVE IT OR NOT< IT GETS EVEN SICKER PEOPLE
Pregnant? Don't Fall Down the Stairs
By Amie Newman, Managing Editor
February 15, 2010 - 5:07pm
Published under: Maternal Health | Women’s Rights | adoption | Childbirth | feticide | pregnancy | Unborn Victims of Violence | violence against women
Amie Newman's blog | Printer-friendly version | Login or register to post comments | ShareThis
Amie Newman's picture
This article contains a correction made at 7:58 a.m. Tuesday, February 17th, 2010 to clarify the law applied to the arrest of Christine Taylor. An earlier version did not specify the statute applied in this case.
When anti-choice advocates dream up and manage to pass bills in the name of being "pro-life," make no mistake - there is no question they know that these laws have the potential to ruin lives.
In the case of Christine Taylor, an Iowa mother of two girls and pregnant with her third child, a feticide law enacted in that state because of anti-choice efforts has wreaked havoc on her life.
It all started last month, according to Change.org:
Last month, after an upsetting phone conversation with her estranged husband, Ms. Taylor became light-headed and fell down a flight of stairs in her home. Paramedics rushed to the scene and ultimately declared her healthy. However, since she was pregnant with her third child at the time, Taylor thought it would be best to be seen at the local ER to make sure her fetus was unharmed.
After Taylor was treated by a nurse at the private hospital and deemed fine, she confided to the nurse that she was upset and scared and wasn't sure she wanted to continue the pregnancy. Her husband recently left her after she told him she was pregnant with their third child:
"I never said I didn't want my baby, but I admitted that I had been considering adoption or abortion," she said. "I admit that I said I wasn't sure I wanted to continue the pregnancy. My husband sends me money, but money doesn't make a parent. I don't have anybody else to turn to."
Although Taylor was in the first part of her second trimester, the nurse noted on her chart that she was in the first week of her third trimester - the time when, under Iowa's fetal homicide law, a violent act perpetrated against a pregnant woman could be considered criminal. The nurse called over the doctor who then called the police - which is when Christine Taylor found herself arrested and sent to jail for admitting uncertainty about her pregnancy and fear about raising three children on her own.
Iowa is one of 37 states with a feticide law on the books, a number that has increased in recent years "because of a growing movement by some conservatives to target providers of late abortion, such as Dr. George Tiller, and to protect "unborn victims of violence,"" a back-door effort to create a status of "personhood" for the fetus separate from its mother before it is viable.
One section of Iowa's law criminalizes any act by any person who attempts to intentionally terminate a pregnancy "without the knowledge and voluntary consent of the pregnant person" at any stage of pregnancy.
Another makes it a felony to intentionally terminate a pregnancy "with the knowledge and voluntary consent of the pregnant person after the end of the second trimester," unless a pregnancy is terminated for the reasons of the life or health of the mother. In short...a willing effort to terminate a pregnancy. This is the section of the law under which Christine Taylor was charged.
According to the Des Moines Register, "Bringing a charge of attempted feticide against Taylor would have treaded new legal territory in Iowa, legal experts said."
"I've never seen those facts brought to me in 20 years of prosecuting," said Corwin Ritchie, coordinator of the Iowa County Attorneys Association.
Robert Rigg, who teaches at the Drake University Law School, said the unusual case raises important questions even though Taylor is not being prosecuted. Among them: "How in the heck did the police get a statement made by a patient to a medical person during the course of treatment?" he asked.
Under federal law, health care providers can release limited information to law enforcement, but not if it was given in the course of that person's "treatment related to the propensity to commit this type of violent act." Disclosure of some information could be a violation of federal rules protecting personal medical information, Rigg said.
Though some fetal homicide laws are relics from centuries ago (Washington state's 1895 law defines fetal homicide as intentionally causing the death of a "quick child," which is an ancient term for when a pregnant woman can feel the fetus inside her), most derive from our federal "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" (UVVA), which allows for the perpetrator of a violent crime against a pregnant women to be charged for two crimes - one against the woman and one against her fetus. And while a violent crime perpetrated against a pregnant woman resulting in both her death and the death of her unborn baby during a wanted pregnancy is a heinous crime, the passage of the UVVA law and the resulting state fetal homicide laws are more about blocking access to abortion and keeping women scared and "in line." Re-published on Alternet.org, Jeanne Flavin writes in her book Our Bodies, Our Crimes: The Policing of Women's Reproduction in America:
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act explicitly states that nothing in the act "shall be construed to permit the prosecution ... of any woman with respect to her unborn child." But state statutes have used nearly identical language (often, as noted, only after hard-fought battles to get the language included in the first place) and then have gone on to prosecute pregnant women for their drug use in what has been called a "legislative bait and switch." Fetal protection laws not only represent a backdoor to abolishing abortion but also they leave open the possibility that the laws used to prosecute those who assault pregnant women may be directed against pregnant women themselves. In Missouri, for example, the state argued that the exception articulated in their fetus-centered homicide statute applied only to a woman who indirectly harmed her unborn child, not to a woman whose drug use was claimed to have directly endangered the child.
So while these laws were enacted because of intense advocacy by anti-choice forces under the guise of "protecting pregnant women and their unborn babies," they do have the power to be - and have been - wielded like weapons against pregnant women like Christine Taylor.
Quoted in the Des Moines Register, Lynn Paltrow executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW) said of the incident:
"You want women to be able to talk to their doctors without being accused as a baby killer"...Transforming some mothers' obviously difficult and painful circumstances into a crime, she said, "would make every pregnant woman in this country vulnerable to criminal prosecution."
The charges against Taylor were dropped ultimately but not because this is a draconian, hateful, anti-woman, anti-family piece of legislation that harms women and families. They were dropped because Taylor's doctor confirmed that she was in her second trimester at the time of her fall, not the "criminal" third trimester.
And, as Change.org notes, there is another shocking element to this case - the question of patient confidentiality. The doctor and nurse involved in reporting this to the police seem to be in serious breach of the law:
Christine Taylor came to them emotionally vulnerable in order to seek help for her unborn child. She thought she was in a safe place talking to professionals in whom she could confide. Oops, her bad. As Robert Rigg, professor at the Drake University Law School, said, "How in the heck did the police get a statement made by a patient to a medical person during the course of treatment?"
This is not about "protecting the life of the unborn." Protecting the life of the unborn for women who want to be pregnant means ensuring access to high quality prenatal care. It means ensuring pay equity-- that women are paid on par with their male counterparts - so they are able to support a family. It means ensuring paid family leave and fair breastfeeding policies. It means making sure that pregnant women are safe from perpetators of violence - most often their boyfriends or husbands.
This is about innocent lives being trampled upon though. This is about the lives of the women and children who are here now: living, breathing, laughing, struggling, nurturing, being. It's about making sure families like Christine Taylor and her two children have the means to live safely, free to make the best decisions they can about their health and lives, without fear of prosecution or retribution from anti-choice advocates aiming to criminalize pregnant women's choices.
What kind of messages are we sending to pregnant women? Either ask for or seek help and risk being persecuted, maybe even jailed, for reaching out or remain fearful and do not seek out medical attention or services. These aren't choices at all. These are dangerous scenarios that risk both mothers' and babies' health and lives.
Christine Taylor is not "collateral damage" in the war against women, perpetrated by anti-choice advocates. She is an exact target
Holy crap I thought this was a joke or a typo I couldn't be more wrong.
They will now, in the state of utah put a woman up on MURDER CHARGES if she has a MISCARRIAGE!!!what are they INSANE!!!!! Is this the 15th century???? Is thias WICHBURNING and PITCHFORKS????? Do we know the earth is not flat, and the sky nis blue in SCREWED UP UTAH?????????
Measure on illegal abortions heads to governor
Health » Opponents fear 'reckless' clause could haunt domestic violence victims who stay with their abusers.
By Brandon Loomis
The Salt Lake Tribune
Updated: 02/18/2010 06:20:08 PM MST
The Utah Senate has joined the House in allowing homicide charges against expectant mothers who arrange illegal abortions.
The bill responds to a case in which a Vernal woman allegedly paid a man $150 to beat her and cause miscarriage but could not be charged. The Senate on Thursday approved HB12 on a vote of 24-4, criminalizing a woman's "intentional, knowing, or reckless act" leading to a pregnancy's illegal termination. It specifies that a woman cannot be prosecuted for arranging a legal abortion.
The measure now goes to Gov. Gary Herbert for final action.
Some Senate Democrats attempted a last-minute amendment to remove the word "reckless" from the list of criminal acts leading to miscarriage. They argued that criminalizing reckless acts leaves open the possibility of prosecutions against domestic violence victims who return to their abusers only to be beaten and lose the child.
"It's part of the cycle of domestic violence," said Sen. Luz Robles, D-Salt Lake City.
"I hope none of you ever have to face that situation," she said after realizing the majority would pass the bill as is, "or have a daughter facing that situation, or a granddaughter."
But the bill's sponsor, Sen. Margaret Dayton, R-Orem, said the bill doesn't target victims at all -- only those who arrange to terminate their pregnancies illegally.
"I know it's well-intentioned," Dayton said of the attempt to lift "reckless acts" from the bill,
Advertisement
"but I don't think we want to go down the road of carefully defining the behavior of a woman."
Robles and Sen. Ben McAdams said they had spoken to the bill's original sponsor, Rep. Carl Wimmer, R-Herriman, just before the debate and believed he would support the change on behalf of domestic violence victims. Dayton, though, said Wimmer sent her a text message during the debate asking her to press on.
Wimmer later said he had been open to the Democrats' suggestion, but it had come too late.
"I wasn't about to hold the bill up," he said.
HOLE EEEEEEEE HELLHOLES BATMAN!! BUT WAIT THERES MORE!!
Utah Bill Criminalizes Miscarriage
By Rachel Larris, RH Reality Check
February 20, 2010 - 9:00am
Published under: Access to Abortion | fetal homicide | Utah
Rachel Larris's blog | Printer-friendly version | Login or register to post comments | ShareThis
Rachel Larris's picture
A bill passed by the Utah House and Senate this week and waiting for the governor's signature, will make it a crime for a woman to have a miscarriage, and make induced abortion a crime in some instances.
According Lynn M. Paltrow, executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, what makes Utah's proposed law unique is that it is specifically designed to be punitive toward pregnant women, not those who might assist or cause an illegal abortion or unintended miscarriage.
The bill passed by legislators amends Utah's criminal statute to allow the state to charge a woman with criminal homicide for inducing a miscarriage or obtaining an illegal abortion. The basis for the law was a recent case in which a 17-year-old girl, who was seven months pregnant, paid a man $150 to beat her in an attempt to cause a miscarriage. Although the girl gave birth to a baby later given up for adoption, she was initially charged with attempted murder. However the charges were dropped because, at the time, under Utah state law a woman could not be prosecuted for attempting to arrange an abortion, lawful or unlawful.
The bill passed by the Utah legislature would change that. While the bill does not affect legally obtained abortions, it criminalizes any actions taken by women to induce a miscarriage or abortion outside of a doctor's care, with penalties including up to life in prison.
"What is really radical and different about this statute is that all of the other states' feticide laws are directed to third party attackers," Paltrow explained. "[Other states' feticide laws] were passed in response to a pregnant woman who has been beaten up by a husband or boyfriend. Utah's law is directed to the woman herself and that's what makes it different and dangerous."
In addition to criminalizing an intentional attempt to induce a miscarriage or abortion, the bill also creates a standard that could make women legally responsible for miscarriages caused by "reckless" behavior.
Using the legal standard of "reckless behavior" all a district attorney needs to show is that a woman behaved in a manner that is thought to cause miscarriage, even if she didn't intend to lose the pregnancy. Drink too much alcohol and have a miscarriage? Under the new law such actions could be cause for prosecution.
"This creates a law that makes any pregnant woman who has a miscarriage potentially criminally liable for murder," says Missy Bird, executive director of Planned Parenthood Action Fund of Utah. Bird says there are no exemptions in the bill for victims of domestic violence or for those who are substance abusers. The standard is so broad, Bird says, "there nothing in the bill to exempt a woman for not wearing her seatbelt who got into a car accident."
Such a standard could even make falling down stairs a prosecutable event, such as the recent case in Iowa where a pregnant woman who fell down the stairs at her home was arrested under the suspicion she was trying to terminate her pregnancy.
"This statute and the standards chosen leave a large number of pregnant women vulnerable to arrest even though they have no intention of ending a pregnancy," Paltrow said. "Whether or not the legislature intended this bill to become a tool for policing and punishing all pregnant women, if enacted this law would permit prosecution of a pregnant woman who stayed with her abusive husband because she was unable to leave. Not leaving would, under the 'reckless' standard, constitute conduct that consciously disregarded a substantial risk," Paltrow explained.
While many states have fetal homicide laws most apply only in the third trimester. Utah's bill would apply throughout the entirety of a woman's pregnancy. Even first trimester miscarriages could become the basis for a murder trial.
Bird said she is also concerned that the law will drive pregnant women with substance abuse problems "underground;" afraid to seek treatment lest they have a miscarriage and be charged for murder. She said it directly reverses the attempts made, though a bill passed in 2008, to encourage pregnant women to seek treatment for addiction.
Paltrow added that the commonly thought belief that pregnant women who use drugs are engaging in behavior that is likely to cause a stillbirth or a miscarriage is wrong.
"Science now makes clear that drug use by pregnant women does not create unique risks for pregnant women, although it is likely that among those targeted for prosecutions by this statute will be women who go to term under drug usage," she said.
The bill does exempt from prosecution fetal deaths due to failure to follow medical advice, accept treatment or refuse a cesarean section. Bird said this exemption was likely because of a 2004 case where a woman who was pregnant with twins was later charged with criminal homicide after one of the babies was stillborn, which the state deemed due to her refusal to have a cesarean section.
Planned Parenthood and the ACLU of Utah worked together to "amend the hell out of the bill," Bird said. One of their few accomplishments was at least dropping the legal standard of "negligence" from the bill, a much lower standard than "recklessness."
Bird was shaken with emotion after the Senate vote. "I broke down and cried," she admitted. "I normally never let these kind of [legislative] battles get to me."
"What really sucks is that we had three supposed allies in the Senate, three [Democratic] women, who voted for the bill," Bird said, adding she didn't yet know why the three senators switched votes.
Marina Lowe is legislative and policy counsel for the ACLU of Utah. She worked in tandem with Bird on trying to derail or at least mitigate the worst aspects of the bill. Lowe says at this point she doesn't know if there is a potential constitutional challenge to the law once it is signed by the governor.
But she points to cases like the one in Iowa as exactly the kind of situation that might arise once this law is put into place.
Paltrow says this bill puts a lie to the idea that the pro-life movement cares about women.
"For all these years the anti-choice movement has said ‘we want to outlaw abortion, not put women in jail, but what this law says is ‘no, we really want to put women in jail."
BELEIVE IT OR NOT< IT GETS EVEN SICKER PEOPLE
Pregnant? Don't Fall Down the Stairs
By Amie Newman, Managing Editor
February 15, 2010 - 5:07pm
Published under: Maternal Health | Women’s Rights | adoption | Childbirth | feticide | pregnancy | Unborn Victims of Violence | violence against women
Amie Newman's blog | Printer-friendly version | Login or register to post comments | ShareThis
Amie Newman's picture
This article contains a correction made at 7:58 a.m. Tuesday, February 17th, 2010 to clarify the law applied to the arrest of Christine Taylor. An earlier version did not specify the statute applied in this case.
When anti-choice advocates dream up and manage to pass bills in the name of being "pro-life," make no mistake - there is no question they know that these laws have the potential to ruin lives.
In the case of Christine Taylor, an Iowa mother of two girls and pregnant with her third child, a feticide law enacted in that state because of anti-choice efforts has wreaked havoc on her life.
It all started last month, according to Change.org:
Last month, after an upsetting phone conversation with her estranged husband, Ms. Taylor became light-headed and fell down a flight of stairs in her home. Paramedics rushed to the scene and ultimately declared her healthy. However, since she was pregnant with her third child at the time, Taylor thought it would be best to be seen at the local ER to make sure her fetus was unharmed.
After Taylor was treated by a nurse at the private hospital and deemed fine, she confided to the nurse that she was upset and scared and wasn't sure she wanted to continue the pregnancy. Her husband recently left her after she told him she was pregnant with their third child:
"I never said I didn't want my baby, but I admitted that I had been considering adoption or abortion," she said. "I admit that I said I wasn't sure I wanted to continue the pregnancy. My husband sends me money, but money doesn't make a parent. I don't have anybody else to turn to."
Although Taylor was in the first part of her second trimester, the nurse noted on her chart that she was in the first week of her third trimester - the time when, under Iowa's fetal homicide law, a violent act perpetrated against a pregnant woman could be considered criminal. The nurse called over the doctor who then called the police - which is when Christine Taylor found herself arrested and sent to jail for admitting uncertainty about her pregnancy and fear about raising three children on her own.
Iowa is one of 37 states with a feticide law on the books, a number that has increased in recent years "because of a growing movement by some conservatives to target providers of late abortion, such as Dr. George Tiller, and to protect "unborn victims of violence,"" a back-door effort to create a status of "personhood" for the fetus separate from its mother before it is viable.
One section of Iowa's law criminalizes any act by any person who attempts to intentionally terminate a pregnancy "without the knowledge and voluntary consent of the pregnant person" at any stage of pregnancy.
Another makes it a felony to intentionally terminate a pregnancy "with the knowledge and voluntary consent of the pregnant person after the end of the second trimester," unless a pregnancy is terminated for the reasons of the life or health of the mother. In short...a willing effort to terminate a pregnancy. This is the section of the law under which Christine Taylor was charged.
According to the Des Moines Register, "Bringing a charge of attempted feticide against Taylor would have treaded new legal territory in Iowa, legal experts said."
"I've never seen those facts brought to me in 20 years of prosecuting," said Corwin Ritchie, coordinator of the Iowa County Attorneys Association.
Robert Rigg, who teaches at the Drake University Law School, said the unusual case raises important questions even though Taylor is not being prosecuted. Among them: "How in the heck did the police get a statement made by a patient to a medical person during the course of treatment?" he asked.
Under federal law, health care providers can release limited information to law enforcement, but not if it was given in the course of that person's "treatment related to the propensity to commit this type of violent act." Disclosure of some information could be a violation of federal rules protecting personal medical information, Rigg said.
Though some fetal homicide laws are relics from centuries ago (Washington state's 1895 law defines fetal homicide as intentionally causing the death of a "quick child," which is an ancient term for when a pregnant woman can feel the fetus inside her), most derive from our federal "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" (UVVA), which allows for the perpetrator of a violent crime against a pregnant women to be charged for two crimes - one against the woman and one against her fetus. And while a violent crime perpetrated against a pregnant woman resulting in both her death and the death of her unborn baby during a wanted pregnancy is a heinous crime, the passage of the UVVA law and the resulting state fetal homicide laws are more about blocking access to abortion and keeping women scared and "in line." Re-published on Alternet.org, Jeanne Flavin writes in her book Our Bodies, Our Crimes: The Policing of Women's Reproduction in America:
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act explicitly states that nothing in the act "shall be construed to permit the prosecution ... of any woman with respect to her unborn child." But state statutes have used nearly identical language (often, as noted, only after hard-fought battles to get the language included in the first place) and then have gone on to prosecute pregnant women for their drug use in what has been called a "legislative bait and switch." Fetal protection laws not only represent a backdoor to abolishing abortion but also they leave open the possibility that the laws used to prosecute those who assault pregnant women may be directed against pregnant women themselves. In Missouri, for example, the state argued that the exception articulated in their fetus-centered homicide statute applied only to a woman who indirectly harmed her unborn child, not to a woman whose drug use was claimed to have directly endangered the child.
So while these laws were enacted because of intense advocacy by anti-choice forces under the guise of "protecting pregnant women and their unborn babies," they do have the power to be - and have been - wielded like weapons against pregnant women like Christine Taylor.
Quoted in the Des Moines Register, Lynn Paltrow executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW) said of the incident:
"You want women to be able to talk to their doctors without being accused as a baby killer"...Transforming some mothers' obviously difficult and painful circumstances into a crime, she said, "would make every pregnant woman in this country vulnerable to criminal prosecution."
The charges against Taylor were dropped ultimately but not because this is a draconian, hateful, anti-woman, anti-family piece of legislation that harms women and families. They were dropped because Taylor's doctor confirmed that she was in her second trimester at the time of her fall, not the "criminal" third trimester.
And, as Change.org notes, there is another shocking element to this case - the question of patient confidentiality. The doctor and nurse involved in reporting this to the police seem to be in serious breach of the law:
Christine Taylor came to them emotionally vulnerable in order to seek help for her unborn child. She thought she was in a safe place talking to professionals in whom she could confide. Oops, her bad. As Robert Rigg, professor at the Drake University Law School, said, "How in the heck did the police get a statement made by a patient to a medical person during the course of treatment?"
This is not about "protecting the life of the unborn." Protecting the life of the unborn for women who want to be pregnant means ensuring access to high quality prenatal care. It means ensuring pay equity-- that women are paid on par with their male counterparts - so they are able to support a family. It means ensuring paid family leave and fair breastfeeding policies. It means making sure that pregnant women are safe from perpetators of violence - most often their boyfriends or husbands.
This is about innocent lives being trampled upon though. This is about the lives of the women and children who are here now: living, breathing, laughing, struggling, nurturing, being. It's about making sure families like Christine Taylor and her two children have the means to live safely, free to make the best decisions they can about their health and lives, without fear of prosecution or retribution from anti-choice advocates aiming to criminalize pregnant women's choices.
What kind of messages are we sending to pregnant women? Either ask for or seek help and risk being persecuted, maybe even jailed, for reaching out or remain fearful and do not seek out medical attention or services. These aren't choices at all. These are dangerous scenarios that risk both mothers' and babies' health and lives.
Christine Taylor is not "collateral damage" in the war against women, perpetrated by anti-choice advocates. She is an exact target
This group associated with the murderes of a child and her father, AMerican citizens of Hispanic decent
Is this what you tea baggers and patriots are all about? These three individuals are murderers who murdered a child and her father, shot them in front of the mother. THese are aniumals and oigs of the lowest form of life.
This group speaking is associated with them. They are all inside the tea bagger party moven]ment.
When you here the cry lower taxes, smaller government, no immigration we hate Obama, these are the people who are swilling this rhetoric. When you participate in this as a person of color, you are guilty of their sins by association.
LEAVE THE TEA BAGGER AND PATRIOT MOVEMENT NOW. Listen to the TRUE REASONS behind the movement. It is NOT ABOUT FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY.
It is about WHit SUpremacy, Seccessionist theory, hate and fear mongering RACIAL HATRED AND PREJUDICE
DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN TEA BAGGER PROTESTS OR PATRIOT PROTESTS>
Hawaii excise tax breaks may be cut to help ease budget deficit | honoluluadvertiser.com | The Honolulu Advertiser
Hawaii excise tax breaks may be cut to help ease budget deficit | honoluluadvertiser.com | The Honolulu Advertiser
Read this list. You will see tax raises for those with debilitating diseases, and the poor, and those who serve them.
STOP THE WAR AGAINST THE POOR
HEY LINGLE YOU TAKE A PAY BREAK ONE DOLLAR UNTIL THE END OF HER TERM..THATS ALL WE WANT TO PAY YOU
Read this list. You will see tax raises for those with debilitating diseases, and the poor, and those who serve them.
STOP THE WAR AGAINST THE POOR
HEY LINGLE YOU TAKE A PAY BREAK ONE DOLLAR UNTIL THE END OF HER TERM..THATS ALL WE WANT TO PAY YOU
Glen Beck Idiot Extraordinaire "speaks" at the C-Pac Idiot Circus
I am a Progressive Democrat well whats the difference between a communist and a Democrat?
How about: I am a Republican. Well, racist, whats the difference?
Answer:
Quentin Kawānanakoa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quentin Kawānanakoa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Here is a good starting point for those of you who do not know that there is an acknowleged heir to the Hawaiian Monarchy.
Here is a good starting point for those of you who do not know that there is an acknowleged heir to the Hawaiian Monarchy.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
