In Colorado, ‘Personhood’ backers try a new tack

[DonViejo]

By Reid Wilson August 26 at 6:00 AM

PUEBLO, Colo. — Heather Surovik’s story is heartbreaking. In 2012, the young mother was leaving her final prenatal appointment when a drunk driver slammed into her car. Heather survived. The fetus she was carrying, whom she had named Brady, did not. The doctors told her that Brady weighed 8 pounds, 2 ounces.

Under Colorado law, the drunk driver was charged with felonies for his actions, but nothing in connection with Brady’s death. State law does not recognize crimes committed against fetuses. Now, Surovik is pushing an amendment to the state constitution, Amendment 67, that would include crimes against the unborn in Colorado’s criminal code.

The “personhood” amendment is nothing new. Colorado voters have twice defeated prior initiatives to extend rights to unborn fetuses. What is new is the approach: Earlier versions defined a fetus as a person from the moment of fertilization, or from the moment of biological development. In both cases, abortion rights activists convinced voters to reject the measures, which they said would have limited a woman’s right to choose.

This version, though, would allow prosecutors to bring charges against someone who commits a crime against a fetus. Proponents are going out of their way to insist that the measure has nothing to do with abortion, and some abortion rights advocates think the simplicity of the measure is cause for concern.

more
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/08/26/in-colorado-personhood-backers-try-a-new-tack/

[el_bryanto]

1. So it's not defining the Fetus as a Person but suggesting that crimes against a

Fetus should be prosecutable. That seems less problematic than declaring a fetus a person but still opens us up to all sorts of problems.

"Your honor it wasn't just El Bryanto that was killed that day - we intend to show that his left arm has also died thanks to the actions of the defendant. Yes - we are indicting the defendant on two counts of murder. One for El Bryanto and one for his left arm."

That said the fact that they limited may give it a better chance to pass.

Bryant

[PeaceNikki]

3. It's the same thing.

Those calling for a "fetal homicide" law are almost exclusively anti-abortion advocates. Their intent is not to protect pregnant women, but to give fetuses a form of legal personhood that can be used to criminalize abortion.

Thirty-seven states have enacted "fetal homicide" laws, which make it a crime to cause harm to a fetus. Most of these laws give a fetus its own legal rights. In practice, these laws punish pregnant women, compromise women's rights in general and fail to reduce domestic violence. Not only do these laws imperil abortion rights by giving personhood and rights to fetuses, but they target all pregnant women, including those trying to have a baby.

Under state "fetal homicide" laws pregnant women are more likely to be punished for behaviours and conditions that are not criminalized for other people, such as drug or alcohol abuse. Women have also been charged or jailed for murder for experiencing a stillbirth after refusing a Caesarean section. Some states have proposed punishing pregnant women in abusive relationships who are unable to leave their batterers, and desperate women who resort to unsafe self-abortions. The worst offender is South Carolina, where dozens of pregnant women with drug abuse problems have been arrested under fetal protection laws, even though they had virtually no access to drug treatment programs.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=171ab1e2-a77b-4791-a646-0ebc27512b9a

[moriah]

5. I may be in the minority, but the sheer number of pregnant women killed ....

... many times by partners who don't want the responsibility of a baby....

... tells me that some kind of extra punishment should be in order for taking the life of a pregnant woman. Pregnancy is the most dangerous time in a woman's life, and the leading cause of death for pregnant women is homicide. Domestic abuse often starts during pregnancy, and when it's already ongoing it intensifies during that time. Trying to carry a child should not be a fatal enterprise.

Maybe it could go under hate crimes legislation, if trying to say killing a fetus itself is too broad? (Edit: Maybe it could even cover a beating that caused a miscarriage -- maybe not as murder, but something more than simple battery.)

[PeaceNikki]

6. I don't think that makes you a 'minority'. Read the article I linked.

Especially the last two paragraphs:

When pregnant women are assaulted or killed, it's a domestic violence issue and it's well known that violence against women increases during pregnancy. What we need are better measures to protect women in general, and pregnant women in particular, from domestic violence. A "fetal homicide" law would completely sidestep the issue of domestic abuse and do nothing to protect pregnant women.

....

What can we do to achieve justice when pregnant women are tragically murdered? In Canada, the judicial system routinely takes aggravating circumstances into account. In the case of an assault or murder of a pregnant woman, even though a third party cannot be charged separately with harm to the fetus, prosecutors may recommend more serious charges, judges may impose harsher penalties and parole boards may deny parole to convicted perpetrators.

A new law could perhaps codify such practices. Thirteen U.S. states have laws that simply apply stiffer punishments for murdering a pregnant woman, but do not make the death of the fetus a separate crime. Such a solution would avoid the controversy about giving rights to fetuses or interfering with abortion rights, and would ensure that women do not lose their rights while they are pregnant. In the end, the best way to protect fetuses is to guarantee full rights for pregnant women, including their right to be safe from domestic violence.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=171ab1e2-a77b-4791-a646-0ebc27512b9a

[moriah]

7. I still think a beating that causes a miscarriage should be charged higher than....

... a simple battery. Much higher. Maybe not murder, but with a charge that carries a similar penalty to manslaughter or negligent homicide. Which puts me pretty close to advocating for fetal homicide laws even if they aren't called that. "Violent crimes against a pregnant woman that result in the death of the fetus" *should* be clear enough to achieve the purpose without criminalizing pregnancy as well.

Because otherwise it's reinforcing the idea that if the man just beats the baby out of her, it'll all be okay, he'll probably get off like so many other DV perps do, etc. Some might even see a year or so in prison as a good trade for 18 years of child support.

[PeaceNikki]

8. Yes, so do I and so does the author. Again, the last sentence:

"Thirteen U.S. states have laws that simply apply stiffer punishments for murdering a pregnant woman, but do not make the death of the fetus a separate crime. Such a solution would avoid the controversy about giving rights to fetuses or interfering with abortion rights, and would ensure that women do not lose their rights while they are pregnant. In the end, the best way to protect fetuses is to guarantee full rights for pregnant women, including their right to be safe from domestic violence."

[PeaceNikki]

2. In practice, these contradictory laws create a dangerous slippery slope towards criminalizing

pregnant women for their behaviors while pregnant.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=171ab1e2-a77b-4791-a646-0ebc27512b9a

[Paka]

4. Very dangerous direction to move.

It is directed more toward the pregnant mother and a "wet dream" of anti-abortionists.