Skip to main content

View Diary: Breaking: "First Degree Homicide Of The Unborn Child Bill" Passes CO House On Second Reading (202 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Could you post a link to the bill? (5+ / 0-)

    I would like to read it, and pass it along to others.  Thank you!

    _ I've spoken my piece and counted to three._

    by althea in il on Sat Mar 17, 2012 at 06:57:22 AM PDT

    •  I was wondering the same thing (10+ / 0-)

      finally dug this up.

      A person who hurts a pregnant woman and causes her unborn child's death or injury would face additional charges under a bill that got an initial nod from the House today.

      House Bill 1130 sparked a ferocious debate, with Democrats arguing the bill conferred "personhood" status on a fetus and could be interpreted as criminalizing abortion.

      Read more: Colorado bill with penalties for harming unborn child raises red flags over "personhood" status - The Denver Post
      Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content:

      48forEastAfrica - Donate to Oxfam "Compassion is the radicalism of our time." ~ Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama -7.88, -6.21

      by Siri on Sat Mar 17, 2012 at 07:14:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Read the bill, please. (7+ / 0-)

      If this is the one to which the OP refers, I don't see the major issue.  Am I wrong?  This is a vehicle to prosecute people who, in the commission of a crime (drunk driving, beating, etc) kill an unborn child.  It says in more than one place that this does not apply to medically approved terminations.

      I get that there are grey areas.... at what point was the fetus viable, but even IL has a law that covers fetal homicide (and endangerment, I believe) in the commission of a crime and it has not been used to limit or outlaw abortions.

      _ I've spoken my piece and counted to three._

      by althea in il on Sat Mar 17, 2012 at 07:59:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  States with similar laws... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BlueSue, Ahianne, glorificus

        Don't get me wrong.... I know the neanderthal tea party theocrats are making a huge last ditch effort to end abortion entirely.  I just don't think this bill is doing that.

        Unless I'm wrong, which is entirely possible.

        _ I've spoken my piece and counted to three._

        by althea in il on Sat Mar 17, 2012 at 08:09:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's just another brick in the wall... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          ...of giving fetuses the legal status of people—and thus banning abortion and most forms of contraception as murder weapons.

          To be honest, I have a certain amount of respect for people who honestly believe that a fetus is the moral equivalent of a post-birth human being, and want to ban abortion on that basis. I find that belief wrongheaded, but when I put myself in their shoes and consider that belief, I can see why it's such an important issue to them. Several people whom I love very much—including my own mother—hold that view, and I think we need to be sensitive to that as a movement even though we vociferously disagree with it.

          It's the people who see abortion and contraception as signs of women's liberation from men, and thus as a threat to what they view as the "natural order" of things where women are to be sexually controlled, that piss me off to no end. Those people should be opposed at every turn and called out for the misogynist pigs they are.

          "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

          by JamesGG on Sat Mar 17, 2012 at 08:47:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I beg to differ. We must call bullshit. (10+ / 0-)

            No one actually believes that a first-trimester embryo/fetus has full moral personhood. We have all kinds of cultural behaviors related to the distinctions between persons and non-person entities.

            We name people. We have kinship terms for them to describe how they relate to us: son, daughter, sister, brother, niece, nephew. When they die, we memorialize them in some formal way. They have civic presence-- legal recognition in the form of birth certificates, Social Security numbers, etc. They are treated as having inherent worth; they cannot be used as material for someone else's purposes.

            There are some entities that exist on the boundaries of personhood, like pets: Most people name pets and many memorialize them when they die. Some feel that their pets are part of the family. Pets have some civic presence in areas where owners are required to license them. The same animal could be a pet one day, though, and "stuff" in a research lab the next.

            Corpses are boundary cases, too. Definitely not people, but issues of autonomy still pertain.

            A first-trimester embryo/fetus is even more liminal than those.  Nobody holds a public memorial service for an embryo. You will never read an obituary for one in your local newspaper. In every single state, products of conception from before about midway through pregnancy can be treated as either medical waste or as human remains, depending on the preference of the woman whose body produced them.

            It's just bullshit for anyone to claim that they "believe" an embryo is a person. They only make that claim in reference to preventing women from having abortions. It fails to manifest in any other way people relate to a first-trimester conceptus.

            •  I think sexism also plays a roll. (0+ / 0-)

              Women are often more willing to stay with abusive husbands and be less aggressive in their careers when they are pregnant. Women who choose fertility are very threatening to patriarchy.

        •  I'd say it is more a strategy (7+ / 0-)

          to build up the idea of 'fetal personhood' in the law.  It is about getting a foot in the door.

      •  However, it does cover spontaneous abortions (0+ / 0-)

        unless the woman can prove that her actions did not cause the miscarriage (because proving the exact cause of a miscarriage is impossible most of the time) unless there is an explicit exception in there.

        There is no saving throw against stupid.

        by Throw The Bums Out on Sat Mar 17, 2012 at 10:01:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  How is 'medically approved' terminations (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:


Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site