Seventeen years ago this spring, I miscarried a very wanted pregnancy at 16 weeks. I had joyfully announced my pregnancy to my church community the day before, when I woke up with cramping and spotting. As the doctor performed the sonogram, we saw that the fetus had never developed past an eight-week embryo. We grieved for the baby who was not to be born that following fall. As I searched for answers to what had happened, I remembered that, right around eight weeks, I had used a hot tub several times at a day spa. I've never known if that was the cause of my pregnancy loss.
Under new legislation passed by the Utah state legislature (and awaiting the governor's signature), I might have been charged with criminal homicide. As unbelievable as that sounds, the proposed law states, "the killing or attempted killing of a live unborn child in a manner that is not abortion shall be punished as...criminal homicide." Any "reckless act of the woman" that results in fetal death is criminal homicide. According to the ACLU, "reckless" could mean not wearing a seatbelt, should a car accident result in miscarriage. It could mean that women in physically abusive relationships who did not leave but ended up losing their fetuses in an altercation could be charged. It could mean ignoring the warnings for pregnant women not to go on roller coasters or in hot tubs.
Every woman's pregnancy is different. Despite medical advances, one in three pregnancies ends in miscarriage. Looking for reasons to prosecute grieving mothers is another, reprehensible example of blaming the victim and ignoring the pain that women (and couples) suffer in pregnancy loss.
There's a lot of that going around these days. I'm reminded of those who claim the people of Haiti called the devastation on themselves because of their religious beliefs. Earlier this week, Virginia Delegate Robert Marshall implied that women who have abortions are punished with a greater likelihood of having a child with a disability later on. He said, "The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion who have handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children...In the Old Testament, the first born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord." He went on to say that women would face a "special punishment" for having an abortion.
There has been understandable outrage about Marshall's statement, and he's trying to deny that's what he said. But it points to a misuse of sacred text and science. Surely if we are all created in God's image, then all of us have worth and no child is born to punish its mother. Whether in miscarriage, still birth, a difficult pregnancy, the decision to have an abortion, or the birth of a child with disabilities, I understand that God suffers with us, rather than seeks to cause us suffering. How could a loving God do anything else?
Rather than blaming women for their miscarriages or their disabled children - or limiting their access to safe abortions - legislators around the country need to ask themselves what else they can do to help women have healthy pregnancies and healthy babies. And as religious leaders and people of faith, we need to support women and men during these difficult times, and speak out against policy makers who would rather re-victimize than heal them.
Follow Rev. Debra Haffner on Twitter: www.twitter.com/revdebra
History has shown us the drawbacks, and human abuses, of a state-mandated faith. This country was founded on the basis of freedom to worship as we wish, however, we must remember to accord that same freedom to all our fellow citizens. With freedom comes the resposibilty of civil discourse, of basic courtesy. Do not presume that I need to be "saved", do not attempt to ram your point of view down my throat, do not presume to tell me what God wants.
I see the main problem with religious faith as being a rigid intolerance (albeit manifested by a vocal minority)for other points of view, the idea that the Divine is accesible only to a certain few. I have a problem with people having the sheer audaciousness of presuming to interpret the mind of God and of limiting the Divine to a very narrow point of view - have we not been taught that God is infinite? And infinitely merciful?
I have been taught, and have learned, to judge people by their character, their goodness and loving kindness, not by the label of their faith.
This is just terrible. I have 4 children, abortion wasn't on my list of options, but I would not want to deny a woman the right to make her own decision about her body and her life.
It is back door "under my thumb" relating to how the powers that in Utah see women..chattle..baby carriers and less than men.
Personally I deplore abortion..but would never impinge upon a woman's right to her own body..and..since babies GO TO HEAVEN..what's the big deal...if life begins at inception..this little ones..see God..before the rest of us...not so bad..right?
Utah might be pretty (to me..it's gotten very smoggy around salt lake city..worse that Los Angeles..by far!)..but...it's a strange state..OMG..can you imagine Mittens are POTUS...
(thank you for bringing this to our attention..first I'd heard of this draconian step back to Salem..
The fact that a bunch of old white men think they can micro manage a woman losing her unborn child is akin to their neighbors in Nevada running brothels.
But the LDS Church is entirely based on lies, manipulation and control. They should stick to singing, not human rights.
That's what also happens...it is inevitable that religious people in power will trounce upon civil liberties and true human rights. We as a species need to get past this god nonsense, and soon.
A simple read through of the bill shows that it only covers miscarriages caused by an "intentional, knowing, or reckless" act of the mother. (Line 77). Unintentional or accidental miscarriages are not criminalized by this bill.
It's fine to disagree with this bill, but do so based on an informed decision, not a knee-jerk reaction to a straw man argument.
expect the worst.
history reveals to us when religion or social darwinists controls the state or nation.
Well folks, we are talking about UTAH.
The fact that you had a hot bath at 8 weeks does not explain the fetus' underdevelopment. It may help you cope by giving you something to hang on to that takes away the randomness of it all. Your fetus may have been underdeveloped for a completely different reason and you'd never know this, because it is impossible to medically determine it.
Also, what exactly defines "living" and "child"? A fetus is not a "child". Living is a very ambiguous notion in this case, as for example there are many cases where a fetus is viable in-utero and not viable ex-utero. What defines "living" in this case? Is it the heartbeat? Is it the presence of nervous system? Or is it the capacity of the fetus to live in the outside world? A child is a person. A fetus is a fetus - a developing organism. Or non-developing, like in your case.
"Living" is defined by being able to survive ex-utero and "child" is defined by being born. So this law that you're talking about is absolute bogus.