And Just What Is The Dunning-Krugar Effect?



Taken from my G+ comments on the Net:

John Kleese quotation: “If you're very, very stupid, how can you possibly realize you are very, very stupid? You'd have to be relatively intelligent to realize how stupid you are. This explains almost the entirety of Fox News.”

Saranuri Mohammad's Photographs
Occupy Democrats



Comment

Joe Comohoyo, Doctor of Divinity
3:13 PM
Reply
Dunning–Kruger effect




http://dunning.socialpsychology.org/
David Dunning

At its most general, my research focuses on accuracy and illusion in human judgment. In my social psychological work, I am interested in how, and when, people's perceptions of themselves and their surrounding differ from an objectively definable reality. In my psycholegal work, I concentrate on accuracy and error in eyewitness testimony. 

My social psychological work focuses on two related phenomena concerning self and social judgment. First, I am interested in why people tend to have overly favorable and objectively indefensible views of their own abilities. For example, a full 94% of college professors say they do "above average" work, although it is impossible for nearly everyone to be above average. Second, I am interested in why people use themselves as the "model of excellence" in judgments of other people. For example, ask people what it takes to be an "effective leader," and they tend to describe someone who resembles themselves. Task-oriented people (e.g., they describe themselves as persistent, ambitious) tend to cite task-skills as important in leadership. People-oriented individuals (e.g., they describe themselves as friendly and tactful) tend to emphasize social skills in their definition of the effective leader. In past work, I have found that the second phenomenon (using the self as model of excellence) produces the first phenomenon describe above (too many people describe themselves as above average). I have also found that using the self as the model of excellence in judging others leads to many disagreements in social judgment. In current work, I am focusing on why people tend to define excellence so egocentrically. But, more importantly, I am looking for circumstances in which people will stop using themselves as the standard of judgment. 

My work in eyewitness testimony is a search for something, anything that might help people to distinguish accurate eyewitnesses from erroneous ones. In recently published work, we focus on witnesses making identifications of a perpetrator from a line-up. We found that asking witnesses how they reached their identifications went a good way toward telling whether they had made an accurate ones. Accurate witnesses tended to have difficulty providing a description of how they had reached their decisions (e.g., "I don't know why, I just recognized him."). Inaccurate witnesses tended to have long-winded explanations focusing on process of elimination (e.g., I compared the photos to each other in order to narrow the choices."). In more recent work, we are trying to extend this research by refining these measures, to find more valid and reliable measures of eyewitness accuracy and error.

Last edited by user: November 26, 1999
Visits since June 9, 2001: 52,712





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Dunning–Kruger effect
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitiveinability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude. Conversely, highly skilled individuals tend to underestimate their relative competence, erroneously assuming that tasks which are easy for them are also easy for others.
As David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University conclude, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others".[1]

Historical antecedents[edit]

Although the Dunning–Kruger effect was formulated in 1999, Dunning and Kruger have noted similar observations byphilosophers and scientists, including Confucius ("Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance"),[2]Socrates ("I know that I know nothing"), Bertrand Russell ("One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"),[11] andCharles Darwin, whom they quoted in their original paper ("Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge").[1]

Geraint Fuller, commenting on the paper, noted that Shakespeare expressed a similar sentiment in As You Like It("The Foole doth thinke he is wise, but the wiseman knowes himselfe to be a Foole" (V.i)).[14]

See also[edit]

Psychology portal
Curse of knowledge
Four stages of competence
Hanlon's razor
Impostor syndrome
Not even wrong
Overconfidence effect
Self-efficacy
Self-serving bias
Superiority complex




Four stages of competence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In psychology, the four stages of competence, or the "conscious competence" learning model, relates to the psychological states involved in the process of progressing from incompetence to competence in a skill.

History[edit]

Initially described as “Four Stages for Learning Any New Skill”, the theory was developed at the Gordon Training International by its employee Noel Burch in the 1970s.[1] It has since been frequently attributed to Abraham Maslow, although the model does not appear in his major works.[2]

The Four Stages of Learning provides a model for learning. It suggests that individuals are initially unaware of how little they know, or unconscious of their incompetence. As they recognize their incompetence, they consciously acquire a skill, then consciously use it. Eventually, the skill can be utilized without it being consciously thought through: the individual is said to have then acquired unconscious competence. [3]

Several elements, including helping someone 'know what they don't know' or recognize a blind spot, can be compared to some elements of a Johari window, although Johari deals with self-awareness, while the four stages of competence deals with learning stages.

The four stages of competence[edit]

Unconscious incompetence

The individual does not understand or know how to do something and does not necessarily recognize the deficit. They may deny the usefulness of the skill. The individual must recognize their own incompetence, and the value of the new skill, before moving on to the next stage.[2] The length of time an individual spends in this stage depends on the strength of the stimulus to learn.[3]

Conscious incompetence

Though the individual does not understand or know how to do something, he or she does recognize the deficit, as well as the value of a new skill in addressing the deficit. The making of mistakes can be integral to the learning process at this stage.[4]

Conscious competence

The individual understands or knows how to do something. However, demonstrating the skill or knowledge requires concentration. It may be broken down into steps, and there is heavy conscious involvement in executing the new skill.[3]

Unconscious competence

The individual has had so much practice with a skill that it has become "second nature" and can be performed easily. As a result, the skill can be performed while executing another task. The individual may be able to teach it to others, depending upon how and when it was learned.

Fifth stage[edit]

The model is expanded by some users to include a fifth stage, which is not part of the original model from Gordon Training International. The exact composition of this stage varies between authors. Some refer to reflective ability, or "conscious competence of unconscious competence", as being the fifth stage.

Another definition refers to the fifth stage as 'enlightened competence' described as "the person has not only mastered the physical skill to a highly efficient and accurate level which does not anymore require of him conscious, deliberate and careful execution of the skill but instead done instinctively and reflexively, requiring minimum efforts with maximum quality output, and is able to understand the very dynamics and explanation of his own physical skills. In other words, he comprehends fully and accurately the what, when, how and why of his own skill and possibly those of others on the same skill he has. In addition to this, he is able to transcend and reflect on the physical skill itself and be able to improve on how it is acquired and learned at even greater efficiency with lower energy investment. Having fully understood all necessary steps and components of the skill to be learned and the manner how they are dynamically integrated to produce the desired level of overall competence, he is thereby able to teach the skill to others in a manner that is effective and expedient." (Lorgene A Mata, PhD, December 2004)[2]




This progress from learner to teacher brings to my mind the characteristic of my favorite teachers – they do teach the course at a higher level than the book, bringing out their own expertise in a simple but exciting way. Rather than overwhelming the students, they entice them with fascinating information that excites them and opens their mind to as much knowledge on the subject as they can find.

Such a teacher will create students who act on their own to learn more widely and deeply. Some students complain about a teacher lecturing too much of the time, and I would too if he or she doesn't invite student participation at all, but some professors I have had were so interesting in what they presented that they actually made learning easier for me to grasp and literally “soak in.” Others put me to sleep by droning on, covering the same material that was in the textbook, or worse still picking out individuals to quiz them on what they supposedly had read. These people may be very well versed in their subject, but they need a good public speaking course – or maybe they are just at a point that they should retire. Maybe they themselves are bored with the subject.

A Brand New Crime – Miscarriage


This level of political intervention into a citizen's life must be illegal. What used to be a tragedy has become a crime in a few states. See the following article on a book concerning US law before Roe v Wade. It is called “When Abortion Was A Crime...”, by Leslie Reagan –
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/97may/abortex.htm.

The Supreme Court should rule on these unfair and shocking laws again to prevent these prosecutions, or should I say “persecutions?”. They must be against our civil rights. See the articles below. The Religious Right has been busy in a shocking number of states trying to bring back, one law at a time, the legal situation before Roe v Wade. The laws, state to state, are not identical, but they all have the factor in common that a woman can be prosecuted for a simple miscarriage unless she can prove that she did nothing (including negligent drug use) to cause it to happen. Unless they are challenged in court they may remain law.

Personhoodusa.com issued a disclaimer, quoted here. Despite that statement, there are a number of laws now either under consideration or actually already enacted, that specifically do criminalize miscarriage unless the woman can prove that there was no human cause for it. Personhood provocatively persists calling Prochoice advocates “Pro-aborts” and the Religious Right “Pro-lifers.” See the articles below. Several of them refer to the same state or case in point, but each has its own additional information on this frightening trend in American politics. While the Christian Right cries out against the influence of Islam in American society, they are setting up their own set of Sharia laws here, it seems to me. We must not allow this war against women to continue and take over, one law at a time, with the obvious hope that Roe v Wade will be undermined completely and Personhoodusa will win.






http://www.personhoodusa.com/blog/personhood-would-criminalize-miscarriages-wrong/

Personhood would not criminalize miscarriages.

Pro-lifers have recently begun getting signatures for the Personhood initiative in Mississippi which reads:

The right to life begins at conception. All human beings, at every stage of development, are unique, created in God’s image and shall have an inalienable right to life.

Pro-aborts assert that this proposal, like other Personhood measures, will mean that distraught mothers will be investigated for miscarriages. Why? Because a miscarriage might be an intentional abortion. This seems plausible to people who are ignorant about law and history. Pro-aborts prey on ignorance, so this scare tactic can be effective.

We have two pieces of evidence, based in legal procedure and history, to show that the “investigate miscarriage” claim is false. First, sadly, miscarriages are far too common to provide probable cause or even reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.  Nothing in the Personhood Amendment says otherwise. Police have no desire to, neither will they, waste their time harassing women for non-crimes. Without reasonable suspicion, the police will leave families alone to grieve for the deaths of their children.

Second, when abortion was illegal, were mothers investigated for miscarriages? In Mississippi? In North Dakota? In countries, such as Ireland, where abortion is currently illegal, are mothers investigated for miscarriage? No, of course not. History shows that mothers who tragically lost their babies suffered no such persecution.

Despicably, pro-aborts hide behind the tragedy of miscarriage to push their baby-killing agenda. When someone supports killing babies, taking cover behind maternal anguish isn’t much of a stoop.

See also the video fact-check in Pro-aborts lie about investigating
- See more at: http://www.personhoodusa.com/blog/personhood-would-criminalize-miscarriages-wrong/#sthash.QEguAPs8.dpuf




THIS STATEMENT BY PERSONHOOD IGNORES THE FACT THAT IN SEVERAL CASES WOMEN HAVE ALREADY BEEN INVESTIGATED AND EVEN PROSECUTED FOR HAVING MISCARRIAGES. PERSONHOOD MAY BE ABOVE SUCH ACTIONS, BUT THE AVERAGE CITIZEN WHO IS CURRENTLY UNDER A STATE NEAR HYSTERIA OVER ABORTION IS NOT. SEE THE STATE BY STATE INCIDENTS BELOW.




http://americanpregnancy.org/pregnancy-complications/miscarriage/

Miscarriage

Miscarriage, is a term used fora pregnancy that ends on its own, within the first 20 weeks of gestation. The medical terms used to identify this potential complication or loss gives most women an uncomfortable feeling, so throughout this article we will refer to this type of threatened complication or pregnancy loss under 20 weeks as a miscarriage.

Miscarriage is the most common type of pregnancy loss, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Studies reveal that anywhere from 10-25% of all clinically recognized pregnancies will end in miscarriage. Chemical pregnancies may account for 50-75% of all miscarriages. This occurs when a pregnancy is lost shortly after implantation, resulting in bleeding that occurs around the time of her expected period. The woman may not realize that she conceived when she experiences a chemical pregnancy.

Most miscarriages occur during the first 13 weeks of pregnancy. Pregnancy can be such an exciting time, but with the great number of recognized miscarriages that occur, it is beneficial to be informed about miscarriage, in the unfortunate event that you find yourself or someone you know faced with one.





DALLAS TX, INDIANA, IOWA, EL SALVADOR

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/09/05/miscarriage-isnt-illegal-increasingly-treated-suspicion/?

Miscarriage Isn’t Illegal, But It’s Increasingly Treated With Suspicion
by Amanda Marcotte
September 5, 2014

Given that anti-choice hysteria is, you know, hysteria, it was always destined to infect areas of life beyond the decision to deliberately terminate a pregnancy. If you have any doubt about that, please bear witness to the three-ring circus that arose because of a miscarriage last week. Yes, even though spontaneous miscarriages occur in 10 to 20 percent of known pregnancies, paranoia and anger about the ones deliberately induced by abortion is making it unsafe for all women to go through this natural and common life process.

As RH Reality Check‘s Nina Liss-Schultz reports, a fetus was discovered in the bathroom at Woodrow Wilson High School in Dallas last Friday. The aforementioned high rate of miscarriage suggests a likely explanation: A student miscarried in the bathroom and, unable to figure out what to do, just left the results there and tried to pretend nothing happened. (In fact, that’s what officials eventually determined to be the case.) Since neither being pregnant in high school nor miscarriage are classified as crimes—not yet, anyway—the situation called for a muted and calm reaction.

Instead, however, administrators summoned local police. And, even though miscarriage is not a crime, officers opened up an investigation and “called for help in identifying a ‘suspect,’” as Liss-Schultz reported. Soon, the high school was swarming with cops, leaving students and parents to panic as at least one police helicopter buzzed overhead—all to look for a girl who experienced something that is an expected outcome for 10 to 20 percent of pregnancies.

“We’re reviewing video, talking to the teachers, trying to determine if anybody has any knowledge of any student that may have had something going on in their life, and pray,”Dallas Police Major John Lawton told reporters on the scene, because a normal life process now requires police statements to the public. What’s next? Legal interventions if high school students are caught menstruating on school grounds?

Major Lawton’s statement—and the police department’s overall reaction—make it clear that they suspected the girl in question may have done something to deliberately terminate her pregnancy. And even though police did announce later that the miscarriage was apparently not induced, it’s not entirely out-of-bounds to believe that self-abortion was a possibility here. After all, with disappearing access to safe, legal clinics in Texas and the growing black market in abortion-causing drugs such as misoprostol, there are plenty of potential reasons for women—particularly teenage girls, who have even more restricted access—to take measures into their own hands.

But that also leaves them open to persecution, as anti-choicers exploit the murky legal framework to find ways to punish anyone caught—or even just suspected—of self-abortion.

In Indiana, for example, a woman named Purvi Patel is facing a possible sentence of decades in prison for not producing a live baby. Patel admitted to taking abortion-causing pills, which induced labor; she was caught when she went to the emergency room to get help for the bleeding. The fetus was found dead in a dumpster. The messed-up thing about the situation is that the State of Indiana is so determined to put Patel in prison that they’ve hit her with two conflicting charges. If they determine that the baby was born alive, they’re going to prosecute her for “neglect.” But if she successfully terminated the pregnancy, she’s getting hit with “fetal murder of an unborn child.” Heads, you lose; tails, they win.

But the situation is even more frightening than that. Even if you don’t try to end your own pregnancy, you could be subject to an investigation for being insufficiently excited about having a baby.

Take the case of Christine Taylor, who was arrested in Iowa for merely saying out loud to a nurse that she had considered abortion. Taylor had fallen down a flight of stairs; when she went to a private hospital, she was accused of trying to abort her (unharmed) fetus, even though there was literally no evidence of this beyond her very understandable concerns about having a baby with her estranged husband.

Part of the problem is that the distinctions between a spontaneous miscarriage, an induced abortion, and a stillbirth are not hard and fast. In fact, a misoprostol-caused abortion, particularly in the early stages, is impossible to distinguish from a plain old miscarriage when you present at a hospital. If law enforcement really is serious about punishing women for self-abortion—and this situation in Dallas suggests that there’s a lot of eagerness to do just that—then that means simply having a miscarriage is going to open a lot of women up to this kind of ugly, intrusive response from law enforcement.

FUNCTIONALLY SPEAKING, THE REAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ABORTION AND A SPONTANEOUS MISCARRIAGE IS INTENT. IF WE’RE REALLY GOING TO LIVE IN A SOCIETY WHERE ABORTION IS TREATED LIKE MURDER AND SUBJECT TO LEGAL PENALTIES, THEN THAT NECESSARILY MEANS TREATING EVERY MISCARRIAGE LIKE IT’S A POTENTIAL CRIME AND SUBJECTING WOMEN TO INTRUSIVE AND HOSTILE LINES OF QUESTIONING. AND EVEN IF YOU DIDN’T INTEND TO END YOUR PREGNANCY, THAT MAY NOT BE ENOUGH TO PROTECT YOU FROM PRISON.

It may seem hard to believe, but that’s exactly what’s happened in El Salvador, where rigid anti-choice laws have led many women to be thrown in jail because the police decided that they were lying when they said they didn’t want to miscarry. Attorney Dennis Munoz Estanley has taken on the cases of 29 separate women who were found guilty of murder or abortion because they miscarried a pregnancy. Of the 29, Estanley says that only one actually induced her own abortion. The rest were just women the police decided must be lying about it.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, ANTI-CHOICERS AREN’T JUST TRYING TO END ACCESS TO LEGAL ABORTION. THEY’RE PUSHING A MODEL OF WHAT THEY THINK WOMANHOOD SHOULD BE: CHASTE, HIGHLY FEMININE, SUBMISSIVE, AND ORIENTED TOWARDS MOTHERHOOD. THAT MEANS ANY WOMAN WHO FAILS TO MEET THOSE IDEALS BY BEING LESS THAN STOKED ABOUT A PREGNANCY OR BY REACTING TO PREGNANCY LOSS IN WAYS THAT THEY DON’T APPROVE OF IS IN VERY REAL DANGER OF FALLING UNDER SUSPICION. AND NOW THAT THE COPS ARE GETTING CALLED ON SOMEONE FOR MISCARRYING IN A BATHROOM, WE’VE GOTTEN ONE STEP CLOSER TO THE ANTI-CHOICE DYSTOPIA.





MISSISSIPPI


http://www.propublica.org/article/stillborn-child-charge-of-murder-and-disputed-case-law-on-fetal-harm

A Stillborn Child, A Charge of Murder and the Disputed Case Law on ‘Fetal Harm’
by Nina Martin
ProPublica,
March 18, 2014

Rennie Gibbs’s daughter, Samiya, was a month premature when she simultaneously entered the world and left it, never taking a breath. To experts who later examined the medical record, the stillborn infant’s most likely cause of death was also the most obvious: the umbilical cord wrapped around her neck.

But within days of Samiya’s delivery in November 2006, Steven Hayne, Mississippi’s de facto medical examiner at the time, came to a different conclusion. Autopsy tests had turned up traces of a cocaine byproduct in Samiya’s blood, and Hayne declared her death a homicide, caused by “cocaine toxicity.”

In early 2007, a Lowndes County grand jury indicted Gibbs, a 16-year-old black teen, for “depraved heart murder” — defined under Mississippi law as an act “eminently dangerous to others…regardless of human life.” By smoking crack during her pregnancy, the indictment said, Gibbs had “unlawfully, willfully, and feloniously” caused the death of her baby. The maximum sentence: life in prison.

Seven years and much legal wrangling later, Gibbs could finally go on trial this spring — part of a wave of “fetal harm” cases across the country in recent years that pit the rights of the mother against what lawmakers, health care workers, prosecutors, judges, jurors, and others view as the rights of the unborn child.

A JUDGE IS SAID TO BE LIKELY TO DECIDE THIS WEEK IF THE CASE SHOULD MOVE FORWARD OR BE DISMISSED. ASSUMING IT CONTINUES, WHETHER GIBBS BECOMES THE FIRST WOMAN EVER CONVICTED BY A MISSISSIPPI JURY FOR THE LOSS OF HER PREGNANCY COULD TURN ON A FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION THAT HAS RECEIVED SURPRISINGLY LITTLE SCRUTINY SO FAR BY THE COURTS: IS THERE SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT COCAINE CAN CAUSE LASTING DAMAGE TO A CHILD EXPOSED IN THE WOMB, OR ARE THE CONCLUSIONS REACHED BY HAYNE AND PROSECUTORS BASED ON FAULTY ANALYSIS AND JUNK SCIENCE?

THE CASE INTERSECTS A NUMBER OF DIVISIVE AND DIFFICULT ISSUES — THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM’S OFTEN DISPROPORTIONATE TREATMENT OF POOR PEOPLE OF COLOR, ESPECIALLY IN DRUG PROSECUTIONS; THE BACKLASH TO ROE V. WADE AND THE CONSERVATIVE PUSH TO ESTABLISH “PERSONHOOD” FOR FETUSES AS PART OF A BROAD-BASED STRATEGY TO WEAKEN ABORTION LAWS. A WILD CARD IN THE CASE — MISSISSIPPI’S HISTORY OF USING SOMETIMES DUBIOUS FORENSIC EVIDENCETO WIN CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS OVER MANY YEARS — COULD END UP PLAYING A CENTRAL ROLE.

Prosecutors argue that the state has a responsibility to protect children from the dangerous actions of their parents. Saying Gibbs should not be tried for murder is like saying that “every drug addict who robs or steals to obtain money for drugs should not be held accountable for their actions because of their addiction,” the state attorney general’s office wrote in a brief to the Mississippi Supreme Court.

BUT SOME CIVIL LIBERTARIANS AND WOMEN’S RIGHTS ADVOCATES WORRY THAT IF GIBBS IS CONVICTED, THE PRECEDENT COULD INSPIRE MORE PROSECUTIONS OF MISSISSIPPI WOMEN AND GIRLS FOR EVERYTHING FROM MISCARRIAGE TO ABORTION — AND THAT AFRICAN AMERICANS, WHO SUFFER TWICE AS MANY STILLBIRTHS AS WHITES, WOULD BE AFFECTED THE MOST.

Mississippi has one of has one of the worst records for maternal and infant health in the U.S., as well as some of the highest rates of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease and among the most restrictive policies on abortion. Many of the factors that have been linked to prenatal and infant mortality — poverty, poor nutrition, lack of access to healthcare, pollution, smoking, stress — are rampant there. 

“It’s tremendously, tremendously frightening, this case,” said Oleta Fitzgerald, southern regional director for the Children’s Defense Fund, an advocacy and research organization, in Jackson. “There’s real fear for young women whose babies are dying early who [lack the resources to] defend themselves and their actions.”

Those who share such worries point to a report last year by the New York­–basedNational Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW) that documented hundreds of cases around the country in which women have been detained, arrested and sometimes convicted — on charges as serious as murder — for doing things while pregnant that authorities viewed as dangerous or harmful to their unborn child.

THE DEFINITION OF FETAL HARM IN SUCH CASES HAS BEEN BROAD: AN INDIANA WOMAN WHO ATTEMPTED SUICIDE WHILE PREGNANT SPENT A YEAR IN JAIL BEFORE MURDER CHARGES WERE DROPPED LAST YEAR; AN IOWA WOMAN WAS ARRESTED AND JAILED AFTER FALLING DOWN THE STAIRS AND SUFFERING A MISCARRIAGE; A NEW JERSEY WOMAN WHO REFUSED TO SIGN A PREAUTHORIZATION FOR A CESAREAN SECTION DIDN’T END UP NEEDING THE OPERATION, YET WAS CHARGED WITH CHILD ENDANGERMENT AND LOST CUSTODY OF HER BABY. BUT THE VAST MAJORITY OF CASES HAVE INVOLVED WOMEN SUSPECTED OF USING ILLEGAL DRUGS. THOSE WOMEN HAVE BEEN DISPROPORTIONATELY YOUNG, LOW-INCOME AND AFRICAN AMERICAN.

 Lynn Paltrow, the executive director of NAPW, said that decisions to arrest and charge women often have political and moral overtones and are mostly based on unproved or discredited notions about the effects of prenatal drug exposure.

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS ESTABLISHED STRINGENT RULES LIMITING THE USE OF UNPROVED SCIENCE IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, BUT THESE OFTEN FALL BY THE WAYSIDE IN FETAL HARM CASES, PALTROW SAID. SHE SAID THAT WOMEN ARE TYPICALLY CONVICTED BASED ON EVIDENCE THAT WOULD BE DEMOLISHED BY LAWYERS WITH THE TIME AND RESOURCES TO EFFECTIVELY REFUTE IT IN COURT – LAWYERS, SAY, FOR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES WHOSE DRUGS ARE CHALLENGED IN COURT AS BEING UNSAFE.

“If a pregnant, drug-using woman were a corporation, her case wouldn’t even get to trial because the rules of evidence require that there be science to prove causation,” Paltrow said.

The quality of the science is very much an issue in the Gibbs case. In a motion to throw out Hayne’s autopsy report, defense lawyers have claimed that that the medical examiner misinterpreted toxicology results and failed to explore alternative causes of death.

Those claims are not the first time Hayne’s work has come under attack. Indeed, Hayne — who effectively served as Mississippi’s statewide medical examiner from the late 1980s to 2008, eventually performing 80 to 90 percent of the autopsies in the state annually — has been a hugely influential and controversial figure in the criminal justice system there for years.

In litigation (much of it by the Mississippi Innocence Project) and news reports (many of them by Radley Balko, now of the Washington Post), defense lawyers and other medical examiners have accused Hayne of being sloppy, exaggerating his credentials, and leaping to conclusions that sometimes had no basis in science. At least four murder convictions based on Hayne’s evidence — one involving an innocent man sentenced to death for the killing of a three-year-old girl — have been overturned since 2007.

Despite having failed to complete his certification test by the American Board of Pathology, Hayne not only practiced for two decades in Mississippi and nearby states, but by his own estimate he performed as many as 1,800 autopsies a year (the National Association of Medical Examiners recommends that a single doctor conduct no more than 250).  Mississippi stopped hiring Hayne in 2008, but he continues to testify in cases that he handled before then.

In their court filing, Gibbs’s lawyers cited a capital murder conviction of a 14-year-old boy that the Mississippi Supreme Court overturned because of what it called "scientifically unfounded" testimony by Hayne. That case involved both the prosecutor and the judge handling the Gibbs prosecution. (To read more about Hayne, go here, here, and here.)

Prosecutors have yet to respond to the filing by Gibbs’s lawyers, and they did not return a telephone call from ProPublica seeking comment. But they have vigorously defended Hayne in other cases where his methods and conclusions have been called into question.

Hayne also didn’t respond to a request for an interview.

Michael V. Cory Jr., a Jackson attorney, represented Hayne in a defamation suit against the Innocence Project, which had criticized his work and record. The national organization paid Hayne $100,000 as part of a settlement in that case. Cory said many of the claims against Hayne are unfounded.

“Given the number of autopsies he’s performed, there’s certainly going to be some errors,” Cory said in an interview last week. “But a lot of the criticisms don’t turn out to be fair. Just because he’s been criticized in some cases doesn’t mean there’s any inherent unreliability in his findings. Certainly Dr. Hayne would want the truth to come out.”

Gibbs’s lawyers would not provide many specifics about her background or the events leading up to her baby’s death. The records make this much clear: Gibbs, pregnant at 15, tested positive three times for marijuana and or cocaine during her pregnancy. She then missed several doctor’s appointments.

In November 2006, 36 weeks into her pregnancy, Gibbs ended up in the emergency room at Baptist Memorial Hospital in Columbus, where “fetal demise” was diagnosed and labor was induced. A urine test on Gibbs again detected the presence of cocaine and marijuana. By the day after Samiya’s delivery, Hayne had noted that the probable cause of death was homicide.

Gibbs’s lawyers spent the first several years trying to persuade the Mississippi Supreme Court to throw out the murder charge. (Gibbs, now 23, has been out on bail for much of the time.) They filed their motion to exclude Hayne’s testimony last year. 

Expert witnesses hired by the defense claim that the toxicology results didn’t actually support Hayne’s findings. Although Samiya’s blood showed traces of benzoylecgonine, a cocaine byproduct, cocaine itself was “not detected,” according to the lab that did the tests. Kimberly Collins, a forensic pathologist in Atlanta associated with Emory University, said in an affidavit: “It is impossible to conclude from the very small amount of benzoylecgonine that the stillbirth was caused by cocaine toxicity.” Two other defense experts concurred.

The experts maintain that there were other problems with the findings as well. Hayne, they say, did not order tests to rule out infection or fetal abnormality, two common causes of stillbirth. Hayne said that Gibbs’s placenta was normal, but closer examination, the defense experts assert, showed the presence of blood clots — a sign that the baby’s oxygen supply had been cut off. (In a 2011 study by a consortium of researchers around the U.S., 24 percent of stillbirths were caused by blood clots or other placenta abnormalities.)

The experts said cocaine has been linked to one kind of devastating outcome — placenta abruption (when the placenta pulls away from the uterus), which can lead to stillbirth. That was not present in Samiya’s death.

In Gibbs’s case, the evidence pointed to “umbilical cord compression” as the likeliest explanation for Samiya’s death, the defense experts said.

At the same time, Gibbs’s attorneys are challenging the very notion that cocaine exposure in utero causes widespread fetal mortality or serious, long-lasting harm in children. The idea dates back to the 1980s and ‘90s, when the crack epidemic led to fears about a generation of developmentally impaired “crack babies.” And it has gained a kind of credence over the years as OB/GYNs, parenting sites, and many others have urged women to avoid all kinds of substances during pregnancy — everything from tobacco and wine to raw-milk cheese, sushi and hair dye.

But the concerns about cocaine have proven to be “wildly overstated,” said Deborah A. Frank, a pediatrician and researcher at Boston University School of Medicine who has participated in numerous studies on the topic over the past two decades.  

“There is no consistent association between cocaine use during pregnancy and serious fetal harms, birth defects, or serious long-term physical or developmental impairments,” Frank wrote in an affidavit. “There is no convincing evidence that prenatal cocaine exposure is more strongly associated with fetal harm or developmental deficits than exposure to legal substances, like tobacco and alcohol, or many other factors.”

Frank and other researchers said they have been trying to set the record straight for years, but their arguments have rarely had a hearing in court, Paltrow said. Defense lawyers — often public defenders — don’t have the resources to hire experts to challenge prosecutors, and they may not even realize what the science actually says. It’s not unusual for women to plead guilty in such cases to avoid the risk of losing at trial — and getting a longer sentence. (Indeed, at least two mississippi women are believed to have pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the early 2000s, Gibbs' lawyers said.)

“For a whole host of reasons, women should not be prosecuted for this sort of thing,” said Robert McDuff, one of Gibbs’ lawyers. “But if they are going to be, it needs to be based on scientific research and analysis that is more reliable than what we have now.”

Cory, Hayne’s lawyer who also does criminal defense work, acknowledged that, “In the criminal justice system, where the stakes are higher, the resources are not there to challenge the science. The judge, who is the gatekeeper, has to use the information they have. You get some crazy results in criminal cases. Science where there is no consensus gets admitted as if there was consensus.”

Gibbs’ attorneys are hopeful that the judge in their case may yet throw out the depraved-heart murder charge. Meanwhile, one thing the evidence does suggest: “Incarceration or the threat of incarceration have proved to be ineffective in reducing the incidence of alcohol or drug abuse,” the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology’s Committee on Health Care for Underserved Women wrote in 2011.

Moreover, the committee determined, pregnant women who fear the legal system avoid or emotionally disengage from prenatal care — the very thing that might help assure that they give birth to healthy babies.

“Drug enforcement policies that deter women from seeking prenatal care are contrary to the welfare of the mother and fetus,” it said.


For more from ProPublica on sex and gender, read about our Q&A with Columbia University professor Katherine Franke on the historic tension between civil and religious rights or join the conversation on our new Tumblr.





GEORGIA


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/26/georgia-lawmakers-anti-abortion-proposal-punish-women-miscarriages/

Georgia Lawmaker's Anti-Abortion Proposal Could Punish Women for Miscarriages
By Stephen Clark
Published February 26, 2011

A GEORGIA STATE REPRESENTATIVE HAS REINTRODUCED AN ANTI-ABORTION BILL THAT WOULD MAKE MISCARRIAGES A FELONY IF THE MOTHER CANNOT PROVE THERE WAS NO "HUMAN INVOLVEMENT."

THE LEGISLATION FROM REP. BOBBY FRANKLIN, A REPUBLICAN, WOULD MAKE ALL ABORTIONS, DESCRIBED AS "PRENATAL MURDER," ILLEGAL BASED ON THE BELIEF THAT ALL LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION. THE BILL'S DEFINITION OF "PRENATAL MURDER" EXCLUDES MISCARRIAGES "SO LONG AS THERE IS NO HUMAN INVOLVEMENT WHATSOEVER" IN CAUSING THEM. ANYONE CONVICTED WOULD FACE THE DEATH PENALTY OR LIFE BEHIND BARS.

Miscarriages, defined as pregnancies that end on their own within the first 20 weeks, are quite common. As many as 40 percent of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, often before a woman misses a menstrual period or even knows she is pregnant, according to the March of Dimes. About 10 to 15 percent of recognized pregnancies end in a miscarriage, the group found.

It is still unclear what causes miscarriages, but in most cases, it is a sign that the pregnancy is not developing normally.

Franklin's legislation does not clarify what defines human involvement or how this would be enforced.

Franklin did not return a message seeking comment. His voicemail greeting thanks callers for "calling to give me encouragement about sponsorship of HB 1 that recognizes prenatal murder is murder. I'm not able to take that encouragement right now."

His office told FoxNews.com that the "right-to-life" bill is "not as stab at people who miscarriages." Franklin has introduced the bill each session since 2002 but it has never made it out of committee, his office said, adding that it likely never will.

But Franklin's legislation still prompted outrage among women's advocates.

"These proposals do nothing to prevent unintended pregnancies and abortions," Leola Reis, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood Southeast, said in an e-mail to FoxNews.com. "Lawmakers who truly care about women and families should work with Planned Parenthood to increase access to proven prevention initiatives like birth control and sex education."

"This type of initiative in Georgia and the recent attacks on publicly funded contraceptive programs nationally are out of step with the needs of women and families and out of step with American values," she added.






MISSISSIPPI


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/23/mississippi-miscarriages-supreme-court_n_3327974.html

Mississippi Case Could Lead To Prosecution Of Women Who Have Miscarriages
The Huffington Post  |  By Laura Bassett
Posted: 05/23/2013

Mississippi's state Supreme Court is considering a case that could open the door for women who have miscarriages to be prosecuted for manslaughter, Mother Jones reported on Thursday.

The case involves Nina Buckhalter, a woman who gave birth to a stillborn girl in 2009 after she used methamphetamine during her pregnancy. A grand jury in Lamar County, Miss., indicted Buckhalter for manslaughter two months later, claiming that she killed the baby by "culpable negligence."

Buckhalter's attorneys challenged the case, arguing that if Buckhalter can be prosecuted for homicide for using meth during her pregnancy, a pregnant woman could be prosecuted for all kinds of unhealthy behaviors that may or may not lead to the termination of her fetus, including smoking cigarettes or exercising against a doctor's orders. The Mississippi Supreme Court heard Buckhalter's case on April 2 and is expected to rule soon.

"Doctors say women should avoid herbal tea, things like unpasteurized cheese, lunch meats. Exactly what are
the boundaries?" Supreme Court Justice Leslie D. King asked during oral arguments.
Abortion rights advocates have argued that if states are allowed to jail women for stillbirths and miscarriages, that will set the precedent for fetal personhood laws that ban abortion and emergency contraception.

Virginia's Republican candidate for attorney general, state Sen. Mark Obenshain,introduced a bill in 2009 that would require women to report their miscarriages to the police. And an Alabama chemical endangerment law that was written to protect children from exposure to methamphetamine laboratories is being used by prosecutors to put women behind bars if their newborns test positive for drugs.

Buckhalter's defense attorney, Mississippi civil rights lawyer Robert McDuff, told Mother Jones that since the incident in 2009, Buckhalter has completed a drug rehabilitation program and earned an associate's degree at a community college. He said putting her in jail for a stillbirth "is just crazy."






NUMEROUS STATES


http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/07/misc-j06.html

US women charged with murder following miscarriage
By Kate Randall 
6 July 2011

IN A GROWING NUMBER OF US STATES, PREGNANT WOMEN WHO MISCARRY THEIR BABIES ARE BEING CRIMINALIZED, SOME CHARGED WITH MURDER. ULTIMATELY, THE MOVE BY STATE PROSECUTORS IS MORE WIDELY AIMED AT STRIPPING WOMEN OF THE LEGAL RIGHT TO ABORTION SANCTIONED BY THE US SUPREME COURT IN ITS 1971 RULING IN ROE V. WADE.

In 2006 in Mississippi, Rennie Gibbs, who became pregnant at the age of 15, lost her baby in a stillbirth at 36 weeks into the pregnancy. Prosecutors charged her with the “depraved-heart murder” of her child after they discovered she had abused cocaine, although there was no evidence that the baby’s death was connected to the mother’s substance abuse. The murder charge carries a mandatory life sentence.

Some 70 organizations across the US have filed amicus briefs in support of Ms. Gibbs in this ongoing case. In particular, they take aim at the claims by anti-abortion forces that such prosecutions protect mothers and their unborn children. One of the briefs says that to treat “as a murderer a girl who has experienced a stillbirth serves only to increase her suffering.”

Another woman, Bei Bei Shuai, has been imprisoned for the last three months without bail in Indianapolis, Indiana, charged with murdering her baby. According to police records, the 34-year-old woman attempted suicide last December 23 by ingesting rat poison after her boyfriend abandoned her when she was 33 weeks pregnant.

Shuai was rushed to the hospital and survived, giving birth to her baby the next week. The baby died four days later, and in March Shuai was charged with murder and attempted feticide.

Alabama has prosecuted at least 40 cases brought under the state’s “chemical endangerment” law, which was introduced in 2006. The law, purportedly designed to protect children from fumes inhaled from methamphetamine being cooked by their parents, is now being used to criminalize pregnant women who miscarry.

Alabama mother Amanda Kimbrough delivered her baby prematurely in April 2008, and the baby died 19 minutes after birth. Kimbrough learned during her pregnancy that her child possibly suffered from Down’s syndrome, but she chose to carry the child to term.

Six months after the birth, she was arrested and charged with “chemical endangerment” of her unborn child on the grounds that she had taken drugs while pregnant. She denies the claim.

“That shocked me, it really did,” Kimbrough told the Guardian. “I had lost a child, that was enough.” She is now awaiting an appeal ruling in the Alabama courts. If she loses her appeal, she will begin a 10-year prison sentence. “It’s just living one day at a time, looking after my three other kids,” she said. “They say I’m a criminal, how do I answer that? I’m a good mother.”

These women are being victimized after losing their babies, facing charges as steep as murder, despite the fact that abortion is a legally protected right. Civil rights lawyer Robert McDuff, defense attorney for Rennie Gibbs, argued before the Mississippi Supreme Court, “If it’s not a crime for a mother to intentionally end her pregnancy, how can it be a crime for her to do it unintentionally, whether by taking drugs or smoking or whatever it is?”

Mississippi anti-abortion groups are also pushing to amend the state’s constitution through a referendum, widening the definition of a person under the state’s bill of rights to include a fetus from the moment of conception. The obvious aim of such a bill would be to criminalize abortions by prosecuting the doctors who perform them—and the mothers who receive them—as murderers.

At least 38 of the 50 US states have introduced “fetal homicide laws.” Backers of these laws have claimed that they are intended to protect women and their unborn children from attack by an abusive partner or other third parties, but state prosecutors have seized upon the legislation to attack the rights of pregnant mothers.

According to the National Advocates for Pregnant Women, prosecutors in South Carolina, one of the first states to introduce a fetal homicide law, have only charged one man under the legislation, and his case was subsequently dismissed. By contrast, as many as 300 South Carolina women have been arrested for their alleged actions against their unborn children during pregnancy.

WOMAN ACROSS THE COUNTRY ARE BEING INCREASINGLY PROSECUTED FOR THEIR ALLEGED DRUG AND ALCOHOL ABUSE DURING PREGNANCY, WITH CHARGES RANGING FROM MISDEMEANOR COUNTS OF ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD TO CRIMINAL HOMICIDE. ACCORDING TO THE DOMINION POST, AT LEAST TWO WOMEN SO CHARGED HAVE BEEN SENTENCED TO LIFE IN PRISON.

ILLINOIS WAS THE FIRST STATE TO CHARGE A WOMAN WITH MANSLAUGHTER IN CONNECTION WITH A STILLBORN BABY. PROSECUTORS CLAIMED THE BABY DIED AS A RESULT OF HIGH LEVELS OF COCAINE, BUT A GRAND JURY REFUSED TO INDICT. TEXAS, NEW YORK, ARIZONA, HAWAII, UTAH AND CALIFORNIA ARE AMONG THE STATES WITH SIMILAR LAWS ON THE BOOKS.

In Riverside County, California, police authorities have declared prosecutions of mothers addicted to methamphetamine as a “top priority.” Dozens of public health organizations, including the American Public Health Association and the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry, have denounced the prosecutions because they discourage woman not only from seeking substance abuse treatment, but from getting any prenatal care at all.

In Utah, following several high-profile prosecutions in the 1990s of women for substance abuse during pregnancy, state officials saw a sharp drop-off in requests for treatment from drug addicted women. After widespread coverage of the prosecutions, calls to the state health department’s Pregnancy Risk Line fell to almost zero per month.

“Women were showing up at hospitals in droves to deliver babies having had no prenatal care and no substance abuse treatment,” Lynn Martinez, director of the hotline and of the state’s birth defects and genetics program, told the media.

She added, “When asked why they hadn’t sought help, their answers were almost universal: They were worried they would either lose their children or be prosecuted. So suddenly you had a double whammy: babies exposed to drugs and babies not getting prenatal care.”





http://www.personhoodusa.com/blog/pro-aborts-lie-about-investigating-miscarriage/

Pro-aborts lie about investigating miscarriage

Atlee Breland responds to my post where I explain that recognizing that unborn babies are persons will not result in women getting investigated for miscarriages. I point out that women were not investigated for miscarriages when abortion was illegal. Ms. Breland counters:

[Pre-Roe v. Wade] Laws were specifically written to target the person performing the abortion, and often (emphasis added) explicitly excluded pregnant women from prosecution.

She says that abortion laws often excluded the possibility of prosecuting women. But she conveniently ignores that this also means that pre-Roe abortion laws in many states also included such a possibility. Why doesn’t she bring forward the wealth of cases in those states where women were wrongly investigated for miscarriage? Because she doesn’t have any such cases. Even in states where women could get prosecuted for abortion, they were not investigated for miscarriages.

Why is that? As I explained in the earlier post, the tragedy of miscarriage is far too common to provide probable cause or even reasonable suspicion. Ms. Breland agrees that it’s common by mentioning that:

20% of women [] suffer early pregnancy loss

Yet, in her attempt at rebuttal, Ms. Breland completely fails to address the issue of reasonable suspicion. Even if abortion were covered in homicide statutes, this fact wouldn’t suddenly make miscarriage suspicious. Police and prosecutors are well aware of the commonness of miscarriages and will not waste their time harassing women for non-crimes.

But Ms. Breland wants us to forget about the United States as she looks for support of her position in El Salvador.  El Salvador has a ban on prenatal baby-killing much like the state bans that existed prior to Roe v. Wade. You may wonder why Ms. Breland doesn’t look to Ireland where abortion is also illegal. Are women investigated for miscarriages in Ireland? But why go foreign when we can look at the results such bans had here? The history is clear that women were not investigated for miscarriage.

Ms. Breland claims that the John Welden case shows that there will be investigations of miscarriage:

After all, here is a miscarriage which was then investigated to determine whether a crime occurred.

In Welden’s case, there were actual abortion pills, the perpetrator admitted to administering the pills in order to kill the baby and the baby died shortly after the poisoning. Does Ms. Breland really think these facts in any way support her contention that women will be investigated for miscarriage? Run the commercials!

Ms. Breland writes:

John Welden pled guilty to product tampering and mail fraud, rather than to a fetal homicide charge prosecutors feared would be difficult to prove (emphasis added).

She says fetal homicide is difficult to prove – even when the baby dies after the woman has taken an actual abortion pill! Does she think police are unaware of this difficulty? Her statement undercuts her  own argument and, if true, only underscores my case that mothers will not be investigated for miscarriage.

Understandably unsatisfied with the facts surrounding the Welden case, Ms. Breland suggests a hypothetical where a disgruntled husband falsely accuses his wife, after her miscarriage, of having an abortion. Ms. Breland assumes the husband’s word alone would instigate an investigation. I dispute that. Police would be wise to ask the scumbag husband if he has any evidence beyond his mere assertion. But even if we accept Ms. Breland’s claim, for the sake of argument, how does that invalidate a personhood law? Should we get rid of all homicide laws because a husband falsely blames his wife for sudden infant death syndrome or the death of her grandmother? No, we should slam such perjurers with the maximum penalty they were attempting to place on their target.

Just curious, prior to Roe v. Wade, how often did fathers falsely accuse their unborn children’s mothers of abortion? Were there such investigations? Ms. Breland offers nothing.

Next, Ms. Breland makes a disingenuous claim:

Nobody is claiming that personhood would require police investigations for every single miscarriage, just like police don’t get involved when elderly or sick people die in their sleep.

Well that’s a relief. Except it’s not true. When abortion advocates say “women will be investigated for miscarriage” there are only two possible meanings that come across. Either every miscarriage will be investigated or such investigations will be commonplace like speeding tickets. It’s good to see Ms. Breland admit that these are lies. She continues:

However, any questionable circumstances would definitely lead to investigations of SOME miscarriages. Since abortion often looks just like miscarriage, there’s no way to detect and prosecute illegal abortion without also investigating unusual miscarriages.

So, why don’t pro-aborts say “In rare cases, when there are suspicious circumstances, some women will be investigated for miscarriage”? Because the whole point of the scare tactic (outright lie) is to pretend that every miscarriage (or most miscarriages) will be investigated.

It’s disgusting (and all-too-common) for pro-aborts to push their baby-killing agenda by hiding behind the heartbreaking tragedy of miscarriage.

- See more at: http://www.personhoodusa.com/blog/pro-aborts-lie-about-investigating-miscarriage/#sthash.l4GmYe1q.dpuf





COLORADO


http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/10/08/colorados-personhood-amendment-sweeping-approach-ban-abortion/

Is Colorado’s ‘Personhood’ Amendment a Sweeping Approach to Ban Abortion?
by Jason Salzman
October 8, 2014

Colorado voters will decide November 4 whether to expand the definition of a person in the state’s criminal code to include “unborn human beings.”

Backers of Amendment 67 argue that they aren’t aiming to ban abortion in Colorado, and they point out that “fetal homicide” laws in 38 states have yet to result in abortion bans, including laws in 24 states that give legal rights to fetuses at early stages of development.

But in a visit to Colorado during a campaign against the initiative, Lynn Paltrow, director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, told reporters that Colorado’s Amendment 67should not be compared to “fetal homicide” laws in other states because it’s unique among existing state laws in subjecting pregnant women to prosecution for almost any crime on the books.

This is in stark contrast to other state “fetal homicide” laws that amend a small number of statutes, and many that explicitly exempt abortion as a reason for prosecution or exclude pregnant women as perpetrators.

“Amendment 67 is an entire overhaul of the criminal code,” Paltrow said. “That’s every statute.”

Paltrow presented a series of slides during a presentation with the text of common criminal statutes in Colorado: murder, manslaughter, vehicular homicide, reckless endangerment.

She replaced the words “person” or “child” with “unborn human being.”

For example, you commit murder in Colorado if you intend “to cause the death of another person.” If “person” becomes “unborn child,” then abortion becomes murder, Paltrow said.

Paltrow showed a slide of Colorado’s child abuse statute, inserted “unborn human being” into the statute’s wording, and explained how the law, as changed under Amendment 67, could be used to investigate, prosecute, and arrest a pregnant women believed to have put her “unborn child” at risk.

“What they are asking the citizens of Colorado to do is put in place a set of laws that begins by saying, ‘We believe a woman who has an abortion is guilty of first degree murder and deserves either life in prison or the death penalty.’ There are no exceptions.”

“Anything that a woman does that someone later believes she shouldn’t have done becomes evidence of recklessness,” she continued. “Standing on a ladder. Painting your nursery at six-months pregnant and falling off. Skiing while pregnant. Driving without wearing a seat belt. Not obeying a doctor’s advice to get bed rest. Child abuse becomes fertilized-egg abuse.”

Asked if this could happen with Roe v. Wade on the books, Paltrow said, “As long as Roelasts, this particular part of 67 might be considered unconstitutional, but our research has documented that there will be a prosecutor somewhere who, the minute this is passed, will apply the murder statute to a woman who has had an abortion or anybody who has helped her. And then that person will have a right to argue that Roe protects them, but they will be making that argument from a jail cell. Because in most states, if you are charged with the crime of murder, you’re not even entitled to bail. All it takes is one enterprising, election-hungry prosecutor.”

“The only thing that Roe protects is abortion,” Paltrow continued. “It doesn’t protect you against prosecution for still births or miscarriages or accusations of risk and harm, because remember that neglect and child abuse aren’t harm. They are risk of harm. The evidence of risk-of-harm from cigarettes is more than from criminalized drugs. So the prosecutor will start with the least popular women using the most unpopular criminalized drugs.”

Asked for a response to Patrow’s arguments, Jennifer Mason, a spokeswoman for Amendment 67, emailed that she intended to comment, but she never did, after multiple requests.

In an email last month, Mason pointed to existing “fetal homicide” laws in other states and wrote that concerns about abortion being banned under Amendment 67 are a “common talking point for anti-life groups.”

Mason and other proponents refer to the measure as the “Brady Amendment,” referring to the name “Brady” chosen by Heather Surovik for her 8-month-old fetus, destroyed in 2012 by a drunk driver. Surovik survived the crash and talks about the tragedy at press events and legislative hearings.

Surovik has maintained that Amendment 67 is not intended to address abortion in Colorado or to subject pregnant women to prosecution. It’s about justice, she says.

“Who looks at Brady and says he wasn’t a person?” Mason has said.

“The irony is, if this amendment in Brady’s memory succeeded, what Brady’s memory would really be doing is creating a law that could have had his mother arrested even if she’d done absolutely nothing wrong or reckless,” said Paltrow, citing a New York case in which a pregnant woman was convicted of manslaughter of her own child after being in a car accident. “What the Brady Amendment would do is make mothers absolutely vulnerable to arrest themselves.”






USA, PLANNED PARENTHOOD


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/planned-parenthood-funding-_n_2434592.html?1357683076

Marsha Blackburn, Diane Black Offer Dueling Bills To Defund Planned Parenthood
Laura Bassett 
Posted: 01/08/2013

House Republicans are so eager to strip federal family planning funds from Planned Parenthood that two of them have introduced identical bills to do so in the first days of the new Congress.

Tennessee Reps. Marsha Blackburn (R) and Diane Black (R) separately reintroduced a bill during the first two days of the 2013 legislative session that would prohibit Title X family planning grants from being awarded to any organization that performs abortions. The bill, first introduced by former Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) in the 112th Congress, primarily targets Planned Parenthood, which receives about $340 million a year in Title X funds for non-abortion health and family planning services. Both bills amend Pence's original bill to include exceptions for rape, incest and to protect the life of the mother.

Blackburn is Vice Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the committee with jurisdiction over the issue. Since she filed and circulated her bill on Thursday, the first day of the legislative session, more than a half-dozen Republicans have signed on as cosponsors and numerous anti-abortion groups have endorsed it.

Blackburn declared the bill a priority for her committee and vowed to carry on Pence's agenda. “Congressman Pence has been a champion in the fight to protect innocent human life and I hope to continue his leadership in the House,” she said in a statement. "As a woman, I believe America deserves better than abortion."

The day after Blackburn circulated her bill, Black introduced the same bill. One of Black's staffers pointed out to HuffPost that her bill has the same number as Pence's original bill and said that Pence, the governor-elect of Indiana, had specifically given Black his blessing to carry it on. Black's bill has 38 cosponsors and endorsements from all the same organizations that Blackburn's has.

Blackburn says she is not bothered by Black's move. "Stopping taxpayer money from being used to fund big abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood is something both fiscal and social conservatives can agree on," she told The Huffington Post in a statement. "The fact that there are multiple members interested in this issue proves that Planned Parenthood is not going to be let off the hook. We welcome the attention of all members to the subject. It helps build momentum."

She added, "As Vice Chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over this issue, I look forward to working with her to ensure every human life is protected."

A spokesman for Blackburn said she had "offered" to sign on as a co-sponsor to Black's bill in addition to sponsoring her own.

Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards said that that Americans value Planned Parenthood's health services for low-income women and Black and Blackburn "don't get it."

"They apparently learned nothing from the results of the last election, when Americans said overwhelmingly that they do not want politicians dictating women’s access to health care," she said.




UTAH


http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/blogs-main/advocates-blog/1568-utah-defines-some-miscarriages-as-qcriminal-homicideq-


Utah defines some miscarriages as "criminal homicide"

Will Neville, Associate Director eCampaign Strategies


Utah is poised to become the first state in the U.S. to criminalize miscarriage and punish women for having or seeking an illegal abortion.  Utah's "Criminal Miscarriage" law:

expands the definition of illegal abortion to include some miscarriages 
removes immunity protections for women who have or seek illegal abortions 
treats women as presumptive criminals and leaves them open to criminal prosecution

But even among states that punish illegal abortions, this "Criminal Miscarriage" law is unique.  It not only punishes individuals who perform illegal procedures; it punishes women.

I spoke with activists in Salt Lake City this morning to ask how to help out of state.  They all made the exact same request: Tell everyone you know about this law.

National media attention and widespread public outcry are the only way to stop women and girls in Utah from being subjected to this unreasonable and dangerous "Criminal Miscarriage" law.

Utah is not a state known for its legislative sanity.  This, after all, is a state that recently made headlines for proposing to honor gun manufacturers on Martin Luther King Day and for considering the elimination of 12th grade to cut back on education spending.
Well, it just got a whole lot worse.

How Utah Defined Miscarriage as Criminal Homicide

Utah's "Criminal Miscarriage" law (H.B. 12) makes simple changes to the state's definition of "abortion" and the section of the Utah Criminal Code governing "criminal homicide."

This law:
defines legal abortion as a procedure "carried out by a physician or through a substance used under the direction of a physician."  Anything else that terminates a pregnancy is now defined as illegal abortion - including miscarriages. 

- states that "The killing or attempted killing of a live unborn child in a manner that is not abortion shall be punished as...criminal homicide." (emphasis mine) 

- removes existing immunity from criminal prosecution for women "who seek to have or obtain an abortion" or "upon whom a partial birth abortion is performed." 

- applies the legal standard of an "intentional, knowing or reckless act of the woman" as punishable as criminal homicide.

Translation: If a woman has a miscarriage but didn't know that she was pregnant, she cannot be charged with criminal homicide.  So while this law does not criminalize allmiscarriages, anything that could be defined as "knowing" or "reckless" would leave a woman at risk for criminal prosecution.

Think it couldn't possibly be that bad? The ACLU of Utah is pretty sure that it could.  In their letter appealing to Utah Governor Gary Herbert to veto the bill (Spoiler: He won't!), the ACLU said:

Practically speaking however, this bill changes the presumption that abortions obtained in this state are legal. If this bill is signed into law, women in this state will essentially be in the uncomfortable and unfortunate position of having to prove that abortions they obtain (or miscarriages that they suffer) are not unlawful. 

In fact, it's the "recklessness" standard that may pose the greatest threat. Again, from the ACLU:

A woman who fails to wear a seatbelt and is in a car accident could be charged with reckless homicide, should she miscarry.  Likewise, a woman who has a substance abuse problem is likely to forego necessary prenatal care out of fear that she could be prosecuted for "knowing" or "reckless" homicide by continuing to use illegal substances while pregnant. 

The problems don't stop there.  Women in physically abusive relationships could be criminally liable for not leaving their partner, regardless of their ability to do so safely or securely. Women seeking lawful abortion may be guilty of criminal homicide if her physician failed to follow exact procedures set forth in the law.

For a law designed to discourage illegal abortion, Utah's "Criminal Miscarriage" law will only drive abortion further underground for those who cannot safely seek or afford legal medical abortion care.

I grew up in Salt Lake City, so it takes a lot for Utah to surprise me anymore.  This time there aren't even words for my outrage.

Prosecuting women who seek or obtain abortions for criminal homicide won't make abortion go away - it will only make abortion dangerous and put women's lives at risk.  This law was designed to punish women who would consider having an abortion.  There is simply no other way to look at it.

Speak Out. Fight Back.

Utah's "Criminal Miscarriage" Law passed the Utah House and Senate by overwhelming majorities.  Seriously overwhelming.  The votes were 59-12 and 24-4, respectively, meaning that even if Gov. Herbert were to veto the bill (he won't) the legislature could easily override his veto.

Just in case that wasn't enough, the bill's authors included a provision that with 2/3 members already voting for the bill, the "Criminal Miscarriage" Law would go into effect even if Gov. Herbert doesn't sign the bill into law.

The Utah Planned Parenthood Action Council, the ACLU of Utah, and their allies have been fighting this fight every step of the way.  They succeeded in getting the legislature to drop the much lower legal standard of "negligence," and in light of such overwhelming opposition that success is simply heroic.

So what do we do now?

Utah conservatives love to legislate their twisted version of morality -- but they hate it when the rest of the country calls them out on their bigotry. So that's exactly what we need to do.

More than anything, Utah wants to be liked.  After decades being seen as a backwards, intolerant state, we desperately want to be accepted into the political and cultural mainstream. They hate it when the state itself becomes a national joke.

This is all about PR. The state legislature backed off their proposal to eliminate 12th grade when it was ridiculed in the national press. Dropping a year from high school led to "perception problems" - because of The Onion! - but national media has been silent when the state enacts one of the most dangerous abortion laws in U.S. history.  That silence ends right now.

It's time for everyone to hear about Utah's "Criminal Miscarriage" law.  The media must to cover it.  We must  to start conversations all across the country about what this means for women and girls in Utah - and what this precedent means if (or, more likely, when) other states follow suit. (A similar case in Iowa should be all the warning we need.) 

So please... Recommend this diary. Post this on Facebook. Tweet it. Forward it to five friends.  And ask them all to do the same.
If we turn a blind eye towards Utah's "Criminal Miscarriage" law, their shame will belong to all of us.
Crossposted on Amplify




INDIANA, MISSISSIPPI


http://www.propublica.org/article/stillborn-child-charge-of-murder-and-disputed-case-law-on-fetal-harm

A Stillborn Child, A Charge of Murder and the Disputed Case Law on ‘Fetal Harm’
by Nina Martin
ProPublica, March 18, 2014

Rennie Gibbs, a 16 year old in Mississippi when she gave birth to a stillborn child, is facing life in prison for taking cocaine during her pregnancy. Hers is among a burgeoning number of cases in which women are prosecuted for allegedly endangering their unborn children.

Rennie Gibbs’s daughter, Samiya, was a month premature when she simultaneously entered the world and left it, never taking a breath. To experts who later examined the medical record, the stillborn infant’s most likely cause of death was also the most obvious: the umbilical cord wrapped around her neck.

But within days of Samiya’s delivery in November 2006, Steven Hayne, Mississippi’s de facto medical examiner at the time, came to a different conclusion. Autopsy tests had turned up traces of a cocaine byproduct in Samiya’s blood, and Hayne declared her death a homicide, caused by “cocaine toxicity.”

In early 2007, a Lowndes County grand jury indicted Gibbs, a 16-year-old black teen, for “depraved heart murder” — defined under Mississippi law as an act “eminently dangerous to others…regardless of human life.” By smoking crack during her pregnancy, the indictment said, Gibbs had “unlawfully, willfully, and feloniously” caused the death of her baby. The maximum sentence: life in prison.

Seven years and much legal wrangling later, Gibbs could finally go on trial this spring — part of a wave of “fetal harm” cases across the country in recent years that pit the rights of the mother against what lawmakers, health care workers, prosecutors, judges, jurors, and others view as the rights of the unborn child.

A judge is said to be likely to decide this week if the case should move forward or be dismissed. Assuming it continues, whether Gibbs becomes the first woman ever convicted by a Mississippi jury for the loss of her pregnancy could turn on a fundamental question that has received surprisingly little scrutiny so far by the courts: Is there scientific proof that cocaine can cause lasting damage to a child exposed in the womb, or are the conclusions reached by Hayne and prosecutors based on faulty analysis and junk science?

The case intersects a number of divisive and difficult issues — the criminal justice system’s often disproportionate treatment of poor people of color, especially in drug prosecutions; the backlash to Roe v. Wade and the conservative push to establish “personhood” for fetuses as part of a broad-based strategy to weaken abortion laws. A wild card in the case — Mississippi’s history of using sometimes dubious forensic evidenceto win criminal convictions over many years — could end up playing a central role.

Prosecutors argue that the state has a responsibility to protect children from the dangerous actions of their parents. Saying Gibbs should not be tried for murder is like saying that “every drug addict who robs or steals to obtain money for drugs should not be held accountable for their actions because of their addiction,” the state attorney general’s office wrote in a brief to the Mississippi Supreme Court.

But some civil libertarians and women’s rights advocates worry that if Gibbs is convicted, the precedent could inspire more prosecutions of Mississippi women and girls for everything from miscarriage to abortion — and that African Americans, who suffer twice as many stillbirths as whites, would be affected the most.

Mississippi has one of has one of the worst records for maternal and infant health in the U.S., as well as some of the highest rates of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease and among the most restrictive policies on abortion. Many of the factors that have been linked to prenatal and infant mortality — poverty, poor nutrition, lack of access to healthcare, pollution, smoking, stress — are rampant there. 

“It’s tremendously, tremendously frightening, this case,” said Oleta Fitzgerald, southern regional director for the Children’s Defense Fund, an advocacy and research organization, in Jackson. “There’s real fear for young women whose babies are dying early who [lack the resources to] defend themselves and their actions.”

Those who share such worries point to a report last year by the New York­–basedNational Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW) that documented hundreds of cases around the country in which women have been detained, arrested and sometimes convicted — on charges as serious as murder — for doing things while pregnant that authorities viewed as dangerous or harmful to their unborn child.

The definition of fetal harm in such cases has been broad: An Indiana woman who attempted suicide while pregnant spent a year in jail before murder charges were dropped last year; an Iowa woman was arrested and jailed after falling down the stairs and suffering a miscarriage; a New Jersey woman who refused to sign a preauthorization for a cesarean section didn’t end up needing the operation, yet was charged with child endangerment and lost custody of her baby. But the vast majority of cases have involved women suspected of using illegal drugs. Those women have been disproportionately young, low-income and African American.

 Lynn Paltrow, the executive director of NAPW, said that decisions to arrest and charge women often have political and moral overtones and are mostly based on unproved or discredited notions about the effects of prenatal drug exposure.

The U.S. Supreme Court has established stringent rules limiting the use of unproved science in legal proceedings, but these often fall by the wayside in fetal harm cases, Paltrow said. She said that women are typically convicted based on evidence that would be demolished by lawyers with the time and resources to effectively refute it in court – lawyers, say, for pharmaceutical companies whose drugs are challenged in court as being unsafe.

“If a pregnant, drug-using woman were a corporation, her case wouldn’t even get to trial because the rules of evidence require that there be science to prove causation,” Paltrow said.

The quality of the science is very much an issue in the Gibbs case.In a motion to throw out Hayne’s autopsy report, defense lawyers have claimed that that the medical examiner misinterpreted toxicology results and failed to explore alternative causes of death.

Those claims are not the first time Hayne’s work has come under attack. Indeed, Hayne — who effectively served as Mississippi’s statewide medical examiner from the late 1980s to 2008, eventually performing 80 to 90 percent of the autopsies in the state annually — has been a hugely influential and controversial figure in the criminal justice system there for years.

In litigation (much of it by the Mississippi Innocence Project) and news reports (many of them by Radley Balko, now of the Washington Post), defense lawyers and other medical examiners have accused Hayne of being sloppy, exaggerating his credentials, and leaping to conclusions that sometimes had no basis in science. At least four murder convictions based on Hayne’s evidence — one involving an innocent man sentenced to death for the killing of a three-year-old girl — have been overturned since 2007.

Despite having failed to complete his certification test by the American Board of Pathology, Hayne not only practiced for two decades in Mississippi and nearby states, but by his own estimate he performed as many as 1,800 autopsies a year (the National Association of Medical Examiners recommends that a single doctor conduct no more than 250).  Mississippi stopped hiring Hayne in 2008, but he continues to testify in cases that he handled before then.

In their court filing, Gibbs’s lawyers cited a capital murder conviction of a 14-year-old boy that the Mississippi Supreme Court overturned because of what it called "scientifically unfounded" testimony by Hayne. That case involved both the prosecutor and the judge handling the Gibbs prosecution. (To read more about Hayne, go here, here, and here.)

Prosecutors have yet to respond to the filing by Gibbs’s lawyers, and they did not return a telephone call from ProPublica seeking comment. But they have vigorously defended Hayne in other cases where his methods and conclusions have been called into question.

Hayne also didn’t respond to a request for an interview.

Michael V. Cory Jr., a Jackson attorney, represented Hayne in a defamation suit against the Innocence Project, which had criticized his work and record. The national organization paid Hayne $100,000 as part of a settlement in that case. Cory said many of the claims against Hayne are unfounded.

“Given the number of autopsies he’s performed, there’s certainly going to be some errors,” Cory said in an interview last week. “But a lot of the criticisms don’t turn out to be fair. Just because he’s been criticized in some cases doesn’t mean there’s any inherent unreliability in his findings. Certainly Dr. Hayne would want the truth to come out.”

Gibbs’s lawyers would not provide many specifics about her background or the events leading up to her baby’s death. The records make this much clear: Gibbs, pregnant at 15, tested positive three times for marijuana and or cocaine during her pregnancy. She then missed several doctor’s appointments.

In November 2006, 36 weeks into her pregnancy, Gibbs ended up in the emergency room at Baptist Memorial Hospital in Columbus, where “fetal demise” was diagnosed and labor was induced. A urine test on Gibbs again detected the presence of cocaine and marijuana. By the day after Samiya’s delivery, Hayne had noted that the probable cause of death was homicide.

Gibbs’s lawyers spent the first several years trying to persuade the Mississippi Supreme Court to throw out the murder charge. (Gibbs, now 23, has been out on bail for much of the time.) They filed their motion to exclude Hayne’s testimony last year. 

Expert witnesses hired by the defense claim that the toxicology results didn’t actually support Hayne’s findings. Although Samiya’s blood showed traces of benzoylecgonine, a cocaine byproduct, cocaine itself was “not detected,” according to the lab that did the tests. Kimberly Collins, a forensic pathologist in Atlanta associated with Emory University, said in an affidavit: “It is impossible to conclude from the very small amount of benzoylecgonine that the stillbirth was caused by cocaine toxicity.” Two other defense experts concurred.

The experts maintain that there were other problems with the findings as well. Hayne, they say, did not order tests to rule out infection or fetal abnormality, two common causes of stillbirth. Hayne said that Gibbs’s placenta was normal, but closer examination, the defense experts assert, showed the presence of blood clots — a sign that the baby’s oxygen supply had been cut off. (In a 2011 study by a consortium of researchers around the U.S., 24 percent of stillbirths were caused by blood clots or other placenta abnormalities.)

The experts said cocaine has been linked to one kind of devastating outcome — placenta abruption (when the placenta pulls away from the uterus), which can lead to stillbirth. That was not present in Samiya’s death.

In Gibbs’s case, the evidence pointed to “umbilical cord compression” as the likeliest explanation for Samiya’s death, the defense experts said.

At the same time, Gibbs’s attorneys are challenging the very notion that cocaine exposure in utero causes widespread fetal mortality or serious, long-lasting harm in children. The idea dates back to the 1980s and ‘90s, when the crack epidemic led to fears about a generation of developmentally impaired “crack babies.” And it has gained a kind of credence over the years as OB/GYNs, parenting sites, and many others have urged women to avoid all kinds of substances during pregnancy — everything from tobacco and wine to raw-milk cheese, sushi and hair dye.

But the concerns about cocaine have proven to be “wildly overstated,” said Deborah A. Frank, a pediatrician and researcher at Boston University School of Medicine who has participated in numerous studies on the topic over the past two decades.  

“There is no consistent association between cocaine use during pregnancy and serious fetal harms, birth defects, or serious long-term physical or developmental impairments,” Frank wrote in an affidavit. “There is no convincing evidence that prenatal cocaine exposure is more strongly associated with fetal harm or developmental deficits than exposure to legal substances, like tobacco and alcohol, or many other factors.”

Frank and other researchers said they have been trying to set the record straight for years, but their arguments have rarely had a hearing in court, Paltrow said. Defense lawyers — often public defenders — don’t have the resources to hire experts to challenge prosecutors, and they may not even realize what the science actually says. It’s not unusual for women to plead guilty in such cases to avoid the risk of losing at trial — and getting a longer sentence. (Indeed, at least two mississippi women are believed to have pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the early 2000s, Gibbs' lawyers said.)

“For a whole host of reasons, women should not be prosecuted for this sort of thing,” said Robert McDuff, one of Gibbs’ lawyers. “But if they are going to be, it needs to be based on scientific research and analysis that is more reliable than what we have now.”

Cory, Hayne’s lawyer who also does criminal defense work, acknowledged that, “In the criminal justice system, where the stakes are higher, the resources are not there to challenge the science. The judge, who is the gatekeeper, has to use the information they have. You get some crazy results in criminal cases. Science where there is no consensus gets admitted as if there was consensus.”

Gibbs’ attorneys are hopeful that the judge in their case may yet throw out the depraved-heart murder charge. Meanwhile, one thing the evidence does suggest: “Incarceration or the threat of incarceration have proved to be ineffective in reducing the incidence of alcohol or drug abuse,” the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology’s Committee on Health Care for Underserved Women wrote in 2011.

Moreover, the committee determined, pregnant women who fear the legal system avoid or emotionally disengage from prenatal care — the very thing that might help assure that they give birth to healthy babies.

“Drug enforcement policies that deter women from seeking prenatal care are contrary to the welfare of the mother and fetus,” it said.

For more from ProPublica on sex and gender, read about our Q&A with Columbia University professor Katherine Franke on the historic tension between civil and religious rights or join the conversation on our new Tumblr.





KANSAS


http://www.projectcensored.org/reporting-miscarriages-criminalizing-pregnant-womens-bodies-2/

Reporting Miscarriages, Criminalizing Pregnant Women’s Bodies
May 30, 2014

A proposed bill in Kansas would require women to report miscarriages at any stage in pregnancy. This has been described as the first step along the path to criminalizing pregnant women’s bodies. Under an amendment attached to HB 2613, doctors would be required to report all of their patients’ miscarriages to the state health department. This amendment was originally intended to update the state’s procedure for issuing birth certificates for stillborn babies.

The initial purpose of the HB 2613 was to provide an alternative to the state’s current stillbirth certificate. Some parents already believe this over-emphasizes their child’s death in a way that is emotionally painful. Senator Mary Pilcher-Cook, who happens to be one of the most enthusiastic abortion opponents in Kansas, added the miscarriage reporting requirement. The bill’s original author is now withdrawing his support from his own legislation. Kansas representative John Doll says, “I can’t support the bill as it was amended, I think it waters it down and makes it into a political statement. I wanted a bill to help give closure to some families. I didn’t want it to have anything to do with pro-life or pro-choice issues.”

Allegedly, hundreds of cases of women have been held criminally liable for decisions they made while pregnant when they later suffered a miscarriage or stillbirth. This bill risks criminalizing pregnant women’s bodies rather than to provide closure for women who have miscarried. Unfortunately, no mainstream media sources are covering the story. Does this also reflect an anti-abortion stance of the mainstream media itself?

Student Researcher: Alandra Brown, Indian River State College
Faculty Evaluator: Elliot D. Cohen, Ph.D., Indian River State College
Culp-Ressler, Terra. “Kansas May Force Doctors To Report Women’s Miscarriages To The State Health Department.” thinkprogress.org. N.p., 24 Mar. 2014. Web. 29 Mar.2014
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/03/24/3418085/kansas-miscarriage-reporting/

ETHICS ALERT

A miscarriage is the loss of a fetus before the 20th week of pregnancy. The medical term for a miscarriage is spontaneous abortion, but the condition is not an abortion in the common definition of the term. The causes of miscarriage are not well understood. Most miscarriages that occur in the first trimester are caused by chromosomal abnormalities in the baby. Most chromosomal problems occur by chance and are not related to the mother’s or father’s health.

Miscarriages are also caused by a variety of other factors including; smoking, drinking alcohol, using illegal drugs, and/or exposure to environmental and workplace hazards such as high levels of radiation or toxic agents.

A miscarriage can be an extremely painful experience for a woman, both physically and emotionally. Requiring women, who have suffered a miscarriage, to report these traumatic events to state health officials raises an ethical issue. Not only would this requirement criminalize pregnant women, it could also over emphasize the child’s death, and it can be an invasion of women’s privacy.

As stated in the article, making these additional regulations related to the death of an unborn child threatens to turn pregnant women into suspects in the eyes of the law. The National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW) have documented many cases where women have been held criminally responsible for the decisions that they made while pregnant when they have suffered a miscarriage. Also, the Anti-abortion advocates tend to put pressure on states to increase the criminal penalties for actions that would result in the loss of a pregnancy.

Basically, if women are required to report their miscarriages, this could put them under legal pressure. Once they report their miscarriage, state health officials will most likely try to determine the cause of the miscarriage. If they suspect that the miscarriage took place because of the mother’s actions, they are subject to put her under investigation. A lot of miscarriages are deemed unexplainable and they are most certainly unexpected. The death of the unborn child may or may not have been intentional, however, usually it is unintentional. Should a woman who is grieving over the loss of her unborn infant have to deal with being penalized for their own child’s death?

Having to report miscarriages may also emphasize the child’s death. When women have miscarriages, they will often spiral down into a depression. Dealing with the loss of an unborn child is seemingly hard enough to deal with. Forcing these women to go down and report these tragic events might only prove to be a painful reminder of what has happened. However, others may disagree. Some believe the purpose of this bill is to provide closure for families and to treat the fetus as a human being. Also, it is said that the establishment of this bill will discourage abortion and eventually make it illegal.

Elizabeth Nash, the states issue manager for the Guttmacher Institute, states that, “The whole point is to further the idea of the fetus as a person. It’s a way of establishing the groundwork for making abortion harder to get, and eventually illegal.”

This new bill in Kansas also brings up another issue with women’s privacy. Women who have suffered a miscarriage probably would not want to share something like that with everyone. Requiring women to report their miscarriages and stillbirths could be infringements upon their confidentiality.

From a utilitarian perspective, this bill going into effect would prove to be highly unethical. Utilitarianism describes an act to be justified, or ethical, when it can maximize overall happiness. However, the creation of this bill may not increase happiness. It has seemingly caused an outrage among many women. While there are some who agree with this bill, mainly anti-abortionists, the majority of the population in Kansas disagrees and finds the bill intrusive and absurd.

The original creator of this bill has questionable motives. This lawmaker has also attempted to outlaw surrogacy, weaken the state’s sex education requirements, levy a sales tax on abortion procedures, and prevent the state’s abortion restrictions from including exceptions for rape and incest. In other words, people are not surprised that she’s turning her attention to a state law to regulate women’s miscarriages.





UTAH


http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2010/02/20/utah-bill-criminalizes-miscarriage/

Utah Bill Criminalizes Miscarriage
by Rachel Larris
February 20, 2010

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.’"

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.
To schedule an interview with Rachel Larris contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.
Tagged: "Fetal Homicide", Utah  


READER COMMENTS

kiruchan • 5 years ago
As a woman in Utah, I am outraged and disgusted by this law.  This is not about protecting innocent babies or a fetus or anything else along those lines.  This is about the subjugation and control of women.  Women SHOULD have every right to have control over their own bodies.  This is a reproductive rights issue.  Women deserve all the civil rights men enjoy-including the right to enjoy sex.  But that's an arguement for another time.

This state is extremely misogynistic and patriarchal and I am worried about raising my daughter in this environment.  This law is simply another way for rich, white, "Christian" men to control their women.  It is sick.  It is degrading.  It is wrong.  The majority of the men in positions of political power in Utah have long held the belief that God has given them the power to rule.  I am strongly reminded of Henry VIII beheading his queens for not giving him male heirs.  The civil rights movement in this state has just stepped back hundreds of years.  This is a symptom of poisonous attitude toward women in this Utah culture.

crowepps • 5 years ago
Although actually, it does sound a lot like some theological positions I've heard - "Well, the woman wouldn't die from pregnancy complications unless it was part of God's plan.  Everybody ought to just pray harder." 

Fun Fact: Did you know that the religious authorities were adamently opposed to the invention of the lightning rod on the basis that "Thunder and lightning were considered tokens of God's displeasure. It was considered impious to prevent their doing damage."






SOUTH DAKOTA, GEORGIA


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/23/antiabortion-georgia-lawm_n_827340.html

Anti-Abortion Georgia Lawmaker Proposes Law That Would Criminalize Miscarriages
Jason Linkins
Posted: 02/23/2011

Are lawmakers from the "women are chattel" set having some sort of nation-wide competition to see who can get the most sick-minded anti-abortion law enacted? Sure seems that way! Last week, a public outcry forced South Dakota lawmakers to shelve a bill that opened the possibility that abortion providers would be endangered by people who believed that killing them was a justifiable homicide. Today comes word that Georgia state Representative Bobby Franklin is shopping a bill that wouldn't just make abortion illegal in Georgia, it would criminalize miscarriages to boot.

Jen Phillips of Mother Jones -- which has of late been America's premier harbinger of this sort of cockamamie legislation -- has the details of a law that she terms "the apex...of woman-hating craziness":

I doubt that a bill that makes a legal medical procedure liable for the death penalty will pass.

Oh, wait, sorry! Did I forget to mention that the death penalty is involved here? My bad. That's precisely the sort of thing that you read about and do not want to believe it so fervently that, at first, your brain rejects it outright, as if it were some alien tissue grafted onto your medulla oblongata. Here's the relevant portion of the law itself:

'Prenatal murder' means the intentional removal of a fetus from a woman with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus; provided, however, that if a physician makes a medically justified effort to save the lives of both the mother and the fetus and the fetus does not survive, such action shall not be prenatal murder. Such term does not include a naturally occurring expulsion of a fetus known medically as a 'spontaneous abortion' and popularly as a 'miscarriage' so long as there is no human involvement whatsoever in the causation of such event.

(c) The act of prenatal murder is contrary to the health and well-being of the citizens of this state and to the state itself and is illegal in this state in all instances.

(d) Any person committing prenatal murder in this state shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, shall be punished as provided in subsection (d) of Code Section 16-5-1.

And it's subsection (d) of Code Section 16-5-1 that explicitly puts the death penalty on the table. Here's the statute:

TITLE 16. CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 5. CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON
ARTICLE 1. HOMICIDE
O.C.G.A. § 16-5-1 (2006)
§ 16-5-1. Murder; felony murder

(a) A person commits the offense of murder when he unlawfully and with malice aforethought, either express or implied, causes the death of another human being.

(b) Express malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take the life of another human being which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof. Malice shall be implied where no considerable provocation appears and where all the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.

(c) A person also commits the offense of murder when, in the commission of a felony, he causes the death of another human being irrespective of malice.

(d) A person convicted of the offense of murder shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for life.

Okay, let's go back to Phillips:

The bill, however, shows an astonishing lack of concern for women's health and well-being. Under Rep. Franklin's bill, HB 1, women who miscarry could become felons if they cannot prove that there was "no human involvement whatsoever in the causation" of their miscarriage. There is no clarification of what "human involvement" means, and this is hugely problematic as medical doctors do not know exactly what causes miscarriages. Miscarriages are estimated to terminate up to a quarter of all pregnancies and the Mayo Clinic says that "the actual number is probably much higher because many miscarriages occur so early in pregnancy that a woman doesn't even know she's pregnant. Most miscarriages occur because the fetus isn't developing normally."

As Phillips points out, the law also basically radically redefines personhood back to the zygote stage. So remember, in America, the optimal way of exercising your legal rights as a "person," it is best that you go straight from the womb to being a multimillion dollar, rent-seeking corporation.

(Just to review, the way this game is played is that a legislator will conceive of an absolutely insane anti-woman law, stoke outrage, then make a big show of relenting on the crazy part of the law in order to get what they want -- making abortion illegal -- enacted. They will then aver that this is the result of "negotiations" in which "all sides" have been "heard out" resulting in a "compromise.")

RELATED:
Ga. Law Could Give Death Penalty for Miscarriages [Mother Jones]




MISSISSIPPI


http://www.alternet.org/story/151508/15-year-old_girl_faces_life_in_prison_for_a_miscarriage_why_conservatives_are_criminalizing_pregnant_women

15-Year-Old Girl Faces Life in Prison for a Miscarriage? Why Conservatives Are Criminalizing Pregnant Women
By Ed Pilkington / The Guardian
July 4, 2011

The creeping criminalization of pregnant women is a new front in the culture wars over abortion.

Rennie Gibbs is accused of murder, but the crime she is alleged to have committed does not sound like an ordinary killing. Yet she faces life in prison in Mississippi over the death of her unborn child.

Gibbs became pregnant aged 15, but lost the baby in December 2006 in a stillbirth when she was 36 weeks into the pregnancy. When prosecutors discovered that she had a cocaine habit – though there is no evidence that drug abuse had anything to do with the baby's death – they charged her with the "depraved-heart murder" of her child, which carries a mandatory life sentence.
 
Gibbs is the first woman in Mississippi to be charged with murder relating to the loss of her unborn baby. But her case is by no means isolated. Across the US more and more prosecutions are being brought that seek to turn pregnant women into criminals.
 
"Women are being stripped of their constitutional personhood and subjected to truly cruel laws," said Lynn Paltrow of the campaignNational Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW). "It's turning pregnant women into a different class of person and removing them of their rights."
 
Bei Bei Shuai, 34, has spent the past three months in a prison cell in Indianapolis charged with murdering her baby. On 23 December she tried to commit suicide by taking rat poison after her boyfriend abandoned her.
 
Shuai was rushed to hospital and survived, but she was 33 weeks pregnant and her baby, to whom she gave birth a week after the suicide attempt and whom she called Angel, died after four days. In March Shuai was charged with murder and attempted foeticide and she has been in custody since without the offer of bail.
 
In Alabama at least 40 cases have been brought under the state's "chemical endangerment" law. Introduced in 2006, the statute was designed to protect children whose parents were cooking methamphetamine in the home and thus putting their children at risk from inhaling the fumes.
 
Amanda Kimbrough is one of the women who have been ensnared as a result of the law being applied in a wholly different way. During her pregnancy her fetus was diagnosed with possible Down's syndrome and doctors suggested she consider a termination, which Kimbrough declined as she is not in favour of abortion.
 
The baby was delivered by caesarean section prematurely in April 2008 and died 19 minutes after birth.
 
Six months later Kimbrough was arrested at home and charged with "chemical endangerment" of her unborn child on the grounds that she had taken drugs during the pregnancy – a claim she has denied.
 
"That shocked me, it really did," Kimbrough said. "I had lost a child, that was enough."
 
She now awaits an appeal ruling from the higher courts in Alabama, which if she loses will see her begin a 10-year sentence behind bars. "I'm just living one day at a time, looking after my three other kids," she said. "They say I'm a criminal, how do I answer that? I'm a good mother."
 
Women's rights campaigners see the creeping criminalization of pregnant women as a new front in the culture wars over abortion, in which conservative prosecutors are chipping away at hard-won freedoms by stretching protection laws to include foetuses, in some cases from the day of conception. In Gibbs' case defence lawyers have argued before Mississippi's highest court that her prosecution makes no sense. Under Mississippi law it is a crime for any person except the mother to try to cause an abortion.
 
"If it's not a crime for a mother to intentionally end her pregnancy, how can it be a crime for her to do it unintentionally, whether by taking drugs or smoking or whatever it is," Robert McDuff, a civil rights lawyer asked the state supreme court.
 
McDuff told the Guardian that he hoped the Gibbs prosecution was an isolated example. "I hope it's not a trend that's going to catch on. To charge a woman with murder because of something she did during pregnancy is really unprecedented and quite extreme."
 
He pointed out that anti-abortion groups were trying to amend the Mississippi constitution by setting up a state referendum, or ballot initiative, that would widen the definition of a person under the state's bill of rights to include a fetus from the day of conception.
 
Some 70 organisations across America have come together to file testimonies, known as amicus briefs, in support of Gibbs that protest against her treatment on several levels. One says that to treat "as a murderer a girl who has experienced a stillbirth serves only to increase her suffering".
 
Another, from a group of psychologists, laments the misunderstanding of addiction that lies behind the indictment. Gibbs did not take cocaine because she had a "depraved heart" or to "harm the fetus but to satisfy an acute psychological and physical need for that particular substance", says the brief.
 
Perhaps the most persuasive argument put forward in the amicus briefs is that if such prosecutions were designed to protect the unborn child, then they would be utterly counter-productive: "Prosecuting women and girls for continuing [a pregnancy] to term despite a drug addiction encourages them to terminate wanted pregnancies to avoid criminal penalties. The state could not have intended this result when it adopted the homicide statute."
 
Paltrow sees what is happening to Gibbs as a small taste of what would be unleashed were the constitutional right to an abortion ever overturned. "In Mississippi the use of the murder statute is creating a whole new legal standard that makes women accountable for the outcome of their pregnancies and threatens them with life imprisonment for murder."
 
From protection to punishment
At least 38 of the 50 states across America have introduced fetal homicide laws that were intended to protect pregnant women and their unborn children from violent attacks by third parties – usually abusive male partners – but are increasingly being turned by renegade prosecutors against the women themselves.
 
South Carolina was one of the first states to introduce such a foetal homicide law. National Advocates for Pregnant Women has found only one case of a South Carolina man who assaulted a pregnant woman having been charged under its terms, and his conviction was eventually overturned. Yet the group estimates there have been up to 300 women arrested for their actions during pregnancy.
 
In other states laws designed to protect children against the damaging effects of drugs have similarly been twisted to punish childbearers.



GEORGIA


http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/02/miscarriage-death-penalty-georgia

Ga. Law Could Give Death Penalty for Miscarriages
By Jen Quraishi
| Wed Feb. 23, 2011

It's only February, but this year has been a tough one for women's health and reproductive rights. There's a new bill on the block that may have reached the apex (I hope) of woman-hating craziness. Georgia State Rep. Bobby Franklin—who last year proposed making rape and domestic violence "victims" into "accusers"—has introduced a 10-page bill that would criminalize miscarriages and make abortion in Georgia completely illegal. Both miscarriages and abortions would be potentiallypunishable by death: any "prenatal murder" in the words of the bill, including "human involvement" in a miscarriage, would be a felony and carry a penalty of life in prison or death. Basically, it's everything an "pro-life" activist could want aside from making all women who've had abortions wear big red "A"s on their chests.

I doubt that a bill that makes a legal medical procedure liable for the death penalty will pass. The bill, however, shows an astonishing lack of concern for women's health and well-being. Under Rep. Franklin's bill, HB 1, women who miscarry could become felons if they cannot prove that there was "no human involvement whatsoever in the causation" of their miscarriage. There is no clarification of what "human involvement" means, and this is hugely problematic as medical doctors do not know exactly what causes miscarriages. Miscarriages are estimated to terminate up to a quarter of all pregnancies and the Mayo Clinic says that "the actual number is probably much higher because many miscarriages occur so early in pregnancy that a woman doesn't even know she's pregnant. Most miscarriages occur because the fetus isn't developing normally."
Holding women criminally liable for a totally natural, common biological process is cruel and non-sensical. Even more ridiculous, the bill holds women responsible for protecting their fetuses from "the moment of conception," despite the fact that pregnancy tests aren't accurate until at least 3 weeks after conception. Unless Franklin (who is not a health professional) invents a revolutionary intrauterine conception alarm system, it's unclear how exactly the state of Georgia would enforce that rule other than holding all possibly-pregnant women under lock and key.

I've seen a lot of anti-woman, hate-filled bills this year, but this one takes the cake. And it's not just anti-woman, it's anti-logic. The bill contends that Georgia is exempt from upholding Supreme Court decisions like Roe v. Wade because the Constitution's Article I only governs five crimes: counterfeiting, piracy, high seas felonies, offenses against the law of nations, and treason. According to the bill, since murder is not one of those five crimes, it should be solely governed by the state. The bill also mandates that doctors must try to save the mother and the fetus, even though as we know, there are many situations in which both cannot be saved. It also changes medical terminology, re-designating all zygotes, embryos, and concepti as fetuses. In the bill's logic, a fertilized egg is the same as a person, and its destruction is murder. Sometimes even a fertilized egg will fail to adhere to the uterine lining, so would that make a uterus a murderer? At least the bill doesn't propose instituting pro-life Stork Bucks or outlawing "space abortions"...yet.