I missed the enclosed article when it was published on December 21st. The infanticide crowd must have missed it, too, because I did not see any reaction to Utahs Supreme Court decision: . . . an unborn child qualifies as a minor child and, therefore, wrongful death lawsuits may be filed on behalf of those who die before birth. That could be the one decision that undermines the Culture of Deaths very foundation even though the decision appears to be based on language rather than a ruling against infanticide itself: "Although there is no majority opinion, four members of this court hold that the statute allows an action for the wrongful death of an unborn child," Chief Justice Christine Durham wrote. "The term 'minor child,' as used in the statute, includes an unborn child." In her opinion, which was supported by Justice Jill Parrish, Durham wrote that a look at the "plain language" of the phrase "reveals that the term 'minor child,' as used in this statute, includes an unborn child. The statute does not itself define the term 'minor child,' but in general usage the term 'child' may refer to a young person, a baby, or a fetus." In other words a change in the way state legislators write an abortion law can eliminate all challenges to legal infanticide. Abortionists naturally assume every state legislature agrees with legal infanticide. Im not so sure that is the case. As I understand these things the wording in the Utah law, followed by Utahs Supreme Court decision, might spread to the other 49 states unless it is stopped by the US Supreme Court. That means that the abortion crowd must now rely on the federal courts if they want to stop the Utah decision from spreading to more state legislatures. I cannot speak for legislative language, but it sure would be nice to see average Americans use plain language in the infanticide debate. If Im interpreting the judicial history of abortion correctly the pro-life people always had to go to the courts hoping legalized abortion would be overturned. The Utah decision puts the pro-death people in the position of trying to have a pro-life decision overturned. Finally, I found it interesting that the case began in a federal court but was sent to a state court. The article explains the progression: Utah Supreme Court rules unborn children qualify as minors Published: Wednesday, Dec. 21, 2011 4:50 p.m. MST SALT LAKE CITY The state's high court has determined that an unborn child qualifies as a minor child and, therefore, wrongful death lawsuits may be filed on behalf of those who die before birth. The decision stemmed from a case of a Utah County couple who filed a lawsuit after their child was stillborn in 2006. While the Utah Supreme Court justices did not issue a single majority opinion in the case, four of the five justices, through differing logic, came to the same conclusion. "Although there is no majority opinion, four members of this court hold that the statute allows an action for the wrongful death of an unborn child," Chief Justice Christine Durham wrote. "The term 'minor child,' as used in the statute, includes an unborn child." In her opinion, which was supported by Justice Jill Parrish, Durham wrote that a look at the "plain language" of the phrase "reveals that the term 'minor child,' as used in this statute, includes an unborn child. The statute does not itself define the term 'minor child,' but in general usage the term 'child' may refer to a young person, a baby, or a fetus." She said current Utah code would allow for a wrongful death action as soon as the child is conceived. Justice Ronald Nehring issued a dissenting opinion in the case. Nehring said the logic of his four fellow justices is wrong "because (1) the plain meaning of 'minor child' does not include a fetus, (2) a wrongful death cause of action may only be recognized through clear legislative direction, and (3) a construction of 'minor child' that encompasses an unborn fetus creates absurd results under our laws." He argued that the majority idea that the term "minor child" would include an unborn fetus is "quite bizarre." "I believe that our states populace would find the reference to a fetus as a 'minor child' quite bizarre," he wrote. "In fact, the usage of 'minor child' to refer to a fetus is far from being general. It is unique. It is usage specific to anti-abortion political rhetoric an issue with which we are not concerned here." The question of whether Utahs wrongful death statute allowed for action on behalf of an unborn child came before to the state's high court from U.S. District Court, where a couple sued a government-subsidized health clinic after their son was delivered stillborn. According to the complaint filed in 2007, the couple's deceased son was delivered on April 20, 2006. Amelia Sanchez, the child's mother, was 39 years old at the time and had concerns about the baby's health on April 14, the day before her official due date. Sanchez suffered preeclampsia in her previous two pregnancies and because of her age, the pregnancy was classified as "high risk." One ultrasound also indicated that the baby might have a condition known as "double bubble," which can cause Down syndrome, the lawsuit states. When she felt the baby's heartbeat was growing faint at an April 14 ultrasound, Sanchez told her doctor that she believed it was time that she was induced for labor as her body was responding similar to the way it had just before induction in her previous two pregnancies and because it was only one day before her due date. "(The doctor) negligently told plaintiff Sanchez that if it were actually time for her to have the baby that she would hurt much more than she did at that time," the lawsuit states. The doctor assured Sanchez that the baby "was very strong and that she shoud not worry," allegedly negligently ignoring Sanchez's request that she be induced and other signs of distress. Another appointment was set for 10 days later, but Sanchez went in April 19 because she was experiencing "strong, erratic contractions." An ultrasound found that the baby was deceased. The couple filed a lawsuit in federal court soon after, but it was halted to allow for the Utah Supreme Court to respond to the question of whether such a claim could be heard. After the high court issued its ruling, federal prosecutors filed a notice asking that the case be re-opened and set for a scheduling conference. The U.S. Attorney's Office is representing Mountainlands Health Clinic, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and various employees. Brett Boulton, who represented Sanchez, her husband Miguel Carranza and their deceased son, Jesua, said he and his clients were happy with the ruling. "We feel like it reflects the values of the state," he said, noting that a number of other states have already come to similar conclusions about unborn children. "It's about time for Utah." Boulton said the court "got it right" and that the ruling will allow for some reparation for families who lose unborn children due to negligence. He gave the example of a drunk driver who kills a pregnant woman and her unborn child and said criminal law would allow for two charges related to the deaths whereas civil law wouldn't. "(My clients) said: 'No matter what happens with our case, we feel happy we helped change the law to be more fair,'" Boulton said. He added it would, most likely, be some time before the federal case is resolved. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...-rules-unborn-children-qualify-as-minors.html
This will just mean that every woman who suffers a miscarriage or stillbirth will blame the doctors for it, even they did nothing wrong. It's giving them an opportunity to go after the money.
So the hope of the "pro-life" crowd is that they can take any woman who admits to an abortion to court in a civil suit for "wrongful death"? This is going to be an..............interesting.........social experiment I give it 10 years and Utah will have reversed this legislation and will be one of the most progressive pro-abortion states in the USA. Meantime of course there will be a lot of women put through some pretty horrific court cases
If the lifers support women taking doctors to court for 'wrongful death', how about 'wrongful BIRTH'? If a doctor knows the fetus is severely harmed but doesn't tell the mother, who would have aborted, would they be okay with the woman suing the doctor for withholding important information from her? I doubt it.
I cannot also get it out of my head that this could open the way for some vindictive men/ mothers-in-law to "get at" women who have miscarriages
To Makedde & Bowerbird: Even if your fears are justified what kind of numbers are you expecting? Hundreds? Thousands? Tens of Thousands? I hope not 45 to 50 million which is the number of infants that were killed in the womb since Roe v. Wade.
The OP is nothing more than the usual emotional drivel driven by the ignorance of the anti-choice morality coercers. It is meaningless to the abortion issue as much as fetal homicide laws are meaningless.
Run along and let the grown ups discuss this one. When something comes up that calls for ignorant rants and generally idiotic response posts, we will call you back in.
It would be nice if you could post something intelligent or relevant for once. Can you try that? I know it is a constant struggle for you but by now you should be able to get the easy ones.
You mean in ignorance and emotional hype? You are probably right, then again the anti-choicers will always top themselves.
Knowing people like you are on the pro death side reassures me that I have taken the correct position here.
To Unifier: Thank you for saying so. To Whaler17: Absolutely correct. Have you noticed that by attacking our position a decision handed down by a state Supreme Court becomes irrelevant in liberal doublespeak? Have you ever heard an abortionist say a court decision was irrelevant when it strengthened legal infanticide? Imagine how libs would smirk today, with 50 million abortions to their credit, if anyone said Roe v. Wade was irrelevant! It is that the Utah decision might lead to preventing 50 million abortions that has them worrying.
Except that ZERO "infants" have been "killed in the womb." An infant is a baby from birth to one year.
More ignorance on your part which you attempt to mask with bold type. Do tell us, what effect does this have on abortions?
According to medical dictionaries, an infant is a baby from birth to one year. If Utah's Supreme Court says otherwise, it is redefining words for political purposes.
To Cady: Youll have a valid argument when dictionary publishers write the laws. Until that happens Utahs court defines terms found in actual laws. Reread the OP. To Cady. Infanticide was redefined as pro-choice. That definition was expanded to include population control long before John Kerry made it official: Kerry continued: There (shall be) no more cutbacks on population control efforts around the world. This endorses abortion Chinese-style. Too many people? Too few abortions. Crooked thought William F. Buckley February 26, 2004 http://townhall.com/columnists/WilliamFBuckley/2004/02/26/crooked_thought
Please - Townhall is perceptably worse than Prison Planet i.e. No credibility whatsoever And even IF Kerry said those words - and I strongly suspect they were cherry picked to a fare thee well - you have to apply more stretch than is usually found in a rubber factory to get from that statement to endorsement of chinese style abortions PLUS since when is the president of the USA = Dictator of the world?? Geeeze!!
