Two bills filed so far would increase the penalty for injuring a pregnant woman. As written, they have drawn concerns from both anti-abortion groups and abortion-rights groups. Holt, with N.C. Right to Life, said the bills don't go far enough because they don't reclassify the death of an unborn child as a separate murder.
Kosofsky, with NARAL, said existing criminal statutes may be adequate. The new bills may be a creative way to begin putting restrictions on abortion in North Carolina, he added.
Sen. Doug Berger, a Youngsville Democrat who sponsored one of the bills, said he hoped the legislation would not get entangled with the continuing debate over abortion.
"We're not going to allow this to be turned into an abortion issue," he said.
I don't know what motivated Berger to step into this minefield, but at first blush it sounds like a really bad idea to me. And his comment about not allowing this to be turned into an abortion issue? Fat chance. The is an abortion issue on its face. The idea that injuring a pregnant woman triggers special punishments over, say, injuring a person in a wheelchair or an old person or a young person or a blind person or a deaf person or a mentally ill person or a military person or a social worker or a blogger or a cow clairvoyant or a doctor or a painter or an artist or a hockey player or a legislator or a whatever strikes me as pretty darn misguided. Unless of course you want to make it an abortion issue, in which case you're on the right track.
Even though I'm pretty sure you'd like to injure me as a blogger sometimes :>) you're dead on with regard to this. If I'm not mistaken, there are already laws about injuring a pregnant woman in the judicial system in at least some states...and yeah, I could be reading this all wrong, but shouldn't this just be something states do? To me, it's just something to try to identify when life starts and then later use it to justify another bill/law that once again tries to legislate the morality issue with regard to abortion.
We already have a law on abortion. It's called "CHOICE"...and allows people to have their own feelings on the issue and either choose that option or not choose the option. What in the world could be more fair? Why does this continue to be something we're constantly arguing over when there are SOOOOO many other issues pertaining to our country and its citizens that need immediate and focused attention on?
Submitted by funluvn on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 10:26am.
a woman that is being injured, or is it the fact than an unborn child is being injured? There is a big difference, in my opinion and I'm pretty sure that this leglislation has nothing to do with the fact that there is a combination of both.
Submitted by THE MODERATE on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 10:36am.
Violence against pregnant is either on the rise or we as a people have become more aware of it, I am not sure which. It does not matter though my guess is Sen Berger is attempting to right a wrong. I also think the abortion rights crowd should tread lightly around this one. While the majority of Americans do not favor outlawing abortion they are not purist on abortion rights either. The pro-life community has decided to go after this in a piece by piece way it could help their cause. The abortion rights community hurts their cause when if they fight too hard on this one. Violence against pregnant women needs to be fixed, the laws on the books are not working and it the abortion purist want to fight this one they could offend thier own suppoerters and lose the battle also.
Submitted by Betsy Muse on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 10:39am.
an elderly woman
a woman with cancer or other chronic or terminal disease
a woman holding a living child in her arms
a woman who is blind
a woman who is deaf
a woman in a wheelchair
All of the above are at a disadvantage when it comes to defending themselves. Let's have special punishment for that.
*************************** Vote Democratic, the ass you save may be your own.
Submitted by Betsy Muse on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 12:18pm.
attacked before we legislate? How many people suffer. Waiting until the crimes are on the rise? Complete and utter BS. Why is one vulnerable population more worthy of protection than another?
*************************** Vote Democratic, the ass you save may be your own.
Submitted by THE MODERATE on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 1:13pm.
While there is no finite number and sadly it usally noticed long after it should be, it happens when a groups advocates force elected officals to take it up. Battered womens issues were sadly enough ignored for way too long. Law enforcement claims "battered womens snydrome" is the reason, it is hard to help a victim when the victim appears to be indifferent of the crime being committed. Battered womens advocates though claim it is law enforcement itself which is indiffent and that is a major reason of "battered womens snydrome". Recent studies have shown that pregnant women face even more risk than those who are not. As what is usually the case high profile cases has forced this issue to be examined and what was discovred was not pretty.
Also, the battered women advocates are not stupid or naive. They are aware the pro-life advoactes who are alinging with them have their own agenda. They also know if they get their way it could have consequences on the abortion issue but many consider that risk trivial. If you have spent any time with someone who is in that situation, you probably have, you would understand.
The elected officals are taking these advocates of battered women very seriuosly which is why the state is doing this. While extentsive polling on this issue has not been done to my knowledge, it is the belief of most elected officals that most average voters want them to pass some legistlation on this issue even if if does put abortion rights at risk, and my guess is most average pro-choice voters fit into this category.
Submitted by funluvn on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 12:48pm.
these groups are on the rise.
Blanket statements make one look silly at times. This blanket of a statement should cause me to ignore the statment you made, but something inside just tells me to let you know that you are full of it.
Submitted by usernamehere on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 10:42am.
Since violence against people of different sexual orientations and gender identities is statistically on the rise (as it has been since the FBI decided they would finally track it), I can count on your full support for what are commonly called "hate crime" laws that include sexual orientation and gender identity.
Of course, such laws don't actually criminalize hate, they just ensure prosecution of crimes when authorities of jurisdiction fail to investigate or prosecute.
Submitted by THE MODERATE on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 10:58am.
On that one. I have as a rule been worried about the term "Hate Crime" but you have put it on an angle I did not consider about failure to prosecute. I certianly do agree with you that violance against gays serves no purpose in my book and if the authorities are not investigating leads on such crimes they should be.
Submitted by Dan Besse on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 10:49am.
There are two possible, and very different, motivations for a heightened penalty in the case of deliberate injury to a pregnant woman.
One is the anti-abortion ideological motivation, associated with the "fetal personhood" line of attacks on choice. That's seen when the language of the proposal attempts to establish a pregnancy at any stage (from zygote through full-term fetus) as an equally-protected separate legal "person" in its own right.
The other is an attempt to heighten protection for a vulnerable population and serve as additional deterrent for crimes such as domestic violence. Similar reasoning is used in "hate crimes" legislation, for example.
The legal framework of the statute's wording is key to understanding the motivation and the result of the proposal.
that your first frame is the one that actually applies, even though the second one is being used to justify it.
There are already penalties for injuring a pregnant woman - or a non-pregnant woman - or a man - or a child. Violent crimes against anyone are despicable. Singling out pregnant women as a protected class takes us one step closer to going through the back door to criminalize abortion.
Submitted by Dan Besse on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 4:13pm.
Most such legislation which draws any attention is plainly an anti-choice ploy. However, I'd be surprised if Berger would associate with such an effort. Have you read his bill? I haven't had time to get to that today.
A person who in the commission of a felony causes injury to a woman, knowing the
woman to be pregnant, which injury results in a miscarriage or stillbirth by the woman is guilty
of a felony that is one class higher than the felony committed. If the injury occurs after the
woman's twentieth week of pregnancy, the person is guilty of a separate felony offense that is
one class higher than the underlying offense. A felony causing injury to a pregnant woman
shall include a felony offense that results in the death of the pregnant woman.
(c) A person who in the commission of a misdemeanor that is an act of domestic
violence as defined in Chapter 50B of the General Statutes causes injury to a woman, knowing
the woman to be pregnant, which results in miscarriage or stillbirth by the woman woman, is
guilty of a separate misdemeanor offense that is one class higher than the misdemeanor
committed. If the underlying offense was is a Class A1 misdemeanor, the defendant is guilty of
a Class I felony.
(d) This section shall not apply to acts committed by a pregnant woman which result in
a miscarriage or stillbirth by the woman.
It's not about injuring the woman and her special status as a pregnant human being. It's about whether the fetus is affected by the injury.
This is simply mind-boggling. Mr. Berger? Care to 'splain yourself?
James - actually there is a special law for “assault on a handicapped person” -14.32.1, a handicapped person is defined as someone with “(1) A physical or mental disability, such as decreased use of arms or legs, blindness, deafness, mental retardation or mental illness; or (2) Infirmity.”
14-32.3 covers assault of the elderly, and 14-33 covers assault of women and children. All of these carry greater punishments than just a simple assault.
The story behind the story
From the Dome:
I don't know what motivated Berger to step into this minefield, but at first blush it sounds like a really bad idea to me. And his comment about not allowing this to be turned into an abortion issue? Fat chance. The is an abortion issue on its face. The idea that injuring a pregnant woman triggers special punishments over, say, injuring a person in a wheelchair or an old person or a young person or a blind person or a deaf person or a mentally ill person or a military person or a social worker or a blogger or a cow clairvoyant or a doctor or a painter or an artist or a hockey player or a legislator or a whatever strikes me as pretty darn misguided. Unless of course you want to make it an abortion issue, in which case you're on the right track.
Do good. Be nice. Have fun.
About right, James
Even though I'm pretty sure you'd like to injure me as a blogger sometimes :>) you're dead on with regard to this. If I'm not mistaken, there are already laws about injuring a pregnant woman in the judicial system in at least some states...and yeah, I could be reading this all wrong, but shouldn't this just be something states do? To me, it's just something to try to identify when life starts and then later use it to justify another bill/law that once again tries to legislate the morality issue with regard to abortion.
We already have a law on abortion. It's called "CHOICE"...and allows people to have their own feelings on the issue and either choose that option or not choose the option. What in the world could be more fair? Why does this continue to be something we're constantly arguing over when there are SOOOOO many other issues pertaining to our country and its citizens that need immediate and focused attention on?
The best thinking is independent thinking.
May I ask if the legislation has to do with the fact that it is
a woman that is being injured, or is it the fact than an unborn child is being injured? There is a big difference, in my opinion and I'm pretty sure that this leglislation has nothing to do with the fact that there is a combination of both.
Your thoughts?
North Carolina. Turning the South Blue!
I am going to differ
Violence against pregnant is either on the rise or we as a people have become more aware of it, I am not sure which. It does not matter though my guess is Sen Berger is attempting to right a wrong. I also think the abortion rights crowd should tread lightly around this one. While the majority of Americans do not favor outlawing abortion they are not purist on abortion rights either. The pro-life community has decided to go after this in a piece by piece way it could help their cause. The abortion rights community hurts their cause when if they fight too hard on this one. Violence against pregnant women needs to be fixed, the laws on the books are not working and it the abortion purist want to fight this one they could offend thier own suppoerters and lose the battle also.
Then why not special punishment if you attack
an elderly woman
a woman with cancer or other chronic or terminal disease
a woman holding a living child in her arms
a woman who is blind
a woman who is deaf
a woman in a wheelchair
All of the above are at a disadvantage when it comes to defending themselves. Let's have special punishment for that.
***************************
Vote Democratic, the ass you save may be your own.
If crimes against
any of those groups were on the rise or coming to light my guess is there would be a push for this, but they are not at least not now.
So...how many people in the above groups get
attacked before we legislate? How many people suffer. Waiting until the crimes are on the rise? Complete and utter BS. Why is one vulnerable population more worthy of protection than another?
***************************
Vote Democratic, the ass you save may be your own.
I am going to take a crack at this.
While there is no finite number and sadly it usally noticed long after it should be, it happens when a groups advocates force elected officals to take it up. Battered womens issues were sadly enough ignored for way too long. Law enforcement claims "battered womens snydrome" is the reason, it is hard to help a victim when the victim appears to be indifferent of the crime being committed. Battered womens advocates though claim it is law enforcement itself which is indiffent and that is a major reason of "battered womens snydrome". Recent studies have shown that pregnant women face even more risk than those who are not. As what is usually the case high profile cases has forced this issue to be examined and what was discovred was not pretty.
Also, the battered women advocates are not stupid or naive. They are aware the pro-life advoactes who are alinging with them have their own agenda. They also know if they get their way it could have consequences on the abortion issue but many consider that risk trivial. If you have spent any time with someone who is in that situation, you probably have, you would understand.
The elected officals are taking these advocates of battered women very seriuosly which is why the state is doing this. While extentsive polling on this issue has not been done to my knowledge, it is the belief of most elected officals that most average voters want them to pass some legistlation on this issue even if if does put abortion rights at risk, and my guess is most average pro-choice voters fit into this category.
Using the "google" one would find that crimes against many of
these groups are on the rise.
Blanket statements make one look silly at times. This blanket of a statement should cause me to ignore the statment you made, but something inside just tells me to let you know that you are full of it.
Bring reality here, ok?
North Carolina. Turning the South Blue!
Continuing with your logic
Since violence against people of different sexual orientations and gender identities is statistically on the rise (as it has been since the FBI decided they would finally track it), I can count on your full support for what are commonly called "hate crime" laws that include sexual orientation and gender identity.
Of course, such laws don't actually criminalize hate, they just ensure prosecution of crimes when authorities of jurisdiction fail to investigate or prosecute.
I will have to get back with you
On that one. I have as a rule been worried about the term "Hate Crime" but you have put it on an angle I did not consider about failure to prosecute. I certianly do agree with you that violance against gays serves no purpose in my book and if the authorities are not investigating leads on such crimes they should be.
I would fully support this legislation.
If it wasn't just a front for pro-birth legislation.
Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me
Different framing possibilities.
There are two possible, and very different, motivations for a heightened penalty in the case of deliberate injury to a pregnant woman.
One is the anti-abortion ideological motivation, associated with the "fetal personhood" line of attacks on choice. That's seen when the language of the proposal attempts to establish a pregnancy at any stage (from zygote through full-term fetus) as an equally-protected separate legal "person" in its own right.
The other is an attempt to heighten protection for a vulnerable population and serve as additional deterrent for crimes such as domestic violence. Similar reasoning is used in "hate crimes" legislation, for example.
The legal framework of the statute's wording is key to understanding the motivation and the result of the proposal.
Dan Besse
It's my suspicion
that your first frame is the one that actually applies, even though the second one is being used to justify it.
There are already penalties for injuring a pregnant woman - or a non-pregnant woman - or a man - or a child. Violent crimes against anyone are despicable. Singling out pregnant women as a protected class takes us one step closer to going through the back door to criminalize abortion.
In my opinion.
In my opinion
I think your opinion is spot on.
***************************
Vote Democratic, the ass you save may be your own.
In reality
Your opinions are correct. Just tellin' it like it is.
North Carolina. Turning the South Blue!
Not sure re Berger's bill
Most such legislation which draws any attention is plainly an anti-choice ploy. However, I'd be surprised if Berger would associate with such an effort. Have you read his bill? I haven't had time to get to that today.
Dan Besse
The legislation
Legislation here.
Do good. Be nice. Have fun.
Progressive Pulse comments on the proposed legislation
but I don't find the arguments convincing in the slightest.
Do good. Be nice. Have fun.
Seems like a spectacularly bad piece of legislation to me
It's not about injuring the woman and her special status as a pregnant human being. It's about whether the fetus is affected by the injury.
This is simply mind-boggling. Mr. Berger? Care to 'splain yourself?
Do good. Be nice. Have fun.
From a commenter at NC Policy watch on "pregnant penalties"
Do good. Be nice. Have fun.