Oklahoma Legislature - "Bill Lets Moms-To-Be Kill To Save Baby"

[KatyaR]

Just another example of the issues our Repuke Lege is obsessed with lately:

http://www.koco.com/news/19082604/detail.html">Bill Lets Moms-To-Be Kill To Save Baby

OKLAHOMA CITY -- A bill in the Oklahoma Legislature would allow pregnant women to use deadly force in order to save the lives of their babies.

The bill stems from a Michigan case where a woman who was carrying quadruplets stabbed and killed her boyfriend after he hit her in the stomach. The woman lost the babies and was convicted of manslaughter.

Oklahoma lawmakers said they want to make sure that a woman can legally protect her unborn child.

"Unfortunately, we feel we need legislation like this," said Rep. Mike Thompson. "What we want to make sure is that a woman feels safe and secure defending herself and her unborn child against any attacker."

The Repuke Lege are just trying to push our Dem gov into a corner this session, pushing as many right-wing, fundy natured bills as possible so that if he vetoes anything, they can scream bloody murder--not that I don't think there's some merit to this bill, but we already have laws in place to deal with things like this.

We even have a a Repuke legislator who got a bill passed this session allowing him to spend $10,000 of his own money to place a monument of the Ten Commandments in the State Capitol.

Someone get me outta here, please . . . .

[varkam]

1. She stabbed him *after* he hit her?

That doesn't seem like protection - that seems like revenge. (Of course, I could be wrong)

[pnutbutr]

4. that's generally

how defending yourself works. Someone attacks, you defend and get in shots when/if you can. Good for that woman for standing up to a POS woman beater who punched her in the stomach to try and kill her child.

[varkam]

46. Actually, that's not generally how self-defense works.

At least not under the law. Couple issues: she acted after she was struck which, if he wasn't continuing the assault, poses problems. In addition, she seemed to have escalated the force used which could also be a problem (potentially, anyway).

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a self-defense law for this sort of thing...but that's a really bad poster-child for it.

[pnutbutr]

26. oops

posted in wrong place

[pnutbutr]

2. why do you

oppose this? What's wrong with making sure a pregnant woman has legal backing to defend herself and unborn child?

[ShortnFiery]

5. Because, as I understand it, every human being has a right to protect themselves. It doesn't lower

or rise exponentially for someone who is pregnant. :shrug: Or is an unborn baby's life considered "more precious" than saving the life of the mother via self defense?

[pnutbutr]

6. oh

you're trying to tie this to some kind of abortion life begins at conception fundie thing. I see now.

[ShortnFiery]

7. Oh , of course not. I'm not like that. What I'm saying is that we must be careful to consider ...

factors such as "intent." If some stranger punched or pushed a woman and did NOT know that she was pregnant, how can you KNOWINGLY charge him with murder or the woman should NOT kill unless sure she's in mortal danger ... how can a woman read the attacker's mind? :(

These are difficult issues. The Catholic Church way way back did not consider a fetus "a human" until what was termed, I think, "Quickening" - volitional movement within the womb.

No, I don't believe in passing judgment FOR other women. It's their CHOICE.

[pnutbutr]

11. that is

where you were going. :eyes:

[ShortnFiery]

13. I don't understand where YOUR mindset is? Whether you're pregnant or not, you're still a human

being and the odds are NOT HIGH that "a large number" of men are going to be so crazy as to overtly punch their pregnant girlfriends/wives in the gut and/or womb. But heck, IF and WHEN they do, have at it with the knife or gun. Yes, feel free to "Lock and Load" - it's all in the interest of self defense NOT, in most cases, protecting "the unborn." :shrug:

[pnutbutr]

15. It's about giving

the pregnant woman additional protection in how she choose to defend herself. The situation cited in Michigan showed how the self defense that pregnant woman chose is not protected by the law as she was convicted of manslaughter.

[ShortnFiery]

18. My point is that "a jury of one's peers" can sort that out without the "human BABY" clause.

Once you allow the right wingers to DEEM that all fetuses are "unborn babies" then they are one step closer to outlawing abortion.

If my crazy boyfriend/husband punched me in the stomach when I was pregnant and I shot him dead, I believe we'd be hard pressed to find a Judge or Jury that would NOT rule my actions as "self-defense?"

[pnutbutr]

19. Michigan

didn't find it to be self defense apparently. And again this law isn't deeming fetuses as anything unless I'm missing something.

[ShortnFiery]

21. I don't know the specifics of that case. Yes, sometimes justice is not served. But we're ...

taking a risk that could lead to abortions being completely outlawed ... even the one's due to rape or to protect the life of the mother.

These are difficult decisions mired in complexity.

[Somawas]

25. That would not be self-defense.

It's clearly grossly excessive force.

[ShortnFiery]

28. It depends on the circumstances. If you FEAR for your life, yeah, it's "self defense." nt

[Somawas]

48. No. That's not the test at all.

The test is that you are entitled to use only such force as is necessary to repel the force used against you. Until such time as you are feloniously assaulted, you are not entitled to use deadly force.

And your state of mind is unimportant. It is what a reasonable person under the circumstances would perceive.

This is such basic law, its not even 1L.

[Statistical]

49. Not in most states.

Lawful homicide by means of self defense vary widely by state.

Making a blanket statement on what is or is not self defense is fool hardy.

In VA for example has no statute for self defense rather relying on case law.

"Justifiable homicide in self-defense occurs a person, without any fault on his part in provoking or bringing on the difficulty, kills another under reasonable apprehension of death or great bodily harm to himself. "Smith, 17 Va. App. at 71, 435 S.E.2d at 416

So under VA law there is no self defense statute instead you can be charged with homicide and use self defense as a LEGAL AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. If you can prove that you acted "without any fault on his part in provoking or bringing on the difficulty" and were under "reasonable apprehension of death or great bodily harm to himself" the charges should be dropped.

Other states provide more protection.

The "castle doctrine" usually indicates that if someone unlawfully enter your home you can act UNDER THE ASSUMPTION that they intend to do you bodily harm and use any level of force to protect yourself. Even if later it is determined that they were no a threat you are protected, and need to provide no warning of notice.

So very different situations.

Every state is different. Every citizen (and especially every firearm owner) should know both the applicable statutes and case law.

[rfranklin]

10. Well, that has been the objective of most of these laws...

proposed by the right wingers. "Personhood" for the fetus and eventually making abortion into homicide. Of course, they don't really want that ever to be codified because they would lose one of their signature distractions.

[pnutbutr]

12. this seems to

give the woman additional legal backing in her choice of how to defend herself and has nothing to do with person hood or anything else you may imply from it. I support the right to choose to have an abortion but I also support giving pregnant women the legal authority to kick some serious fucking ass if anyone messes with their unborn child.

[ShortnFiery]

14. We can't have it FIRMLY "both ways." If I had a unbalanced boyfriend/ husband and I was pregnant,

it would be wise to not get too close to him. Really, answer me straight up - how OFTEN does this attack happens? I'd surmise it's pretty rare albeit I don't have the stats. If the frequency is NOT high, I trust a jury of my peers to judge my actions as self defense with or without "an unborn baby" protection clause in the law.

It's a real slippery slope and the MINUTE you deem a fetus as "an unborn baby" the right wing can PROSECUTE the mother ... even when she may opt for an abortion to save her own life.

[pnutbutr]

17. Does this law

deem a fetus as a human or bay or anything like that or does it provide additional legal backing for pregnant women to defend themselves? I bet attacks on pregnant women happen way more often than you think. There were four cases in 2 years where I used to live. Two were stabbed, the other two were beaten. One died and three lost the babies. My wife was also jumped in the same neighborhood by two women while walking home from the store. Luckily she knows how to fight and beat the shit out of both girls and even headbutted one in the nose. We went to see the doctor later that same day to be sure everything was fine with the baby. It was.

[ShortnFiery]

20. Ok, it comes down to this: If you want that "additional insurance" for a pregnant

woman's self defense, then you also must accept the PROFOUND RISK of being a large step closer to having abortion being outlawed.

These issues are not "cut and dry" - I would take my chances with a jury rather than risk denying women CHOICE. :shrug:

[pnutbutr]

22. still don't

see how you are making that connection as the law seems to be about legal backing for the woman based on her physical condition, not the fetus or human or unborn child or anything else.

Good luck with the jury.

[ShortnFiery]

23. OK, I did try my best to explain my position. I['m sorry that we couldn't connect.

Have a good one. :hi:

[chrisa]

39. Outlawing abortion is illegal.

Under Roe V. Wade. Even if they tried, it wouldn't be possible.

[dsc]

42. given that the leading cause of death amongst pregnant women is murder by boyfriend or spouse

it probably happens a good deal.

[Raineyb]

40. What the hell does she need additional legal backing for?

If she needs defending her own self is enough of a reason. She doesn't need the fetus as an additional excuse to protect herself.

This law is asinine and is probably a backdoor method of trying to get fetuses personhood so the can go after abortion.

Regards

[Winterblues]

44. Does a woman that isn't pregnant have a right to defend herself?

Why should being pregnant make a difference? IMO if someone is attacking anyone that person, man or woman or pregnant woman, have a right to defend themselves.

[HillbillyBob]

3. Now if pregnant women would knock off rpigs that threaten the

freedom of the rest of us. I think the lady in Mi should not have been convicted and the pig with the Ten commandments should not have been allowed to put his supersetionon on the state capitol.
I guess it is still ok to kill fags though.

[Vinca]

8. If she stabbed him after he hit her in the stomach, that was self defense.

He could have caused her to bleed to death. The proposed law is nothing more than a step on the path to outlawing abortion.

[ShortnFiery]

9. Perhaps a back door way for the "pro-birthers" to get all self-righteous and radical.

Generalizing to ALL PREGNANT WOMEN that their bellies are "babies" = no exceptions!

[Lance_Boyle]

43. sort of depends on how long after, and whether she was still under attack

Was the stabbing within seconds or minutes of the punch, or some hours later? Was the woman who got punched still in danger when the stabbing took place? It's *not necessarily* self defense.

[sandnsea]

16. If they supported women's rights

they'd support her right to live - which they can't do otherwise the blastocyst wouldn't have a right superior to hers.

[TexasObserver]

24. She already has the right to use deadly force to defend herself.

The right to defend her child in utero is therefore superfluous.

[pnutbutr]

27. text of bill

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Committee Substitute for
ENGROSSED
Senate Bill No. 1103
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR ENGROSSED SENATE BILL NO. 1103 - By: COFFEE, GUMM, JOLLEY, LAMB AND IVESTER of the Senate and THOMPSON, NELSON AND COOKSEY of the House.
An Act relating to criminal procedure; creating the Use of Force for the Protection of the Unborn Act; providing short title; stating legislative findings; defining terms; stating circumstances under which pregnant woman justified in using certain force; limiting application of provisions; providing for codification; and providing an effective date.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA:

SECTION 1. NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 70 of Title 22, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:
This act may be known and shall be cited as the "Use of Force for the Protection of the Unborn Act".
SECTION 2. NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 71 of Title 22, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:
The Legislature finds that:
1. Violence and abuse are often higher during pregnancy than during any other time in a woman’s lifetime;
2. Women are more likely to suffer increased abuse as a result of unintended pregnancies;
3. Younger women are at a higher risk for pregnancy-associated homicide;
4. A pregnant or recently pregnant woman is more likely to be a victim of homicide than to die of any other cause;
5. Homicide and other violent crimes are the leading cause of death for women of reproductive age;
6. Husbands, ex-husbands or boyfriends are often the perpetrators of pregnancy-associated homicide or violence;
7. Moreover, when husbands, ex-husbands or boyfriends are involved, the violence is often directed at the unborn child and/or intended to end or jeopardize the pregnancy; and
8. Violence against a pregnant woman puts the life and bodily integrity of both the pregnant woman and the unborn child at risk.
SECTION 3. NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 72 of Title 22, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:
As used in this section:
1. "Another" means a person other than the pregnant woman;
2. "Deadly force" means force which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death or serious physical harm;
3. "Force" means violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against another;
4. "Embryo" means a human embryo as defined in Section 1-728.1 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes;
5. "Pregnant" means the female reproductive condition of having an unborn child in the woman’s body;
6. "Unborn child" means the offspring of human beings from conception until birth; and
7. "Unlawful force" means force which is employed without the consent of the pregnant woman and which constitutes an offense under the criminal laws of this state or an actionable tort.
SECTION 4. NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 73 of Title 22, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:
A. A pregnant woman is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect her unborn child if:
1. Under the circumstances as the pregnant woman reasonably believes them to be, she would be justified in using force or deadly force to protect herself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force she reasonably believes to be threatening her unborn child; and
2. She reasonably believes that her intervention and use of force or deadly force are immediately necessary to protect her unborn child.
B. This affirmative defense to criminal liability does not apply to:
1. Acts committed by anyone other than the pregnant woman;
2. Acts where the pregnant woman would be obligated to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing, or to comply with a demand before using force in self-defense. However, the pregnant woman is not obligated to retreat before using force or deadly force to protect her unborn child, unless she knows that she can thereby secure the complete safety of her unborn child; or
3. The defense of human embryos existing outside of a woman’s body.
SECTION 5. This act shall become effective November 1, 2009.
COMMITTEE REPORT BY: COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY, dated 03-24-09 - DO PASS, As Amended and Coauthored.

[ShortnFiery]

29. *UNBORN CHILD* - once that term is placed into law, it makes it much easier to charge women

with homicide if they choose to end their pregnancy. :(

[lazer47]

30. Stand away from the Koolaid stand,,

[pnutbutr]

32. black cherry

is the best

[ShortnFiery]

34. Really? I think that where the law is concerned we can't have it both ways -

It's a fetus OR an unborn baby, not both. Sorry, but once you classify ALL pregnant women as carrying "an unborn baby" from the moment of conception, you are kicking open a door for the nuts in the right wing to expand upon IF/WHEN they regain power of our Executive Branch. :shrug:

[Iris]

47. I will when the "personhood movement" people do

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=311636

[pnutbutr]

31. the way it's used in the bill

does not provide rights to the unborn child.

[ShortnFiery]

35. It's a big step in the wrong direction, just to ensure that a woman who is simultaneously protecting

her own life will NOT be prosecuted. :(

[notesdev]

33. Insert PMS joke here

This joke brought to you by Midol(tm).

[ShortnFiery]

36. Too cute. But don't you dare take that Morning After Pill because if the Egg and Sperm have met ...

you are according to the right wing fundamentalists, expelling (killing!) an *unborn baby.*

[Lyric]

37. Are Oklahoma women allowed to use deadly force to protect BORN children?

If some asshole punches or kicks my eight-year-old kid in the abdomen (thus putting him at serious risk of bleeding to death from a damaged spleen)--can I legally shoot him?

By Oklahoma's logic, the answer should be "Yes." After all, kids are more delicate than adults. A blow that would bruise an adult might kill a child. Then again, people in places like Oklahoma are notorious for caring a LOT about the batter and not a damned bit about the cake.

Since they're so concerned for innocent "unborn" children, I'm sure we can all safely assume that Oklahoma's welfare and poverty-relief programs for parents and pregnant women must be STELLAR!

:eyes:

[chrisa]

38. So according to opponents of this,

A pregnant woman doesn't have the right to do anything to stop someone who is trying to kill her baby? get real.

[NashVegas]

41. Considering Pregnancy Hormones, This Law Strikes Me As Completely Unnecessary

It should be a reasonable defense that the mom in question was behaving as biology would have her act. Also, as others have implied, the fact of her carrying made *her* life more at risk. Again, a reasonable jury should be able to acquit this.

[ismnotwasm]

45. I don't get it

Why wouldn't someone protect their life? Why do they need a specific law?

It sounds poorly worded and poorly written. A blow to the stomach may threaten a fetus, but It also threatens the life of a pregnant woman, though hemorrhage for instance.

So, he hit her, and in even if she was in fear for her pregnancy, more than her own life, her life was in certainly in deadly peril so, she stabbed him. Instead of respecting the fact that she was in danger as a woman, as a human being, they bypass her and pass a law protecting fetuses? Weird.