Bennington lawmaker to draft bill to criminalize fetal deaths

Would be curious to know what type a charge is being drafted for this new law. Would it be manslaughter or murder? Just seems to be a stretch for a state or federal legislator to enact a law that can be applied to the death of an unborn child based solely upon the fact that the person who was pregnant wanted to keep the child. How can it be a crime for an unborn child to be killed by an accident, which means that there would have to be some kind of acceptance that the unborn child is a viable fetus, and it not be a crime to willingly kill a child just because you don't want it? Just a thought?

Accident as in "oh damn, my brakes don't work" or accident as in, "oh damn I dropped my doobie on the floor, let me call you back"? I think the latter more than the former.

Scott wrote:

Would be curious to know what type a charge is being drafted for this new law. Would it be manslaughter or murder? Just seems to be a stretch for a state or federal legislator to enact a law that can be applied to the death of an unborn child based solely upon the fact that the person who was pregnant wanted to keep the child. How can it be a crime for an unborn child to be killed by an accident, which means that there would have to be some kind of acceptance that the unborn child is a viable fetus, and it not be a crime to willingly kill a child just because you don't want it? Just a thought?

I had a similar thought. If you follow a law like this to where it might lead, we could end up swamped with stories of coat hanger abortions and their resulting serious injuries and fatalities among women, just like in pre-Roe days.

excuse me this has nothing to do with abortions. this has to do with a 22 year old who got stoned and drove a car that should not have been on the road. she hit a family and killed the babies yes i said babies she was carring. they did not ask the girl to kill their babies or hurt them the way she did. to abort a baby you must want to kill your baby and go have it done. this law is to protect the baby on the way as laws protect children already born. it shouldn't matter if a child is on the inside or out when it comes to protecting them from harm. if someone drives down the road and hits a child and hurts or kills them then they are punished. the same should go for the unborn. the unborn babies are alive inside the mother. think how you would feel if you were expecting a baby and this happen to you, could you say oh well my baby is gone no big deal? i think you would be just as angery and wanting change in the laws too. these babies were born the mother went into labor and then taken by c-section to try to save them. THIS LAW WILL NOT AFFECT THE ABORTION LAW IT IS SOLELY TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF BABIES WHO ARE WANTED AND WHO ARE KILLED DUE TO PEOPLE DOING CRIMINAL ACTS TO CAUSE THE DEATH OF THE BABIES.

Hmmmm. How completely indicative of the human attempt to pass the hippopotamus or other large object through the eye of the needle. A baby is a baby if the mother says it is, but is only a fetus if the mother says it is. It is the same biological and personal entity that is ripped in pieces from the womb, whether in a "health care" setting, or in a crushed and smoking car.

Hoorah, it's about time that members of our legislature engaged in crafting meaningful laws in this state.

morgan wrote:

Hmmmm. How completely indicative of the human attempt to pass the hippopotamus or other large object through the eye of the needle. A baby is a baby if the mother says it is, but is only a fetus if the mother says it is. It is the same biological and personal entity that is ripped in pieces from the womb, whether in a "health care" setting, or in a crushed and smoking car.

You sound like you are in favor of coat hanger abortions and black market abortions performed by hacks. This is the real-world consequence of anti-abortion laws.

New Clear Waste wrote:

<quoted text>
You sound like you are in favor of coat hanger abortions and black market abortions performed by hacks. This is the real-world consequence of anti-abortion laws.

You sound like a hysterical nimcomepoop. Perhaps you would like to actually address the topic at hand instead of fear mongering?

I believe the only way to pass such legislation is to work within the parameters of existing abortion laws. Therefore forthcoming legislation should pertain to second and third trimester pregnancies only. Remember the wise old saying, if no side is completely satisfied then it is a good deal.

Humane Humanity wrote:

I believe the only way to pass such legislation is to work within the parameters of existing abortion laws. Therefore forthcoming legislation should pertain to second and third trimester pregnancies only. Remember the wise old saying, if no side is completely satisfied then it is a good deal.

You all bring this back around to abortion, as Im sure they will with our efforts to make a law to protect children in my situatiuon! This is not about choice! I had NO choice. This is about Criminal acts. If someone hits a 1 day old newborn in a baby carriage through the cross fire of a driveby gone wrong.... Why should it matter that that child COULD HAVE been aborted at some point? Every single one of us was a possible abortion. The LAW we are trying to pass has absolutely NOTHING to do with abortion. It has everything to do with allowing criminal charges be brought forth when a criminal act causes the death of a child or in my case TWO children or even 10 children because someone criminally violated them. It should not matter what side of the vagina they are on. Its about the crimianl act that causes their death!

I suppose, if no one knows there's a fetus, then there's still a fetus.

"the untimely deaths of fetuses" could mean a lot of different things. That may be the way this was written up, or it may be all that the chairman said. What he actually meant requires explication. There's not enough explained here to justify discussing it.

Yet another unnecessary law. Sears is 2 faced, a bloviating, agenda-ridden dangerous joke. But people like that these days.

the untimely death is when a baby in the moms belly is killed before it has a chance to live outside of her by a crimnal act. the baby never got a chance to have a life.

Laura Austan wrote:

Yet another unnecessary law. Sears is 2 faced, a bloviating, agenda-ridden dangerous joke. But people like that these days.

excuse me this law is a necessary one even though you think it isn't. all our children should be protected from people hurting them or killing them.

Laura Austan wrote:

Yet another unnecessary law. Sears is 2 faced, a bloviating, agenda-ridden dangerous joke. But people like that these days.

So tell oh wise one, why in opinion is this bill he is working on a bad thing? And what in your opinion makes Rep. Sears a dangerous person?

You call him a agenda-ridden dangerous joke. Well his agenda here seems to be that he wants to change the laws that would make people like Kelly Cook Held accountable for there actions. I see nothing wrong with it.

Patricia Blair Mom wrote:

<quoted text>
You all bring this back around to abortion, as Im sure they will with our efforts to make a law to protect children in my situatiuon! This is not about choice! I had NO choice. This is about Criminal acts. If someone hits a 1 day old newborn in a baby carriage through the cross fire of a driveby gone wrong.... Why should it matter that that child COULD HAVE been aborted at some point? Every single one of us was a possible abortion. The LAW we are trying to pass has absolutely NOTHING to do with abortion. It has everything to do with allowing criminal charges be brought forth when a criminal act causes the death of a child or in my case TWO children or even 10 children because someone criminally violated them. It should not matter what side of the vagina they are on. Its about the crimianl act that causes their death!

I am personally opposed to abortion, but like it or not as I wrote in a prior post, the only way, politics as they are, this will be passed is with a hefty dose of compromise.

Humane Humanity wrote:

<quoted text> I am personally opposed to abortion, but like it or not as I wrote in a prior post, the only way, politics as they are, this will be passed is with a hefty dose of compromise.

how do you figure will have to comprimse with stuff to do with abortion whenthis has NOTHING TO DO WITH ABORTION. we are talking about crimnal acts on an unborn baby. things would be covered in this would be like in the blairs case, a husband or someone beats a pregant woman till she loses the baby, some shoots the pregant woman and she loses the baby. these are crimnal acts toward the mother and the unborn. no where in these does it have to do with going to the doctor and the mother saying to the doctor abort my baby. we are not taking on the abortion laws because what happen had nothing to do with abortion.

blair friend wrote:

<quoted text>
how do you figure will have to comprimse with stuff to do with abortion whenthis has NOTHING TO DO WITH ABORTION. we are talking about crimnal acts on an unborn baby. things would be covered in this would be like in the blairs case, a husband or someone beats a pregant woman till she loses the baby, some shoots the pregant woman and she loses the baby. these are crimnal acts toward the mother and the unborn. no where in these does it have to do with going to the doctor and the mother saying to the doctor abort my baby. we are not taking on the abortion laws because what happen had nothing to do with abortion.

Well said. And this is actually what Rep. Sears is trying to avoid, turning this important legislation into a debate over abortion rights.

Just out of curiosity, is there anyone in favor of this proposed law who is not also anti-abortion?

So don't claim there is no connection, you hypocrites. After all some of you saw fit to connect another issue - health care reform - with abortion when it suited your purposes, trying to derail it.

New Clear Waste wrote:

Just out of curiosity, is there anyone in favor of this proposed law who is not also anti-abortion?
So don't claim there is no connection, you hypocrites. After all some of you saw fit to connect another issue - health care reform - with abortion when it suited your purposes, trying to derail it.

i am not here to talk about if i agree or disagree with abortion because this has nothing to do with abortion. we are not trying to combine with no other laws. the battle with abortion and the health care reform has its own battles and is not part of what we are fighting for. you say we are bringing other stuff in you are the one doing that not us. WE ARE TRYING TO CHANGE A LAW THAT WILL MAKE IT ILLEAGAL TO HURT OR KILL AN UNBORN BABY IN A CRIMNAL ACT AGAINST THE BABY. there has been too many people who have hurt or killed unborn babies by beating the mother till she lost the baby or in car crashes the list goes on and vermont has given them a free ticket to walk free because there is nothing in place with the law to say that babies life mattered. the baby that is killed could of grown up and made the world a better place but we will never know because it was taken in a crimnal act and never given a chance to show what it co. what is left from the crimnal act of killing this baby is much heart ache and saddness and the killer walking free. if the killer has to face up to what they did and pay a price for what they did maybe just maybe there will be less unborn babies dieing or being hurt in this manor. if you were an expecting parent or family of the person expecting wouldnt you want the person who harmed your baby to pay for the crome? something tells me you all wouldn't say oh well he/she killed my baby lets forget about the baby and go on because the baby didn't matter that much to me.