Actually, statistics over long periods show that criminalizing abortions, or even miscarriages, just leads to more women dying - and even MORE abortions and miscarriages.

Always.

One more reason never to move to Utah!

Well, at least the pregnancy rates will go down here when large numbers of women are in jail for miscarrying..... good news for the overcrowded schools.

No more hot baths for Utah incubators!

@2
I can give you about 150 more reasons not to move to Utah if you need them.....

WHAT?!?!?! No, really, WHAT?!?!?! This is so insane, I'm... I'm... I'm fucking sputtering.

This law sounds like a weapon to be used against a certain segment of women, because you can be sure there will be a lot of "discretion" over who to prosecute. Poor women, women with substance abuse issues, women who disobey their families, women in abusive relationships.

You know what I really needed to hear when I lost my first (and second, and third, all wanted and desperately mourned) pregnancies? "I saw that glass of wine last week. You have the right to remain silent."

I'm guessing that this will be held to be unconstitutional within about 15 minutes of the time the Governor signs it. What a colossal waste of taxpayer money.

Very weird. The forced pregnancy movement always avoids criminalizing the mother in anti-abortion statutes, where they focus on the doctor. I guess they're just trying to make more laws that make a fetus a life - like statutes that make murdering a pregnant woman two counts of murder. In any case, another stepping stone to overturning Roe v. Wade.

It's only insane when you're on the outside looking into Utah (or an outsider living in Utah).
Otherwise, this is pretty typical Utah legislative action -short-sighted, completely ludicrous, and totally fucked up. Alas, critical thinking skills and/or intelligence are not prerequisites to becoming a legislator in Utah - rather, they seem to look for the opposite.

Ironically, they're in the process of relaxing regulations on booster seats and seat belts for kids - two things that save the lives of LIVING children - meanwhile increasing regulations on the UNBORN. At least they are consistent in their Republican values; protect the unborn, to hell with the already born.

Oh shit. Allegedly is still going strong in the comments thread on Cienna's abortion post from last week. Now he's going to go on and on and on about the millions of ghost babies that the rest of us call miscarriages.

I'll get him started: Allegedly! Yoohoo!!! Why don't you life-begins-at-conception types cry over miscarried babies? They're lots more common than abortions....

(OK, now 3...2..1...)

Let's see the overlooked :

"A proposed change in Utah law would narrowly define abortion as a “medical procedure under the supervision of a licensed physician.”

"The issue became a point-of-concern when a 7 month pregnant Vernal girl paid a man 150-dollars to beat-her-up until she miscarried. The baby lived and was adopted by a family.

The courts convicted the man of child endangerment, but the girl could not be prosecuted under Utah law. This amendment, sponsored by Representative Carl Wimmer of Herriman, would change that."

http://www.abc4.com/s/cdkcotdTvUWjZSfjmS….

So what wont be allowed is for legal abortions to be performed by those who are not licensed physicians. It seems to me that this is a good and reasonable measure to take if for nothing else than the health of women who might be contemplating this as well as for securing that illegal abortions and endangerment and abuse of those who.have no voice is not perpetrated.

This will never happen, so enough with the phony outrage.

Oh, Utah. Fuck you. Fuck you so much.

Finally!

So, will this law cover women who make "questionable" birthing decisions that result in the death of the fetus?

How about a woman who has a VBAC in which there's a complication and the baby dies? Will we finally prosecute these women for not having a c-section which is often safer for the baby but perhaps more risky for the mother?

How about women who choose to deliver at home? One study found that "women who give birth at home aided by an independent midwife are almost three times as likely to have a stillbirth than those who deliver their child in hospital." Shall we now prosecute these women?

Silly Americans. Everybody knows the government and insurance companies, not the patient and her doctor, should decide the best method of delivering a baby.

All this AND they want to reduce the size of government and reduce spending at the same time. How would they propose paying for the massive increase in law enforcement and medical personnel necessary to enforce goofy laws like this? With bibles?

@6:

That was sort of my thinking as well. I mean, seeing as it's Utah, the magic underwear crowd just sort of assumes that if she's of child-bearing age, then by Joseph Smith there's something not right with that young 'un if'n she ain't preggers.

Urgutha, maybe they can hit Moroni up for a loan.

what wont be allowed is for legal abortions to be performed by those who are not licensed physicians. It seems to me that this is a good and reasonable measure to take blah blah blah

A medical procedure performed by someone who is not a licensed physician is by definition not legal. Get it? Illegal abortions are ALREADY AGAINST THE LAW. Moron.

@16
In Utah, the law may be written one way, but it is interpreted in another way. It's the good 'ol Mormon boys club here - from the legislature to the judicial branch - and believe me, they don't care one whit about the health of women here. Women are merely breeders and housekeepers, better to be seen (preferably pregnant) rather than heard, and the men are always looking to reinforce their control over them.

This girl made a poor choice, but she is also a victim of desperate circumstances. Vernal is off in the boonies - there is no Planned Parenthood anywhere close, and they don't do any form of sex-ed here in Utah (that legislation just died in the Senate today). Perhaps if she had access to contraception, or had received sex-ed and understood how to prevent pregnancy, this whole situation could have been prevented. Instead, kids here are told "don't do it". Given the number of chlamydia and gonorrhea cases in this state for kids under 19, that's obviously been very effective.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/70530…

But rather than address the root of the problem, the legislators here opt for the ridiculous legislation that allows them to prosecute women for suspicious miscarriages.
The bill amendments:
http://le.utah.gov/~2010/bills/hbillint/…

jesus christ LC, don't you at least draw the line at blatant misogyny?

Look, people, I want to see the flipside of these stupid MF'ing laws. When is Utah going to start charging fetuses when the mother dies at birth, with murder? EVERY DAY MURDERERS GO FREE, UTAH! Lil' tiny killers. Lock em up and throw away the key. Idiots.

that headline read like an Onion headline

This bill would effectively punish people for living in Utah. Sounds fine to me.

@20: My thoughts exactly.

The most insane thing about the whole insane deal is that if this law ever gets to The Mudville Nine, it's pretty positively getting four "yay" votes in support of it. Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Scalia's toilet slave Thomas will rubber stamp any "pro-life" law that comes up in front of them.

I don't think Kennedy's currently insane enough to back it, but I didn't think he was insane enough to back the corporate citizenship decision either.

Hey dan-- "They're," not "their." :)

("..lots of women miscarry...")

@13 - um, holy shit.

And @17 - How is this never going to happen? Has the governor said he's not going to sign it? This isn't just some crazy legislator bill that was introduced and likely isn't going to go anywhere (like the Florida bill in Cienna's post). It was passed by the House and the Senate.

Here's the text of the bill, by the way. It does have language exempting a woman for refusing a C-section or medical treatment. So, um, that's something.

You know who miscarry quite a bit? LDS women.

@9: My sister had three miscarriages and those pregnancies were badly wanted and mourned too. This is just unspeakably cruel.

@32 It will never hold up in court.

On page 9 of the bill, they state that abortions are legal in Utah ONLY when the fetus is not viable, or the life of the mother is threatened (verified by at least two experts), or in the case of rape or incest; otherwise, it's homicide.

Is this a new stipulation, or is this just a clarification of existing Utah laws?

@35 It makes me extremely uncomfortable that your response to this terrible law being passed is to insist that not only should we do nothing, but we should FEEL nothing because you think the law won't hold up. This law is offensive. It is worthy of being offended about even if you are right and it doesn't hold up. The fact that the Utah legislature would pass this is painful regardless of whether or not our court system will halt their stupidity. Can you imagine if the Utah legislature passed a law making it illegal for blacks to vote? The outrage would shake the nation because we aren't willing to tolerate such idiocy. But when they pass a law like this, we should just not care?

@19 Please cite the study from which you quote. I'd like to read it.

@39 I find it interesting to see the terms that people substitute for the "having sex" when they are declaring that a woman had no right to an abortion. It seems like there is a desire not only to express moral outrage about the abortion, but also the sex. I'm curious. What made you decide to use "cock squatting?"

Note: I also think that elective abortions at 7 months is not acceptable. That being said, what she did is terribly odd, and I do wonder about the circumstances surrounding the whole thing. What made her think that hiring someone to beat her up so that she miscarried was the best option? What could we have done to help her access other options? It's all well and good to get upset when someone commits a heinous act like this, but I'd rather do what I can to prevent it from happening in the future.

I still mourn my misborn, named child. He was mere weeks in exsitance and very loved. He was Alex. I have never recovered the lose of this unexpected and then lost life. I am totally and completely pro-choice. I didn't get the choice with this wanted and loved child. I would have had him, but, I'm perfectly intilted to make the choice to not have him. The end result was the same. How can you possibly "outlaw" miscarriage. I WANTED the baby I lost. I still have dreams about him. And this law would PROSECUTE me for the death of a child I wanted? Oh, fuck you. I don't suffer and question myself everyday since? Who does this government think they are????? Butt the hell out and leave us to our grieve. Believe it or not all abortions are grieved, regardless of the circumstances. You are not helping anyone when you chose to judge and condemn. You only drive away those you wish to save. God bless us all.

It's not a problem. The woman will just go in for a temple recommend interview and her bishop will determine if she was reckless with her pregnancy.

bishops are inspired by god to receive personal revelation about the members of their congregations. for things just like this!

40, I think 19 may be referring to this:

Obstetrics & Gynecology: 2002-Volume 100- Issue 2
p.253-259

Choice advocates are right to link abortion rights to broader rights for women. In fact, I prefer the term "reproductive freedom." It seems but a hop, skip, and jump, from "You must carry this pregnancy," to "You should be prosecuted for drinking wine or beer while pregnant," or "You must birth in the manner we approve."

@38 and 39. Thinking that this bill is insane does not mean that one approves of the specific circumstance that brought it about. The legislature didn't respond by enacting a narrow law that would address a specific set of circumstances (e.g., acting with intent to kill a fetus in the third trimester). They passed a very broad bill that could be applied in any number of situations (e.g., the "reckless" language, applying to any point during the pregnancy, applying even when the woman did not intend to terminate the pregnancy). That is what people are responding to.

Uuuugggggghhhhhhh. Can't we just abort Utah already? I mean, seriously?

@31 thank god, i was starting to worry i was the only one who was focused on what's important here.

So if I fall down the stairs in the lovely state of Utah, does that mean I could be prosecuted? What if I don't know I'm pregnant and I'm an athlete and put a lot of stress on my body? It could happen, a women an acquaintance of mine knew didn't realize she was 3 months preggers until she'd already finished a somewhat hellish military training course. It's a wonder the fetus didn't run screaming out of the womb with all the stress she was under!

@39
She was a 17-year-old girl.
If you had read/copied/pasted the rest of my comment rather than cherry-picking, you would have gotten to the part about "the whole situation could have been prevented".
Let me repeat -THERE IS NO SEX-ED IN UTAH. It's not taught in the schools, it is not talked about in the home aside from "if you do it you are bad, so don't do it".
Trust me, some of these kids, especially in the rural areas, really are that dumb when it comes to the facts of life. They even censor TV here - we don't get all the broadcast network shows that other places do. SNL is not shown on the NBC affiliate here because it "offends" the church-owned station.
Utah can blame its birth rate and STD rate on the fucking freak Gayle Ruzicka of the Eagle Forum (morals queen whose druggie son overdosed) who thinks if kids are educated about sex, they'll start having it.
Utah abortion laws were already pretty restrictive before this, now they're even worse. The ultimate goal of the churchislature here is to subvert Roe vs. Wade, though they'll try to go through as many back doors as possible rather than openly challenge it.

Utah is sounding more and more like one big state-sized People's Temple compound.

It does amaze me how often the anti-abortion crowd assume that unwanted pregnancies are universally due to a misstep of the woman in question, that she consented to sex without protection, not even acknowledging that protection sometimes fails and that women don't always get to peacefully consent. It's only a half-step away from saying rape is the fault of the victim.

Women continue to be the most oppressed minority of them all.

So what if the law is a response to some girl having herself beat up. Shove the paternalism person with love in their name! You don't write laws that sets such a facist predecent towards half the population based on such an incident. And the kind of thinking that comes up with such laws to "protect" women is facist.

Anybody read Margaret Atwood's The Handmaiden's Tale? I'm just sayin'...

It really hurts my brain how the one of the main mantras of conservatism is "keep the government out of our lives" but their pet causes all seem to be about that same government gaining more and more control over people sex lives, reproductive choices, and leisure activities. It's genuinely odd.

Well, Uriel @ 52, while you were out last week world building, a bunch of your fellow commenters on Slog DID blame women for rape:

slog.thestranger.com/slog/.../children-t…

nice, eh?

@ 57

Which is why I'm a Libertarian

@56
The problem is with the interpretation of the law. If a woman falls down the stairs accidentally and that results in a miscarriage, that could be interpreted as attempting to induce a miscarriage or abortion outside of a doctor's care, especially if she expressed any concern about having yet another kid to anyone. This would be of even greater concern in the rural areas, where a woman who has not been faithful to the church may be persecuted - and prosecuted - by the red neck neanderthals that run a lot of them.

Sounds like Utah is one step away from "The Handmaid's Tale". Time for normal Utahns to move one state in any direction before they are forced to bear Mormon young.

Someone should suggest that all Utahnian men get sterilised. Just in case one of them have miscarriage inducing sperm.

I can't remember who said it, but one of the commenters stated that all abortions are grieved, too. That is very true.

When I was 17 (almost 18) and in my first semester of college, I got pregnant by my boyfriend at the time. I wasn't being some stupid teenager who refused to use a condom; the condom broke, and I found out I was pregnant during finals week. Shortly after, I turned 18, and went to the Planned Parenthood in my town.

It was horrible. The people who worked there were great, but I had to be escorted inside by armed security, and there were protesters screaming at me. I wasn't thinking, "yay! now I get to have an abortion!" I was crushed, and felt a profound sense of loss. But having that baby would have been the end of my life as I knew it, since I didn't have a job or a stable place to live at the time, and my family would have disowned me. I was not going to bring a child into the world that I couldn't care for, and I was not in the position where I could afford to be disowned.

Some people found out about it, and completely ditched me as friends after that. I suffered with horrible depression and guilt afterward. But three years later, looking back, I can see that I made the right choice for myself, and I don't feel bad anymore.

So anyone who thinks that women just line up to have abortions and don't have any feelings about it is just ignorant.

@64: It's just so transparent, such an obvious contradiction and so clearly hypocritical that I have no idea how these people can possibly buy into it. I suppose I'm giving too many people too much credit... but come on, how you don't have to be a genius to notice a fucking huge discrepancy. BRAIN. HURT.

@19- I was curious about the home birth vs. hospital birth safety issue, so looked it up on the cochrane database. As there haven't been any large studies, there is no way to say which is more safe.

Here's the link

http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab000…

@16: Wow, that's just surreal. A 17-year old girl is so freaked out about being pregnant, so convinced she doesn't have any viable options, that she waits until the 7th month and then pays someone to beat her up . . . and you want to prosecute her for that?

I'm sorry, Utah is clearly not concerned about that girl's wellbeing. Firstly, it WOULD be far healthier for her to have had a legal abortion -- which presumably wasn't accessible or affordable for her or else she would have done that. (Abortions aren't pleasant, but they're still better than getting beat up enough induce miscarriage.) Criminalizing miscarriage won't bring women like her to a liscenced physician to get an abortion.

Most likely someone that desperate not to have a child is going to go ahead and do something dumb and dangerous anyway, and just try to cover it up.

Secondly, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO HELP SOMEONE BY ARRESTING THEM? Has it occured to anyone on the Utah legislature that the emotional welbeing of pregnant women might be important for fetal health? That once the kid's born, the quality of his/her childhood will have an awful lot to do with the quality of the mother's life, her self-esteem, her self-confidence -- all of which are undermined by treating her as a potential murderer while she's pregnant?

Thirdly, exactly how much does the state of Utah do in terms of making sure pregnant women have access to high-quality prenatal care, and that mothers have access to health care, child care, etc once the child is born? A very strong motivating factor in many abortions (or, presumably, not-so-accidental miscarriages) is financial worries, not being sure you can afford to take good care of a child. Seems to me that a good way to make sure there are fewer abortions (and intentional miscarriages) is to make sure that women who might want to be mothers, can afford to be mothers.

This law can't possibly help anyone. All it will do is scare women away from getting proper pre-natal care, for fear they'll be prosecuted if anything goes wrong.

Finally, there's an inherent sexism in the broader context. When a man and a women have unprotected sex under unadvisable circumstances, and the woman gets pregnant, it's easy to blame her. But the guy who got her pregnant . . . in many cases no one ever even knows. The inherent unfairness of women having to deal with more of the consequences of sex is bad enough. But when you criminalize pregnant women on top of that, that's just outrageously unfair.

Thanks, Dan, for picking this up from RH Reality Check.

Unfortunately, laws like this one proposed in Utah aren't as outrageous as you might think. No, there no laws on the books that criminalize miscarriages in this country. However, the increasing numbers of state feticide laws fashioned from our Unborn Victims of Violence Act (federal) have been used to prosecute, jail, and terrorize pregnant and parenting women. In Iowa, last month, a pregnant woman who was also a mother to two daughters, was arrested in the ER of a local hospital where she had gone b/c she accidentally fell down the stairs and was worried about the well being of her fetus. When she admitted to the nurse that she was feeling uncertain about carrying her pregnancy to term (her husband had recently left her, she was terrified, etc.), the nurse called the doctor over who then called the police - who brought her to jail.

Why?

Because under this "feticide" law (laws that say that anyone who intentionally hurts a pregnant woman causing the death of the fetus can be charged for crimes against the fetus and crimes against the pregnant woman), a person who "intentionally causes the death of her fetus after the end of the second trimester" can be criminally prosecuted. And though some laws specifically state that the woman herself cannot be prosecuted for the crime - its happened. In South Carolina. In Iowa. Around the country. Though she was only in the beginning of her second trimester, this nurse and doctor (and the police) decided that she may have intentionally thrown herself down the stairs to cause "the death of her fetus" AND SHE WAS JAILED for it. There was NO evidence - she came into the ER willingly and happened to admit that she was feeling uncertain about keeping her pregnancy.

Charges were dropped NOT because the law is a heinous piece of anti-woman, handmaids tale legislation but because it was proven that she was in her second trimester and not third.

So, yeah, this Utah law is horrific but I hope no one fools themselves into thinking this is it. The anti-choice movement has made it their mission not to "protect the lives of the unborn" (if they wanted to do that they would: lobby for and support universal access to prenatal care for pregnant women, lobby for and support widespread access to contraception which helps reduce maternal mortality rates worldwide, ensure all women have access to high quality care during childbirth, etc.) but to remain unceasingly vicious in their attempts to block access to legal, safe abortion care through heinous laws and bills like the ones in Utah and Iowa.

By the way, it makes me happy to see that my hometown alt newspaper's blog is picking up on our posts - so thanks much!

Thanks,
Amie Newman
Managing Editor, RH Reality Check

@66 - STFU. Something tells me by your post name you would not be the one who would have to bear the stigma of carrying a fetus to term, ostracized by your family, friends and community...in other words, it's a typical male comment. "Just carry it to term, adoption is fine" can be the mantra for men or women but it misses the point - in reality, for many young girls, the simple act of being pregnant is what causes the issues within their families, within their community, whether they keep the child or give it up for adoption.

And condoms DO break, asshat. And sometimes they don't break but yet, they still don't work and someone gets pregnant. STFU.

@72

Thanks, blanne. I was going to point that out to the obviously illiterate retard who clearly didn't read my post.

Even if I gave the baby up for adoption, there was no way I could avoid my family for 9 months, so I ruled out that option as well.

I think adoption is great, in theory. Although, I've met several people who lived in foster homes who have told me it was one of the most horrific experiences of their lives. So I suppose it depends on where kids are placed.

Hey 73 (also 65), I'm glad you don't feel bad anymore. You can only walk by the light you have to see by. I'm sorry some people made you feel ashamed; that was really uncalled-for. Being pregnant when you didn't plan to be is always a life-changer. No matter what you do, there are what-ifs, but you made a choice and moved forward. I'm glad you did what was right for you. (and 66 is beneath your notice---just a mouse turd on the path of life, really)

The Buddha said something like this: You, yourself, as much as anyone in the universe, are deserving of your love and compassion. Take good care of yourself.

Jesus. Way to make a woman scared to live in the state of Utah.

Please learn the difference between their and they're.

Thanks!

@56. That problem is that the language of the bill says "an intentional, knowing, or reckless act of the woman". So, the woman could act recklessly, but not intentionally, and still be charged. If it had said and recklessly, then you might be right. But, it's clear to me, based on reading the bill anyways, that a woman could be charged for acting recklessly if it causes a miscarriage, even if she didn't intend to terminate the pregnancy. It follows that knowing you're pregnant isn't a condition of being charged under this law.

Also troubling is the scenario where a woman spontaneously miscarries -- does someone get to judge whether she did anything "reckless" in the days leading up to the miscarriage? If you go to the ER when you are in the process of miscarrying, will someone be asking you questions about your behavior? Because that's exactly what a woman going through the trauma of a miscarriage needs, of course.

@65- Thank you for speaking out.

@66- I'd pity you, but you're a little too loathsome for that.

I see a potential Something Positive comic out of this one. Oh, you've never seen the comic? Google it. I guarantee that this guy's already thinking of a way to outrage his characters with this one.

@19, @45 & @68 Here's a link to a sizeable homebirth study that shows the planned place of birth makes no difference in infant mortality or morbidity.

http://www.washingtonmidwives.org/nether…

There's also a study done more recently (than 2002) here in the U.S. which is smaller, but has the same outcome.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/330/…

amazonmidwife I will fight to the death for women to deliver wherever and in whatever manner they choose. If we fail to control our birthing, we have lost everything. This is the fundamental right of all fundamental rights.

Having said that, I don't think the Netherlands study is generalizable to Washington, or to the US. The Netherlands midwives (like the Canadian midwives in the Alberta studies) are nurses, trained in a scientific/medical tradition, working within protocols that clearly set out what types of births are appropriate for a home delivery, with clear protocols for transport. The BJM piece takes those protocols as a starting point, too.

In the Pacific Northwest we have a homebirth movement that is primarily ideological in origin, that decries empiricism and science, and that views transport and referral to hospitals and obstetricians as failure. As might be evident from my posts here and elsewhere, I have a big, big problem with ideology being the driving force in the lives and care of pregnant women.

You do not refer to or respond to the study that I directed you to, the one that shows the newborn death rate in Washington State for homebirths to be TWICE the newborn death rate in hospital births, in spite of the homebirth population being on average a lower-risk population. Why is that?

I am not against homebirths. Not at all. I just am perplexed that local midwives, who reject the protocols in place in Europe and Canada for transport and referral continually refer to the European and Canadian data and claim it as evidence of the safety of their practices.

(Before you and your colleagues flame me, you should know I'm one of those "good OBs" that you like to transport to because I'm collaborative and will cheerfully consult on patients who are experiencing complications. So, be fair, and answer my questions without attacking me, OK?)

The bill is going to the Gov to sign. It is a stupid, poorly written law that oozes paternalism. Anyone who thinks this law is not so bad…read it. The good paternalists of the Utah state government are using pregnancy as a means to make women second class. People who create and support such laws do not deserve to have their rights respected in return. If women go down they should take the men folk down with them. Screw human rights if they only belong to men.

Carla12, register and provide a full profile instead of baiting me and Mr Savage and then we MIGHT have a conversation, depending on how sincere I think you are (which is currently not very).

curtisp I do love you (and don't even get me started on your avatar)

You are right---this is all about making pregnant women (even potentially pregnant women) second-class.

Who can fail to be outraged?

#84 - Do read what the law says. It's not hard to find. Any woman who has a miscarriage can become a criminal suspect. So let me ask: As a concerned citizen do you think it is appropriate or healthy for women to have more government imposed paternalism in their private lives and face prison time for having a self induced (intended or accidental) miscarriage during any stage of pregnancy?

Oh there you go again, 88, aka Carla12, exposing yourself as the same old stupid troll.

(now where was that "unregistered comments off" button? Ah! Le voila! Au revoir pour toujours, Mlle Carla!)

#87 - (and don't even get me started on your avatar)
What! Is it the boots? You don't like the boots? They are THE staple of my wardrobe.

89, if you want to read the study, go to the ACOG website and pay the nominal fee they charge for viewing it (what I provided was NOT a hyperlink, but the citation), and then we can have a conversation. I actually know one of the editors who reviewed the article for the journal. He, like me, is collaborative with homebirth midwives and he was appalled by the findings. You can't really blame the findings on methodology, btw, because the study was a review of birth and death certificates in Washington State.

The phrase "local" was to differentiate from the Europeans that amazonmidwife cited.

93, you willfully misunderstand me. (not that I hold that against you....)

@96: Yeah, and refusing to stick to one name and instead lurking in total anonymity is the epitome of courage. So sorry, but you're just a no-talent ass clown.

Oh, and 89, the "homebirth nazi" post was not mine. Please don't link it to me.

@79

Your argument is absolutely asinine.

You are basically saying that people who cannot afford to have babies shouldn't be having sex because it's for "grown-ups".

Well, I have five brothers and sisters, and was raised DIRT POOR because of it...because of my mom's "Christian values". She didn't have her first child until she was married and in her 30's. Are you saying she was allowed to have sex at all?

What about all the other straight people who have kids who can't afford them, but are well into their adult years?

All I, or anyone, CAN do is take the best precautions they know how to. Even the most effective birth control methods, such as Depo Provera, are only 99.9 percent effective. Not 100 percent. People still get pregnant by those methods. And they shouldn't feel bad about it because they did the best that they could to avoid unwanted pregnancies, just as I did.

Some people shouldn't have children, and I was honest enough with myself to realize that at that point in my life, I was one of those people.

But the thing about your post that sickens me is the sex-negative elitism that drips from every word of it. It is as if you are implying that having babies is the only reason anyone should have sex at all because, even with all proper precautions, you should EXPECT to get pregnant anyway. And how dare an 18 year old WOMAN take responsibility for her reproductive health... Tsk tsk.

Furthermore, I didn't live with my parents or rely on them financially, and still don't. But I think that regardless of how old people are, they STILL don't want to be shunned by their family over something that occurred when they were 18.

@ 74 Thank you very much. Buddha usually had something useful to say for nearly any situation. Which is why he was epic. :)

#92 - Wow, so sorry about what you had to go through. Thank you for posting. Some people need to hear about these situations to really understand that if the pending Utah law is signed by the Gov women in similar situations could be subject to criminal investigations...with their bodies as the main evidence. Anyone who would support such a law is ethically and morally bankrupt.