Author Topic: Protect your unborn baby - okay in OK (Read 10775 times)

Desertdog · « **on:** April 24, 2009, 11:46:53 AM »

When protecting their baby, they will also be protecting their selves. Self defense should never be a reason to face trial.

Protect your unborn baby - okay in OK
Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=501268

Oklahoma has become the first state to give a pregnant woman the right to use force to defend her unborn child.

Under the "Use of Force for the Protection of the Unborn Act" -- signed into law by Governor Brad Henry -- a mom-to-be is legally justified in using deadly force if she "reasonably believes" an attacker is "threatening her unborn child" and "use of force or deadly force are immediately necessary to protect" that child.

The law was actually prompted by an incident in Michigan, according to Maressa Treat, Oklahoma state director of Americans United for Life (AUL). "There was a lady who was attacked -- she was pregnant with triplets, and she ended up losing her babies," she explains. "The attacker ended up dying, and she was convicted."

The conviction was later successfully appealed, but Treat tells OneNewsNow the incident sent shock waves all the way to Oklahoma.

"Oklahoma has the highest rate per capita of violence against pregnant women," she says. "So it's incredibly important that we are not only going out and saying that we're going to protect life, but that we make the proper steps to protect all life."

The legislation was developed by Americans United for Life, but it is available for any state to consider. An AUL press release argues that every pregnant woman in America "deserves the right to protect her unborn child from violence and harm."

lone_gunman · « **Reply #1 on:** April 24, 2009, 11:52:14 AM »

I am not sure I understand. How can you be a threat to an unborn baby without also being a threat to the mother?

CNYCacher · « **Reply #2 on:** April 24, 2009, 12:01:48 PM »

Quote from: lone_gunman on April 24, 2009, 11:52:14 AM

I am not sure I understand. How can you be a threat to an unborn baby without also being a threat to the mother?

Don't know the specifics of the attack, but if you re-read the article you will discover that there was a case where a pregnant woman defended herself with deadly force and was convicted for killing her attacker even though the attacker killed her babies.

Sounds like the new law is designed to protect (from legal charges) attacked women in this (rare) situation.

Firethorn · « **Reply #3 on:** April 24, 2009, 12:44:27 PM »

Quote from: CNYCacher on April 24, 2009, 12:01:48 PM

Don't know the specifics of the attack, but if you re-read the article you will discover that there was a case where a pregnant woman defended herself with deadly force and was convicted for killing her attacker even though the attacker killed her babies.

Call me crazy, but I'm surprised they managed to get a conviction. Damage enough to cause a miscarriage is what I'd call serious injury, and the fact he DID it puts it beyond 'threat'.

I'll note that it WAS successfully appealed, but still.

Oh, and I'd say killing in self defense can quite correctly end up in court. I'd say that it's a defense against murder charges, and if the circumstances are iffy enough, it should go to trial.

RoadKingLarry · « **Reply #4 on:** April 24, 2009, 12:45:54 PM »

I don't really get this one either. I think it may be pandering to the anti-abortion crowd a bit. Oklahoma self defense law already recognizes the right to use of deadly force to prevent serious bodily harm. An attack severe enough to cause damage to a unborn child or casue a miscarriage in my thinking would carry a risk of serious bodily harm.

CNYCacher · « **Reply #5 on:** April 24, 2009, 12:48:31 PM »

If you're crazy we both are.

I thought Maressa Treat was the attacked, but in fact she was just telling the story. I'm wondering if the triplet story actually happened.

Firethorn · « **Reply #6 on:** April 24, 2009, 12:52:00 PM »

Quote from: CNYCacher on April 24, 2009, 12:48:31 PM

I thought Maressa Treat was the attacked, but in fact she was just telling the story. I'm wondering if the triplet story actually happened.

I believe I found the case in question:
Defense of Fetus
Kurr killed her boyfriend, Antonio Pena, after he allegedly punched her twice in the stomach. She told police that she informed him she was pregnant, and when he tried to hit her again, she stabbed him out of fear that he would harm the fetus. Before trial, Kalamazoo County Circuit Judge Richard Lamb granted her motion to present testimony and argue a "defense of others" theory. Kurr presented evidence that Pena had abused her before, that she received positive pregnancy-test results while in police custody, and that she suffered a miscarriage

vaskidmark · « **Reply #7 on:** April 24, 2009, 03:33:54 PM »

The new law http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2009-10bills/SB/sb1103_sflr.rtf states that only the pregnant woman, under certain restrictions, is justified in using force or deadly force in protecting herself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force she reasonably believes to be threatening her unborn child (no mention of a threat to the life of the unborn child). The act does not apply to the acts of others (who may be attempting to defend the life of the unborn child, or to the mother if she is required to retreat, surrender the possession of a thing, or comply with a demand before using deadly force.

So what we have here is an addition to the common law concept of justifiable homicide in defense of self - when that defense of self is applied to the defense of another.

Sweet suffering baby jeebus! They can't even make up their minds what they are justifying! And the affirmative defense can only be claimed by one specific group of citizens, who are only temporarily members of the definded group!

Calling El Teon - you will be able to recover all costs of relocation and loss of former clients if you move to Oklahoma and only take cases related to this law. I'm only asking 1/10th of 1% of your fees for suggesting this career change to you.

Skakespeare had it wrong - we need to kill the legislators. (Yes, I know that was his intent when he wrote that line.)

stay safe.

skidmark

edited for typos

Strings · « **Reply #8 on:** April 24, 2009, 05:53:57 PM »

Don't quote this as gospel, but I THINK an attack can be severe enough to harm the fetus without actually being severe enough against the mother to justify deadly force (in many peoples' minds). And I'd guess that's what this law is aimed at: clearing up that ambiguity...

I will say that I can see this law being used as a defense for violence by the extreme fringe of the pro-life movement ("I was attempting to protect unborn children"). Probably not successfully, but I can see it being attempted...

MechAg94 · « **Reply #9 on:** April 24, 2009, 10:26:55 PM »

Quote from: Strings on April 24, 2009, 05:53:57 PM

Don't quote this as gospel, but I THINK an attack can be severe enough to harm the fetus without actually being severe enough against the mother to justify deadly force (in many peoples' minds). And I'd guess that's what this law is aimed at: clearing up that ambiguity...

I will say that I can see this law being used as a defense for violence by the extreme fringe of the pro-life movement ("I was attempting to protect unborn children"). Probably not successfully, but I can see it being attempted...

From what vaskidmark said, it sounds like they were attempting to prevent this law from being used as justification by an anti-abortion extremist. I was a bit concerned about that myself. It would be hard to imagine any legislator not considering that angle.

Strings · « **Reply #10 on:** April 24, 2009, 10:31:26 PM »

>It would be hard to imagine any legislator not considering that angle.<

You haven't dealt with many legiscritters, have you?

Not considering the impact of something is about the only thing most are good at!

CNYCacher · « **Reply #11 on:** April 24, 2009, 11:22:30 PM »

Quote from: Strings on April 24, 2009, 05:53:57 PM

I will say that I can see this law being used as a defense for violence by the extreme fringe of the pro-life movement ("I was attempting to protect unborn children"). Probably not successfully, but I can see it being attempted...

Quote from: vaskidmark on April 24, 2009, 03:33:54 PM

The new law http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2009-10bills/SB/sb1103_sflr.rtf states that only the pregnant woman, under certain restrictions, is justified in using force or deadly force in protecting herself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force she reasonably believes to be threatening her unborn child (no mention of a threat to the life of the unborn child). The act does not apply to the acts of others (who may be attempting to defend the life of the unborn child, or to the mother if she is required to retreat, surrender the possession of a thing, or comply with a demand before using deadly force.

Maybe the reason it is written as a defense ONLY for the mother is to protect abortion doctors from third-party violence.

If that is the case, it could have been written better, as it is written now, it leaves out a third party defending the woman from a real attack, not that this is a likely scenario. . .

taurusowner · « **Reply #12 on:** April 25, 2009, 05:55:16 AM »

It really needs to be decided once and for all by everyone whether or not the collection of cells/baby growing inside a woman is a person or not. This law protects it like it is, but abortion law says it's not.

/I'm pretty set on my answer, but the debate still looms. How can something be human enough for a mother to protect with deadly force, but not be human enough for others to protect from death and dismemberment by acid burning/vacuum? The two sets of laws just do not jive in any way.

Balog · « **Reply #13 on:** April 25, 2009, 06:33:26 AM »

Is being punched in the stomach usually grounds for using deadly force? I personally think so, but I'm not a lawyer who's job is convicting people of things. I can see actions resulting in a miscarriage not being clear grounds for a good shoot (according to the local DA).

vaskidmark · « **Reply #14 on:** April 25, 2009, 07:12:47 AM »

Quote from: Balog on April 25, 2009, 06:33:26 AM

Is being punched in the stomach usually grounds for using deadly force? I personally think so, but I'm not a lawyer who's job is convicting people of things. I can see actions resulting in a miscarriage not being clear grounds for a good shoot (according to the local DA).

It does not need to actually result in misscarrige, let alone any lesser harm to the fetus. All it requires is for a "reasonable pregnant woman" to believe that it may cause serious bodily injury or death, or less, to the fetus. [Here is where I assert, affirm, and take oath that I am NOT going to even broach the subject of "reasonable pregnant woman" and raging, changing hormones. Nope! Not going there. Ladysmith, put down that boot - I said I was not going to even begin to think about thinking about that subject.]

As I mentioned, "Sweet suffering baby jeebus! They can't even make up their minds what they are justifying! And the affirmative defense can only be claimed by one specific group of citizens, who are only temporarily members of the defined group!"

I am more concerned about how the legal bright minds sitting in constitutional judgement will view the severe limitation on who can claim this justifiable defense to homicide, and the severe limits as to when that claim can be asserted.

Yes, I did consider the whole issue of when does a mass of cells attain personhood for the purpose of ability to claim the protection of the laws. I gave up on that line of thought because of the more clearly debatable issue of the limits placed on being able to assert this defense of self in defense of other can of worms, along with the inability of anyone but the pregnant lady being able to assert this defense in defense of the health of the fetus. (For those of you who missed it, the baby-father cannot assert this defense if he uses deadly force against a person he reasonably believes might harm the baby-momma's fetus by attacking the baby-momma.)

stay safe.

skidmark

Strings · « **Reply #15 on:** April 25, 2009, 07:30:20 AM »

Ok, my brain hurts now...

vaskidmark · « **Reply #16 on:** April 25, 2009, 09:04:16 AM »

Quote from: Strings on April 25, 2009, 07:30:20 AM

Ok, my brain hurts now...

My work here is done.

stay safe.

skidmark

Strings · « **Reply #17 on:** April 25, 2009, 04:24:27 PM »

Motion to banschwerk vaskidmark

LadySmith · « **Reply #18 on:** April 25, 2009, 06:33:25 PM »

Ok vaskidmark, you know I had my throwing arm cocked, right?

Why didn't the Kurr trial center around self-defense? I get that the woman may have felt her own life wasn't worth defending. I've read that plenty of abused women feel that they're worthless. I'm wondering why her lawyer(s) allowed the unborn child to become a separate issue in the first place. She had to defend herself in order to defend her child, yes? Why not stick with that in the hope of getting her set free at best or a lesser sentence at worst?

So now there's a specific law stating that only a pregnant woman can use deadly force to protect her unborn child. Nobody, not even baby-daddies, can do that, just the mom.
Allow me to get stoopid with it…

What if CCW baby-daddy comes home, finds his baby-mama recently deceased and the crazy-lady neighbor preparing to remove the still living baby with a kitchen knife. He'd have to wait until the C-section via homicide is complete before he can take action "to protect others" since he can't use lethal force to protect his unborn child, right?

What if baby-mama believes her unborn baby's life is threatened, manages to kill the person causing the threat and then decides to have an abortion midway through her trial? Totally legal, but…

vaskidmark · « **Reply #19 on:** April 25, 2009, 10:07:27 PM »

Quote

Why didn't the Kurr trial center around self-defense? I get that the woman may have felt her own life wasn't worth defending. I've read that plenty of abused women feel that they're worthless. I'm wondering why her lawyer(s) allowed the unborn child to become a separate issue in the first place. She had to defend herself in order to defend her child, yes? Why not stick with that in the hope of getting her set free at best or a lesser sentence at worst?

Because she did not believe she personally was in danger of death or grevious bodily injury (the usual standard for justifying/excusing the use of lethal force. Thus, she had no justification/excuse for defending herself with lethal force against the attacker. Keep up, woman, or I'm going to have to suggest you keep up with the facts of the case. [I can see all the shoes you are collecting, but I know you won't throw them.]

Quote

She had to defend herself in order to defend her child, yes?

See above - the answer to your question is unequivocally "No!"

Quote

So now there's a specific law stating that only a pregnant woman can use deadly force to protect her unborn child. Nobody, not even baby-daddies, can do that, just the mom.
Allow me to get stoopid with it…

Why should we allow you to get stoopid with it when the Legislature has done such a good job without your assistance. Not that I doubt for a moment that you could do at least as good a job, if not better than the Legislature. [Did I just sign my death warrant?]

Quote

What if CCW baby-daddy comes home, finds his baby-mama recently deceased and the crazy-lady neighbor preparing to remove the still living baby with a kitchen knife. He'd have to wait until the C-section via homicide is complete before he can take action "to protect others" since he can't use lethal force to protect his unborn child, right?

Not even applicable, as the crazy lady with the kitchen knife is not only not threatening the life of the as-yet unborn child, the crazy lady is actually in the process of trying to save the life of the unborn child. In order to threaten the life of the as-yet unborn child, the crazy lady would need to be either stabbing at the belly in an attempt to pierce through to the fetus, or be fending off baby-daddy or the paramedics who were themselves trying to perform a field-expedient c-section. But as to your "he can't use lethal force to protect his unborn child, right?" - exactamundo! Glad to see you are following the flow of this law.

Quote

What if baby-mama believes her unborn baby's life is threatened, manages to kill the person causing the threat and then decides to have an abortion midway through her trial? Totally legal, but…

But what? This law gives her an affirmative defense, and Roe v. Wade says she can do whatever her little heart desires at least through the first trimester, and imposes only a few limitations during the second trimester.

You know, I'm gonna love parsing this law. There are just so many opportunities to seem like I'm going off my meds when in reality I'm so firmly grounded in reality it's actually scary.

I'll face your banschwerk any day, and laugh at it, to boot!

stay safe.

skidmark

LadySmith · « **Reply #20 on:** April 25, 2009, 10:21:53 PM »

Skidmark, I would so throw some shoes at you if all of your legalese hadn't made me so dizzy!

Just you wait until the courtroom in my head stops spinning.

vaskidmark · « **Reply #21 on:** April 25, 2009, 10:29:14 PM »

Quote from: LadySmith on April 25, 2009, 10:21:53 PM

Skidmark, I would so throw some shoes at you if all of your legalese hadn't made me so dizzy!
Just you wait until the courtroom in my head stops spinning.

Help! I'm laughing and can't get up.

stay safe.

skidmark

KD5NRH · « **Reply #22 on:** April 26, 2009, 04:55:44 AM »

Quote from: MechAg94 on April 24, 2009, 10:26:55 PM

From what vaskidmark said, it sounds like they were attempting to prevent this law from being used as justification by an anti-abortion extremist.

It's not that hard to do. Though Texas doesn't specify it under defense of a third party, the wording from our murder statutes is simple and clear:
TX PC 19.06 APPLICABILITY TO CERTAIN CONDUCT. This chapter does not apply to the death of an unborn child if the conduct charged is:
(1) conduct committed by the mother of the unborn child;
(2) a lawful medical procedure performed by a physician or other licensed health care provider with the requisite consent, if the death of the unborn child was the intended result of the procedure;
(3) a lawful medical procedure performed by a physician or other licensed health care provider with the requisite consent as part of an assisted reproduction as defined by Section 160.102, Family Code;

Note that, given the exceptions above, the legislature clearly intended that an unborn child be considered a person, (and would also make the defense of third party justifications for use of force or deadly force applicable) which would make 19.03 (Capital Murder) apply:
19.03(a)(7) the person murders more than one person:
(A) during the same criminal transaction; or
(B) during different criminal transactions but the murders are committed pursuant to the same scheme or course of conduct;
( 8 ) the person murders an individual under six years of age;

vaskidmark · « **Reply #23 on:** April 26, 2009, 06:30:57 AM »

KD5NRH - it's not an issue of who can be charged with killing, or trying to kill, the unborn child. It's all about the baby-momma being the only one who can be justifiably excused for using deadly lethal force in protecting the unborn baby from those who are trying to kill it.

While I have not and will not bother to look up OK law, I feel confident that there is some oprovision there that says it is all right for the baby-momma to decide she wants to quit that role before the natural end of pregnancy, and that if she seeks the assistance of licensed medical personnel in reaching that goal neither she nor they violate the murder law(s).

We need to stay on point here, or Ladysmith will end up perfused and complexed without having access to a hormonal defense. If that happens, I will not allow anyone to blame me for the collateral damage done by errant shoes.

stay safe.

skidmark

KD5NRH · « **Reply #24 on:** April 27, 2009, 02:16:05 AM »

Quote from: vaskidmark on April 26, 2009, 06:30:57 AM

KD5NRH - it's not an issue of who can be charged with killing, or trying to kill, the unborn child. It's all about the baby-momma being the only one who can be justifiably excused for using deadly lethal force in protecting the unborn baby from those who are trying to kill it.

I was referring to the fact that it doesn't take a lot of fancy language to make it so that the mother is the only one who can authorise the termination of the fetus, rather than the only one who can defend it. The requirement that an intentional termination be the mother's own action or an authorised medical procedure performed by a doctor protects any third party who might step in and use force to keep the mother from being punched in the stomach, in case she later claims she wanted it done to induce miscarriage.

News:

Author Topic: Protect your unborn baby - okay in OK (Read 10775 times)

taurusowner