Having a miscarriage? Don't do it in Virginia.

[Relbeek Einre]

You don't understand how we suffer when we get blue balls, you miserable cocktease.

[Ddrak]

Wende,

By your own argument, you could not understand how a man would feel about *anything*. This makes you completely incapable of offering any comparison about who feels more or less. Therefore your entire point is null and void.

Idiot? I think not. The only one making broad idiotic generalizations here is you.

Dd

[Jarochai Alabaster]

Arguing about comparability of emotions is silly at best. Most people don't even understand their own feelings, how can anyone really understand someone else's? Even if you took two people in the exact same situation, neither would feel the same about it.
There are some men who would be more broken up over a miscarriage than some women. With the variability of emotional responses from person to person, it's absurd to say that a man's emotional torment over his partner's miscarriage is miniscule in comparison to a woman's. Some women's emotions are tumultuous during pregnancy, some women's emotions are not. Chemistry and emotion and the way the two play off each other is still mostly a mystery to us, and likely will be for a long time.
Now, for the proposed law itself...I find it a violation of privacy. If a woman is not required to even report her pregnancy, why must she report her miscarriage? If a woman's abortion information is completely confidential (And for statistical purposes reported as a patient number) why must so much unrelated information be given when reporting a miscarriage?
Frankly the law is idiotic. As has been said, reporting the death of someone who's already born makes sense - it's a person that the state already knows exists. Removing the body of the deceased is important for the obvious health reasons. This issue has nothing to do with the distinctions between pro-life and pro-chioce. Even the most zealous pro-lifer should be able to see the difference between reporting a death and a miscairrage.
We know they couldn't possibly want miscairrage figures for statistical information. If that were the case, they'd want pregnancies reported. I can't even see how this law would push a political agenda. It's fucking retarded, and breaking it constituting a class 1 misdemeanor is downright unbelievable. A year in prison for failing to report a miscairrage? Thousands of dollars in fines? This shit makes no sense. If anything, lengthen the 12 hour time limit to a few days at least, and drop the penalty for failing to report the miscairrage to a couple hundred bucks.
Fucking waste of tax dollars.

[wende darling]

You're absolutely right. I don't know what it's like to be a man or how one would feel if his SO were to have a miscarriage so while I still don't think that it was sexist, I will admit to it being at least insensitive.

That being said, the law is still ridiculous. I couldn't find information on how/when to file a birth certificate in VA. Of the states that I found the information on the law was pretty much the same:

A certificate of birth for each live birth which occurs in this state shall be filed with the Division of Vital Records, or as otherwise directed by the state registrar, within ten (10) days after the birth and shall be registered if it has been completed and filed in accordance with this section.

and

When a birth occurs outside an institution:


The certificate shall be prepared and filed by one (1) of the following in the indicated order of priority:


The physician in attendance at or immediately after the birth, or in the absence of such a person;

Any other person in attendance at or immediately after the birth, or in the absence of such a person;

The father, the mother, or in the absence of the father and the inability of the mother, the person in charge of the premises where the birth occurred.

So, if you don't have to file a live birth for 10 days and in the filing it's good enough that a mother or father or anyone who witnessed the birth fill out the paperwork then why must the police be called within 12 hours of a miscarriage, when there is absolutely NO reason for anyone to need that information to begin with?

[Riggen]

Why is this torture? When my father died, we had to report his death (and I believe within 12 hours). Why isn't anyone suggesting that to be torture? We were distraght, and still had to report it! And lord help us, we even had to call someone to come take his body! The bastards!

Seriously, are you people listening to yourselves? I'll accept arguments for the pro-choicers that it's no one's business...because it's just a bit of tissue. And I'll accept the pro-life argument that someone has died, and so it must be reported. What I won't accept is pro-choice people arguing that this is torture, or pro-lifer's arguing that it's a privacy violation.

"Seriously", are you listening to what would be required? Legally compelling a woman to examine, weigh, and otherwise clinically handle the corpse of her miscarried child is bona-fide "scarred for life" psychological torture.

Yes having to report the death of a family member and seeing to the removal of their body is an odious task that I don't wish on anybody, but there is a realistic and practical health consideration--it's unhealthy to leave a corpse lying around. Duh. This consideration doesn't apply to most miscarriages.

How can something be "nobody's business" without an intrusion upon it being considered "a violation of privacy"? Why would a prolifer care about violating anyone's privacy when as a group prolifers have a demonstrated knack for intrusiveness? I'm assuming there are a couple typos in there somewhere because that whole paragraph pretty much makes no sense. Care to clarify?

I understand that the antiabortion crowd wants to advance the legal standing of fetuses as people but this is not the way to do it. Actually, were I the antiabortion establishment I'd want to distance myself as much as possible from this travesty. It's not going to make them any friends because no actual rights are established by this bill. "Laying groundwork" doesn't count for much at the cost of such egregious abusiveness, which will make them plenty of new enemies. So, no new friends and lots of new enemies for the antiabortion people, and a bunch of emotionally scarred women. Basically, nobody wins with this as law. It's just dumb.

Even if the bill is defanged and its abusive requirements stripped, there's still the question of "do we really need this?" It protects noone, directly benefits noone, and politics do not constitute "need". It's just something that will force people to go through more motions--nothing more than a waste of time and money.

[Laylee]

Why is this torture? When my father died, we had to report his death (and I believe within 12 hours). Why isn't anyone suggesting that to be torture? We were distraght, and still had to report it! And lord help us, we even had to call someone to come take his body! The bastards!

Vaulos,

Did having your father die actually physically hurt you? I had a miscarriage once. A very planned for child that we lost. I spent a week in agony because of complications, not to mention the emotional pain of knowing that my child was draining out of me . I will be damned if I ever have to call someone I don't know and tell them that I lost my child and have them question me on the weight and sex of the child I lost.

If I lived in Virginia, I would rather face a judge in court than have to call a police officer to say that I had had a miscarriage.

I agree with wende, a man cannot possibly know the pain and anquish that a woman goes through when she has a miscarriage. Yes, a man can know pain and anquish that their child has passed, but they will never be able to feel the pain and anquish of the actual physical trauma that is a miscarriage.

Granted, to some women a miscarriage is nothing more than the inconvience of a period, but that shouldn't negate the feelings of those women who are actually feeling the traumatic loss of their child.

Laylee

[Klast Brell]

Pro life advocates have been working for a long time to extend the legal definition of a “person” to include a zygote, fetus, and the spunk I wipe off my chest with a tissue in hopes that they can then use that as an argument for banning abortion.

This is just one more oblique attempt at extending that person status.

[vaulos]

Riggen- What is required is not technically difficult. Nor is it torture. Would it suck to have to do it? Certainly. Is it something which people would be incapable of doing? No. It is little different than preparing a fetus for burial (which is something many women do).

Laylee- Yes, actually it did. And my mother more so. Also, you obviously have never had to personally deal with a corpse of a full grown person before. When you talk to the funeral home the first thing they want to know is "how tall was he/she, and how much did he or she weigh". Purely practical reasoning on the part of the funeral home, but it is still a stranger asking you about height and weight. Are you distraught when you make that call? Of course. Is it uncomfortable? You bet. Is it torture? Hell no. And it is not even out of the ordinary.

Actually, you know what, you people are right. It would have been much or acceptable if Virginia had required women to call "911" and have the paramedics show up for every miscarriage!

[Relbeek Einre]

Klast is hacking Bill Hicks.

[Riggen]

Vaulos, quit trying to detour. I made no assertions about technical difficulty, though now that you mention it I rather doubt that every household carries a scale capable of measuring weight in grams. Maybe you'd support a provision added to the bill requiring households with gestating women to carry "miscarriage kits" just in case. The bill's requirements are emotionally devastating to a degree that the term psychological torture is appropriate, whether you "accept" it or not. You've offered nothing of substance demonstrating otherwise. That some people would be capable of this without suffering psychological harm is no justification for assuming that everyone could or should. Get a dose of empathy, man.

When you talk to the funeral home the first thing they want to know is "how tall was he/she, and how much did he or she weigh".

Maybe you're going to suggest to us next that you had to prop your pappy's corpse up on a scale to weigh him, examine his genitalia to identify his gender, examine the rest of his body for congenital malformations, personally conduct an autopsy, etc. No?

The fact is that this is just another red herring. The family is not required to handle the body when a relative dies at home. The funeral home can get this information from official sources other than the family. You are not compelled under penalty of law to provide that information either, but even if you choose to it's generally information you already have. The comparison just isn't there.

[vaulos]

I think you are missing my point Riggen. The reason why the funeral home and/or county morge takes care of these things, is because you call them to come do it. Hence my final statement that maybe we should just call the paramedics every time someone miscarries and have them do the weighing and measuring. (Though the statement was really made to point out that Virginia was trying not to invade people's privacy more than it throught it should). But if it is too much for people, I'm sure they would be allowed to call someone in to do it for them.

And thus, this whole problem is avoided. Have a miscarriage? Just call the EMS! Let them take care of the legal bits.

[Riggen]

As I stated previously, you are not compelled by law to call the funeral home or provide them with any information. You choose of your own free will to do so because you have certain preferences regarding the funeral, not because you're facing a class 1 misdemeanor. Hence, your analogy and thus your point is not useful.

So maybe in your own way you're acknowledging that this law goes too far by suggesting that paramedics deal with the issue. While this would eliminate the most egregious abuse, there are still the obvious privacy and cost problems. What justification exists for the invasion of privacy that will go part and parcel with this requirement? What about women who cannot afford emergency services? Will they essentially be criminalized for being poor and pregnant? Will they be covered free of charge? If so, how will the state justify making taxpayers foot the bill for an arbitrary political agenda they may not support?

Aside from that, we're back to what I was saying two posts ago--here, I'll quote myself for you:

Even if the bill is defanged and its abusive requirements stripped, there's still the question of "do we really need this?" It protects noone, directly benefits noone, and politics do not constitute "need". It's just something that will force people to go through more motions--nothing more than a waste of time and money.

[Rsak]

One point of view that may be missed in this case is if maybe one benifit of the law is that during the report to the police there is assurances that the mother is physically well and does not require medical attention.

Not all miscarriages are clean, simple, or safe. It is not illogical to believe that mothers could be so distraught from the loss of the child that they fail to seek medical attention for themselves.

While it is certainly a valid question of whether a mother in such a situation would call the police when they would not call for medical services.

[Riggen]

Doesn't wash. There's no legal mandate to seek attention for one's own medical conditions. People have a vested interest in taking care of themselves, by and large. But perhaps you'd appreciate laws prohibiting heart attack victims from eating fatty foods, or requiring diabetics to submit logs of their insulin injection times to the state.

[Laylee]

Or have smokers log their cigs...

As much as I am pro life, for no other medical problem are you required to report to the police.

Wouldn't this fall under privacy rights, not to mention illegal searches?

Laylee

[Rsak]

Personally I would not support such a bill for the hypothetical reasons I outlined as well as the practicality of whether they would call in when there was a problem.

However I wonder if it is a possiblity for the logic of the law. There are certainly individuals in our country that feel that people should be protected from themselves. (outlawing smoking in resteraunts, etc.)

[vaulos]

As I stated previously, you are not compelled by law to call the funeral home or provide them with any information. You choose of your own free will to do so because you have certain preferences regarding the funeral, not because you're facing a class 1 misdemeanor. Hence, your analogy and thus your point is not useful.

The purpose of the analogy was not to show that both were legal requirements; my purpose was to show that it was niether torture nor out of the ordinary. Whether it is required by law or not never enters into it. The extention of that argument was simply to say that if this requirement is too much for you, you can do the very American thing and call someone to do it for you.

Is this is silly legal requirement? I think so, but then I'm not overly concerned by whatever burr in Virginia's ass has caused this to become a "necessity" for them. But, it isn't torture.

[Alannia_Raindancer]

I still disagree with you Vaulos, although I can see your point. As a disinterested thrid party, if grampa dies, I have to call someone to collect the body, but after that, I can walk away. I don't think that's a moral approach, but it IS possible. I didn't cause it, grampa didn't come from my own body, etc etc etc.

I am pro-choice, for reasons that I've stated on other threads. I'm also a mother who has carried a child to term, and at the beginning of my pregnancy, almost lost my son, for reasons not attributed to anything I did wrong, other than the fact that my son and I had different blood types. I tell you this from experience: My son was a .... "surprise"....one I wasn't certain that I was ready for, even though I was well established in my relationship, and we had plans for the future. Hearing the doctor say things weren't looking good, hearing the nurse who pulled me aside and said "If you want this baby, you do what the doctor tells you to do, girl. You just do it and don't question." I. Was. Terrified. I did not want to lose my baby, despite my concerns about what he would do to my life, with his unexpected arrival.

I anguished burying my grandmother and my grandfather. I know in my heart it will be worse when I bury my parents (if I bury my parents, I have hopes that I won't have to go through it, but that's for a different thread). But I tell you this right now, if I would have had to bury my son prior to his birth, I would have died. The last thing on my mind would have been calling the police to tell them I had a miscarriage.

My sister lost my nephew ( we believe, we don't know for certain the sex of the child), because of the tumor she has on her pituitary gland. Needing to go through what has been suggested here would have killed her.

I can't say that this law in Virginia would be considered "torture". But I can say that a situation that can be "endured" normally is made worse by complications. I am not a sexist, by any stretch of the imagination, but I suspect that some men posting here would be surprised at how they'd react when it's THIER wife dealing with a miscarriage....Sympathies just seem to rise out of you guys where none was expected, and I bet you wouldn't call the police within 12 hours either

[vaulos]

If I happen to witness the murder of my entire family, I have a legal obligation to call the police. How, as pertaining to the torture question, is this different.

[Alannia_Raindancer]

Because this isn't a case of murder, it's a medical issue that may or may not require the attendance of a doctor, depending on how far along in the pregnancy a woman is?