Today's freaky sex- and gyno-phobic legislation
posted by bitchphd
Brought to you by email correspondent fullnelson (1) and feministing (2).
The catch today, though, is that I myself am unsure about what the probable effects of the proposed laws are. See if you can help me think them through.
(1) Bill calls for reporting of sexually active teens
By Matthew Franck
Post-Dispatch Jefferson City Bureau
03/14/2005
JEFFERSON CITY - A bill that seeks to overhaul Missouri's child abuse reporting laws could require teachers, doctors, nurses and others to report sexually active teenagers and children to the state's abuse hot line.
Until Monday, the bill had been sailing through the Legislature with little formal debate. It was scheduled for a House vote this morning, but on Monday the bill's author sent it back to committee for revisions.
Critics say the bill offers confusing and unnecessary changes to a law that has been in place for years. The bill's sponsor, Rep. Richard Byrd, R-Kirkwood, said the legislation offers a needed fix to a child abuse reporting law that has recently been contested in court.
Perhaps the most controversial provision of the bill is one that many say would require educators, medical personnel and other professionals to report "substantial evidence of sexual intercourse by an unmarried minor under the age of consent."
Critics say the language would, in essence, require child abuse reports even of cases of consensual sex between two teens. Byrd claims the bill seeks only to target sex by children under the age of 15.
Regardless of the age covered by the bill, some opponents say its consequences would be stifling for those who are required by law to report child abuse.
That list of "mandated reporters" includes educators, physicians, nurses and other professionals who come in contact with children.
Otto Fajen, a lobbyist for the Missouri chapter of the National Education Association, said the bill, as written, could stifle the ability of teachers and counselors to speak candidly to teens about sexual activity. Fajen said that by forcing teachers to always report sexual activity as abuse, the law removes sound professional judgment of what constitutes abuse.
Byrd said his bill has been misinterpreted to include sexual activity by older teens. He said that the "age of consent" referred to in the bill is 15. He said sexual activity by children under that age is something that should be reported to the child abuse hot line, regardless of the age of the sexual partner.
Missouri law on age of consent differs by the circumstances. An adult, for example, can be prosecuted for having sex with anyone under the age of 17.
"If somebody says to me, what's the age of consent in Missouri, I say it's 17," said Ed Postawko, a sex crimes prosecutor in the St. Louis Circuit Attorney's office.
Postawko said it's statutory rape or statutory sodomy for anyone to have sex with a child under the age of 14.
Rep. Margaret Donnelly, D-Richmond Heights, said because the bill is unclear about the age of consent, it could create confusion among mandated reporters. Donnelly is a lawyer who works in family law.
The bill also could cost the state money by requiring more staff to screen calls to the child abuse hot line. Deb Hendricks, a spokeswoman for the Department of Social Services, said the department has estimated that the bill could cost an extra $269,000 for the current fiscal year.
Missouri's child abuse reporting laws have been the subject of legal debate in the past two years. Most recently, a nurse in Springfield was prosecuted for failing to report bruises on a boy who was later killed by his foster father.
The nurse's lawyer had argued that the state's mandated reporter law was too vague. The statute requires mandated reporters to act if they have "reasonable cause to suspect a child has been or may be subjected to abuse or neglect."
The Missouri Supreme Court ultimately ruled that Missouri's current law is constitutional, which has left some questioning why Byrd is trying to change it.
"We don't think this bill is needed," said Ruth Ehresman, of the group Citizens for Missouri's Children.
Byrd said a close reading of the Supreme Court ruling suggests that the child abuse law might not stand up to another legal challenge. He said the law was deemed constitutional only as it applied to the Springfield case.
Opponents of Byrd's bill were troubled that it had been moving on a fast track toward passage. Until Monday, the bill was listed as a "consent bill," a classification typically reserved for noncontroversial bills.
Byrd said he decided to pull the bill from the consent calendar to make some changes suggested to him over the weekend by medical personnel.
As drafted, Byrd's bill would allow mandated reporters to report abuse for any reason. But the bill also specifies circumstances that should always present suspicion of abuse. In addition to "substantial evidence of sexual intercourse," those include malnutrition and numerous physical injuries "which are inconsistent with the explanations given for the condition."
Byrd said he'd like to add more detail to the bill to clarify cases that require a call to the child abuse hot line. But he said he will not budge on the bill's requirement to report sexual activity by those under the age of consent.
Robert Patrick of the Post-Dispatch contributed to this report.
Ok. Now, clearly it's dodgy to presume that sexual activity is in and of itself evidence of a crime. And yes, I know that statutory rape is, by definition, a crime and that under statutory rape laws, sex with a minor (however the law defines it) is, by definition, criminal. For the record, I think those laws are stupid, although I sympathize with their intent. Anyway. My question as far as this law goes is, let's say that your 14yo daughter is having sex with her boyfriend. You disapprove of this, but you can't really stop it short of locking her up. So, you figure, the least you can do is provide her with birth control, talk to her about disease prevention, talk to her about consent and coercion and "no means no" and "it's okay to wait" and do the best you can. Does this law then presume that you, the parent, are guilty of child abuse? Because it isn't clear to me. Or does the law presume that your silly daughter's silly 14yo boyfriend is guilty of child abuse? Or are the two 14yos abusing each other? The thing seems unenforcable.
Having said that, it certainly makes sense to me to include "signs of sexual activity" as possible signs of child abuse, to be reported by doctors in some cases. But presumably docs aren't required to report every kid who shows up with a bruised knee as a possible victim of abuse; there's no reason to think that a 14yo who goes into PP to get birth control should be presumed to be a victim solely because of that fact.
(2) Michigan Senate Bill 365:
when any portion of a human being has been vaginally delivered outside his or her mother's body, that portion of the body can only be described as born and the state has a rational basis for defining that human being as born and as a legal person. . . .
A physician or an individual performing an act, task, or function under the delegatory authority of a physician is immune from criminal, civil, or administrative liability for performing any procedure that results in injury or death of a perinate while completing the delivery of the perinate if, in that physician's reasonable medical judgment, the procedure was necessary to save the life of the mother and every reasonable effort was made to preserve the life of both the mother and the perinate.
Yikes! I realize that as a culture we've pretty much agreed that intact d&c is gruesome, but I know a woman who had one. The fetus she was carrying had no brain. Zero chance of survival. Her choice was to have a d&x--far safer--or to induce labor and then go through the risk and trauma of birth, not to mention the godawful fucking experience of carrying around a brainless fetus in her body for however long it would take. LIke any sensible person would, she chose option one.
But ok, let's just leave that aside. Screw those women who get diagnosed with aggressive cancer in the third trimester, or who are carrying fetuses with horrible, unviable birth defects, or who suffer some sudden health problem that means that continuing with the pregnancy could kill them. Forget about them. Does this law, as the ACLU is arguing, potentially outlaw all abortion? I can see how it fucks over women who arrive at the hospital with a miscarriage in progress--if the doctor doesn't try to "save the life" of the dying fetus, even at the risk of compromising the speed or effectiveness of treatment, he's criminally liable--but I'm not quite sure I see how it constitues a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade. I'm not saying it doesn't--I'm sure the ACLU's reasoning is better informed, legally speaking, than my own. I just don't get it, and if anyone can explain it to me, I would appreciate it.
Edited: Lizard Breath explains, in comments, why the law effectively outlaws all abortions: "for most methods of abortion, it is not impossible, or unlikely, for the fetus to remain alive past the point of removal from the woman's body. Even a first trimester suction abortion may end up with a miniscule fetus, entirely unable to live outside the womb, who has a heartbeat for seconds or minutes after the abortion is complete. Under this law, that's murder." Speaking as someone who once cracked open a fertilized egg to find, yes, a beating heart and a few veins (and I always think of this when I see those "abortion stops a beating heart" bumper stickers), I get the point. Christ. You'd think legislators would have an obligation to learn something about the shit they're trying to legislate. . . .
The catch today, though, is that I myself am unsure about what the probable effects of the proposed laws are. See if you can help me think them through.
(1) Bill calls for reporting of sexually active teens
By Matthew Franck
Post-Dispatch Jefferson City Bureau
03/14/2005
JEFFERSON CITY - A bill that seeks to overhaul Missouri's child abuse reporting laws could require teachers, doctors, nurses and others to report sexually active teenagers and children to the state's abuse hot line.
Until Monday, the bill had been sailing through the Legislature with little formal debate. It was scheduled for a House vote this morning, but on Monday the bill's author sent it back to committee for revisions.
Critics say the bill offers confusing and unnecessary changes to a law that has been in place for years. The bill's sponsor, Rep. Richard Byrd, R-Kirkwood, said the legislation offers a needed fix to a child abuse reporting law that has recently been contested in court.
Perhaps the most controversial provision of the bill is one that many say would require educators, medical personnel and other professionals to report "substantial evidence of sexual intercourse by an unmarried minor under the age of consent."
Critics say the language would, in essence, require child abuse reports even of cases of consensual sex between two teens. Byrd claims the bill seeks only to target sex by children under the age of 15.
Regardless of the age covered by the bill, some opponents say its consequences would be stifling for those who are required by law to report child abuse.
That list of "mandated reporters" includes educators, physicians, nurses and other professionals who come in contact with children.
Otto Fajen, a lobbyist for the Missouri chapter of the National Education Association, said the bill, as written, could stifle the ability of teachers and counselors to speak candidly to teens about sexual activity. Fajen said that by forcing teachers to always report sexual activity as abuse, the law removes sound professional judgment of what constitutes abuse.
Byrd said his bill has been misinterpreted to include sexual activity by older teens. He said that the "age of consent" referred to in the bill is 15. He said sexual activity by children under that age is something that should be reported to the child abuse hot line, regardless of the age of the sexual partner.
Missouri law on age of consent differs by the circumstances. An adult, for example, can be prosecuted for having sex with anyone under the age of 17.
"If somebody says to me, what's the age of consent in Missouri, I say it's 17," said Ed Postawko, a sex crimes prosecutor in the St. Louis Circuit Attorney's office.
Postawko said it's statutory rape or statutory sodomy for anyone to have sex with a child under the age of 14.
Rep. Margaret Donnelly, D-Richmond Heights, said because the bill is unclear about the age of consent, it could create confusion among mandated reporters. Donnelly is a lawyer who works in family law.
The bill also could cost the state money by requiring more staff to screen calls to the child abuse hot line. Deb Hendricks, a spokeswoman for the Department of Social Services, said the department has estimated that the bill could cost an extra $269,000 for the current fiscal year.
Missouri's child abuse reporting laws have been the subject of legal debate in the past two years. Most recently, a nurse in Springfield was prosecuted for failing to report bruises on a boy who was later killed by his foster father.
The nurse's lawyer had argued that the state's mandated reporter law was too vague. The statute requires mandated reporters to act if they have "reasonable cause to suspect a child has been or may be subjected to abuse or neglect."
The Missouri Supreme Court ultimately ruled that Missouri's current law is constitutional, which has left some questioning why Byrd is trying to change it.
"We don't think this bill is needed," said Ruth Ehresman, of the group Citizens for Missouri's Children.
Byrd said a close reading of the Supreme Court ruling suggests that the child abuse law might not stand up to another legal challenge. He said the law was deemed constitutional only as it applied to the Springfield case.
Opponents of Byrd's bill were troubled that it had been moving on a fast track toward passage. Until Monday, the bill was listed as a "consent bill," a classification typically reserved for noncontroversial bills.
Byrd said he decided to pull the bill from the consent calendar to make some changes suggested to him over the weekend by medical personnel.
As drafted, Byrd's bill would allow mandated reporters to report abuse for any reason. But the bill also specifies circumstances that should always present suspicion of abuse. In addition to "substantial evidence of sexual intercourse," those include malnutrition and numerous physical injuries "which are inconsistent with the explanations given for the condition."
Byrd said he'd like to add more detail to the bill to clarify cases that require a call to the child abuse hot line. But he said he will not budge on the bill's requirement to report sexual activity by those under the age of consent.
Robert Patrick of the Post-Dispatch contributed to this report.
Ok. Now, clearly it's dodgy to presume that sexual activity is in and of itself evidence of a crime. And yes, I know that statutory rape is, by definition, a crime and that under statutory rape laws, sex with a minor (however the law defines it) is, by definition, criminal. For the record, I think those laws are stupid, although I sympathize with their intent. Anyway. My question as far as this law goes is, let's say that your 14yo daughter is having sex with her boyfriend. You disapprove of this, but you can't really stop it short of locking her up. So, you figure, the least you can do is provide her with birth control, talk to her about disease prevention, talk to her about consent and coercion and "no means no" and "it's okay to wait" and do the best you can. Does this law then presume that you, the parent, are guilty of child abuse? Because it isn't clear to me. Or does the law presume that your silly daughter's silly 14yo boyfriend is guilty of child abuse? Or are the two 14yos abusing each other? The thing seems unenforcable.
Having said that, it certainly makes sense to me to include "signs of sexual activity" as possible signs of child abuse, to be reported by doctors in some cases. But presumably docs aren't required to report every kid who shows up with a bruised knee as a possible victim of abuse; there's no reason to think that a 14yo who goes into PP to get birth control should be presumed to be a victim solely because of that fact.
(2) Michigan Senate Bill 365:
when any portion of a human being has been vaginally delivered outside his or her mother's body, that portion of the body can only be described as born and the state has a rational basis for defining that human being as born and as a legal person. . . .
A physician or an individual performing an act, task, or function under the delegatory authority of a physician is immune from criminal, civil, or administrative liability for performing any procedure that results in injury or death of a perinate while completing the delivery of the perinate if, in that physician's reasonable medical judgment, the procedure was necessary to save the life of the mother and every reasonable effort was made to preserve the life of both the mother and the perinate.
Yikes! I realize that as a culture we've pretty much agreed that intact d&c is gruesome, but I know a woman who had one. The fetus she was carrying had no brain. Zero chance of survival. Her choice was to have a d&x--far safer--or to induce labor and then go through the risk and trauma of birth, not to mention the godawful fucking experience of carrying around a brainless fetus in her body for however long it would take. LIke any sensible person would, she chose option one.
But ok, let's just leave that aside. Screw those women who get diagnosed with aggressive cancer in the third trimester, or who are carrying fetuses with horrible, unviable birth defects, or who suffer some sudden health problem that means that continuing with the pregnancy could kill them. Forget about them. Does this law, as the ACLU is arguing, potentially outlaw all abortion? I can see how it fucks over women who arrive at the hospital with a miscarriage in progress--if the doctor doesn't try to "save the life" of the dying fetus, even at the risk of compromising the speed or effectiveness of treatment, he's criminally liable--but I'm not quite sure I see how it constitues a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade. I'm not saying it doesn't--I'm sure the ACLU's reasoning is better informed, legally speaking, than my own. I just don't get it, and if anyone can explain it to me, I would appreciate it.
Edited: Lizard Breath explains, in comments, why the law effectively outlaws all abortions: "for most methods of abortion, it is not impossible, or unlikely, for the fetus to remain alive past the point of removal from the woman's body. Even a first trimester suction abortion may end up with a miniscule fetus, entirely unable to live outside the womb, who has a heartbeat for seconds or minutes after the abortion is complete. Under this law, that's murder." Speaking as someone who once cracked open a fertilized egg to find, yes, a beating heart and a few veins (and I always think of this when I see those "abortion stops a beating heart" bumper stickers), I get the point. Christ. You'd think legislators would have an obligation to learn something about the shit they're trying to legislate. . . .
Posted at 11:35 AM
|
