Forums: Community: The Soap Box:
Curious news
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for The Soap Box

Premier Sponsor:

 


petsfed


Dec 3, 2006, 9:33 PM
Post #1 of 10 (792 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 8585

Curious news
Report this Post
Can't Post

So apparently, in Michigan, if you're living with a pregnant woman, you can no longer break-up/divorce her. All the woman has to prove to a court is that you wanted her to terminate the pregnancy, regardless of whether not you actually said as much, or even if the kid is yours.

I know it sounds like an exaggeration, but the text of the law is here:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/...m/2006-HEBH-5882.htm

And its sufficiently vague that my opening paragraph is pretty accurate.

So, bets as to when it gets ruled unconstitutional? I've got 2nd conviction, or January 1st 2007, whichever is later.


(This post was edited by petsfed on Dec 3, 2006, 9:35 PM)


snoopy138


Dec 3, 2006, 10:12 PM
Post #2 of 10 (783 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 7, 2004
Posts: 28647

Re: [petsfed] Curious news [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

petsfed wrote:
So apparently, in Michigan, if you're living with a pregnant woman, you can no longer break-up/divorce her. All the woman has to prove to a court is that you wanted her to terminate the pregnancy, regardless of whether not you actually said as much, or even if the kid is yours.

I know it sounds like an exaggeration, but the text of the law is here:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/...m/2006-HEBH-5882.htm

And its sufficiently vague that my opening paragraph is pretty accurate.

So, bets as to when it gets ruled unconstitutional? I've got 2nd conviction, or January 1st 2007, whichever is later.

You obviously have faith in the speed of our judicial system. Unless this is already in the court system, that seems a bit soon. The first part of the law seemed like it could be saved by a narrow interpretation, but the part that pretty clearly says it's illegal to tell a girl "I'm not going to live with you if you go through with the pregnancy" seems unsaveable.


clausti


Dec 4, 2006, 6:16 AM
Post #3 of 10 (763 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 4, 2004
Posts: 5690

Re: [snoopy138] Curious news [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

how bout this part:

In reply to:

(e) "Unborn child" means a live human being in utero



regardless of its gestational stage of development.


petsfed


Dec 4, 2006, 9:10 AM
Post #4 of 10 (741 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 8585

Re: [clausti] Curious news [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

clausti wrote:
how bout this part:

In reply to:

(e) "Unborn child" means a live human being in utero



regardless of its gestational stage of development.

That bothered me too, but since the rest of the law is patently unconstitutional, it probably wouldn't set any precedents. If an otherwise reasonable law got challenged in court over the validity of that, I'd be interested to see which way it goes.


bizarrodrinker


Dec 4, 2006, 9:39 AM
Post #5 of 10 (734 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 20, 2005
Posts: 2316

Re: [petsfed] Curious news [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Kind of concerning to think that if you are married to a women found out she became impregnated by someone other than you, but you can't divorce leave her because she decides to keep it.

Seems like women are being given a permit to use pregnancy as a vice a relationship.


snoopy138


Dec 4, 2006, 9:49 AM
Post #6 of 10 (732 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 7, 2004
Posts: 28647

Re: [clausti] Curious news [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

clausti wrote:
how bout this part:

In reply to:

(e) "Unborn child" means a live human being in utero regardless of its gestational stage of development.

The term "unborn child" only shows up once in the Act (aside from its definition), here:

In reply to:
(d) If a violation of subsection (3)(b), (c), (d), or (e) is committed by the father or putative father of the unborn child against a pregnant female who is less than 18 years of age, and the father or putative father is 18 years of age or older, the father or putative father is guilty of a misdemeanor ...

So this could possibly (ignoring the other defects of the law) be interpreted as having no weight outside this Act specifically, thereby ignoring all the hard questions it poses. Of course, it's pretty clear that whoever wrote this Act and got it passed was thinking on a larger scale.


zip_ty


Dec 4, 2006, 11:49 AM
Post #7 of 10 (710 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 18, 2006
Posts: 212

Re: [snoopy138] Curious news [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Hmm the link didn't work for me.

In reply to:
(d) If a violation of subsection (3)(b), (c), (d), or (e) is committed by the father or putative father of the unborn child against a pregnant female who is less than 18 years of age, and the father or putative father is 18 years of age or older, the father or putative father is guilty of a misdemeanor ...

This portion seems to specify that the mother has to be under 18 and the male has to be over 18. Since I can't read it, is that the only time this law applies?


petsfed


Dec 4, 2006, 1:46 PM
Post #8 of 10 (692 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 8585

Re: [zip_ty] Curious news [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

No, its a special clause that basically delineates punishment based on the ages of those involved.


petsfed


Dec 4, 2006, 1:55 PM
Post #9 of 10 (688 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 8585

Re: [petsfed] Curious news [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

The complete text:
In reply to:
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:
Sec. 15a.

(1) This section shall be known and may be cited as the "coercive abortion prevention act".

(2) As used in this section:

(a) "Compel a pregnant female to seek an abortion" means an act, attempted act, or threat to act by a person that is conditioned upon the pregnant female disregarding or refusing the person's demand that she seek an abortion.

(b) "Course of conduct" means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of 2 or more separate noncontinuous acts evidencing a continuity of purpose.

(c) "Family or household member" means that term as defined in section 1 of 1978 PA 389, MCL 400.1501.

(d) "Threat" means 2 or more statements, or a course of conduct, by an individual that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the individual is likely to act in accordance with the statements or as implied by the course of conduct. Threat does not include constitutionally protected speech or any generalized statement regarding a lawful pregnancy option, including, but not limited to, an emotional expression by a family or household member of the pregnant female.

(e) "Unborn child" means a live human being in utero regardless of its gestational stage of development.

(3) A person who has actual knowledge that a female individual is pregnant shall not do any of the following with the intent to compel a pregnant female to seek an abortion:

(a) Commit or attempt to commit an act proscribed under section 81, 81a, 83, 84, 86, or 411h against the pregnant female or a family or household member.

(b) File or attempt to file for a divorce from the pregnant female.

(c) Withdraw or attempt to withdraw financial support from the pregnant female that had previously been supplied or offered to the pregnant female.

(d) Change or attempt to change an existing housing or cohabitation arrangement with the pregnant female.

(e) Threaten to engage in conduct proscribed under subdivision (b), (c), or (d).

(4) A person who violates this section is guilty of a crime or responsible for a state civil infraction as follows:

(a) For an act or attempt to act in violation of subsection (3)(a), the person is guilty of a crime punishable by the same penalty as for the violation of section 81, 81a, 83, 84, 86, or 411h.

(b) Except as provided in subdivision (d), for a violation of subsection (3)(b), (c), or (d), the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $2,000.00.

(c) Except as provided in subdivision (d), for a violation of subsection (3)(e), the person is responsible for a state civil infraction and may be fined not more than $1,000.00.

(d) If a violation of subsection (3)(b), (c), (d), or (e) is committed by the father or putative father of the unborn child against a pregnant female who is less than 18 years of age, and the father or putative father is 18 years of age or older, the father or putative father is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both.

(5) Upon the request of the pregnant female, a law enforcement agency investigating a violation of this section shall notify the pregnant female not less than 24 hours before initially contacting the person alleged to have violated this section.

(6) This section does not prohibit the person from being charged with, convicted of, or punished for any crime committed while violating this section.

House Bill No. 5882 (H-4) as amended July 26, 2006

(7) The court may order that a term of imprisonment imposed for violating this section be served consecutively to a term of imprisonment imposed for any crime committed while violating this section.

(8) This section does not create a right to an abortion.

(9) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a person shall not perform an abortion that is prohibited by law.


devils_advocate


Dec 5, 2006, 9:35 AM
Post #10 of 10 (672 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 18, 2006
Posts: 1823

Re: [petsfed] Curious news [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

petsfed wrote:
So apparently, in Michigan, if you're living with a pregnant woman, you can no longer break-up/divorce her. All the woman has to prove to a court is that you wanted her to terminate the pregnancy, regardless of whether not you actually said as much, or even if the kid is yours.

So, bets as to when it gets ruled unconstitutional? I've got 2nd conviction, or January 1st 2007, whichever is later.

To the best of what I can find it hasn't made it through Senate yet, and by the sounds of it won't. Even if it did, I'm sure you would have lawyers beating down your door offering to represent you on the first instance of this being implemented; easy case that is sure to draw plenty of publicity.


Forums : Community : The Soap Box

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook