In the spirit of the anti-Sharia legislation thread, here a bit more cockamania:

From MotherJones.com:
"There's a new bill on the block that may have reached the apex (I hope) of woman-hating craziness. Georgia State Rep. Bobby Franklin—who last year proposed making rape and domestic violence "victims" into "accusers"—has introduced a 10-page bill that would criminalize miscarriages and make abortion in Georgia completely illegal. Both miscarriages and abortions would be potentially punishable by death: any "prenatal murder" in the words of the bill, including "human involvement" in a miscarriage, would be a felony and carry a penalty of life in prison or death"

"Under Rep. Franklin's bill, HB 1, women who miscarry could become felons if they cannot prove that there was "no human involvement whatsoever in the causation" of their miscarriage."

Source:
http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/02/miscarriage-death-penalty-georgia

America, where the bell curve is becoming increasingly bi-modal.

EDIT: or is it cockamanie?

The article misunderstands who has the burden of proof. A woman would not have to prove that she did not have human involvement. Instead, the State would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was in fact human involvement.

Approximately half of America believes that an unborn person is a human with rights equal to their mother's. Half of America believes that a mother's rights trump a child's. I don't think it would be far fetched to believe that some states (especially R-leaning ones) would make a bill like this.

After reading this guy thinks rape victims should be accusers and that he wants this new law to be passed, I lost my faith in this country.

Could someone help me out. I'm below average on my knowledge of laws in any country (including my own), but after reading that very tedious document, I couldn't find anything that shifted the burden of proof.

The document defined prenatal murder as being one that was not caused by any human involvement, however I couldn't see where it said that involvement would be assumed. This is probably because: it regularly refers to amendments a bill that I didn't have access to, that I'm English and therefore making assumptions about your legal system, and that it's getting late and I'm tired.

I did find it interesting that in between trying to define the rights of an unborn baby, the bill also slips measures which look as though they are to begin the prevention of contraception (for example stopping it being available in schools - line 158). I can only assume that the next step is to argue that sperm are half human and therefore it is half murder, a bit like killing a midget ;).

My own interpretation of this bill, not being from america, is that it is just another pro lifer saying what they've always said, and trying to get it into law just as they usually do. Then he'll probably go visit Sarah Palin and shoot a few animals to exercise the freedom that life has given him.

Incidentally I don't disagree with his intentions of reclassifying victims to accusers. From a legal perspective it strikes me that the term does convey an assumption of guilt, which should be absent from a legal system until the accused is found guilty. He could perhaps have simply gone with "alleged victim".

Sadly, I could not find a so-called "mainstream" news source, or at least one with independent or a more thorough coverage. Other news outlets just recanted the motherjones article.

EDIT: Whoops, spoke to soon. I won't divulge my opinion of this news network, but they have an article. Don't expect anything better than the first post:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/26/georgia-lawmakers-anti-abortion-proposal-punish-women-miscarriages/

Mainstream American news source? I said better. :P Then you go and give me Fox Terrorist Fist Bump Entertainment Network...

This is a good point, but it does little to assuage the frustration I feel that any lawmaker would feel the need to repeatedly propose such a bill. It may be the status quo in the US, but it's nonetheless frustrating. Wait, I'm not sure I understand your opinion of Fox News? Are they "ok"? Could you be less subtle?

That being said, I'm surprised I didn't google a MSNBC piece on it, and instead the Fox News. I'm sure, somewhere, Olberman's head has exploded.

It wouldn't make much difference. Americans don't have news. You have Reality-Inspired Infotainment. The fact that this bill has seemingly been failing to get anywhere for 9 years now is probably why you're having difficulty finding a more credible source.

May be, though I'd like to think that the news I get through public radio, which forms the bulk of my source, does not have too strong a pre-defined narrative. I certainly would not define it as "infotainment". In fact, it usually puts my coworkers straight to sleep. And I think that most other public radio listeners (well, those who run in my circles) would not appreciate being lumped into an abstract categorization of mindless, vapid americans.

That being said, your response is tangential to my point. I don't care to read a varying article from a rival news station, I'm just surprised Fox coined an article, while MSNBC would seemingly jump all over this.

And of course, none of that has to do with the frustration I feel at an increasingly polarized public.

Remember, Palin 2012.

Dammit, every time I see Palin's name I experience what can only be compared to a bad acid flashback.

Maybe this will help?

All better now! :D

Well that's the category most of your media seems to want to lump you into. I'm just disappointed with the level they seem experience success in doing so. Every country has far more than its share of idiots. It's just a shame you've got people like Rupert Murdock highlighting just how true that is in the US.

And yes, it's surprising that Fox News not only covered this but actually stressed he's a republican. Most uncharacteristic. But then the guy's such a hopelessly lost cause that they may just be using this as part of their 'fair and balanced reporting'.