Comments about ‘Utah Supreme Court rules unborn children qualify as minors’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Dec. 21 2011 4:00 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
American Fork, UT

Now expectant mothers can use the carpool lane from day 1. Tax deductions, again from day 1. But that's two people at the movies, or on a bus or aircraft, right?

West Jordan, UT

Hutterite, those were my exact thoughts as i was reading this. You have to feel sorry for the family, but this just opened up a very big can of worms. It looks like my pregnant wife will be getting to work a little quicker now.

Salt Lake City, UT

Doesn't this put us back at that "miscarriage due to negligence of the mother" issue?

Fredericksburg, VA

This ruling is likely to be overturned by the US Supreme Court. In the meantime, Utah can be mocked for being a little bit crazier than everyone else.

West Valley, UT

We're treading on very very dangerous ground here.

How long before the first woman is brought to court on murder charges because she had a miscarriage?

Salt Lake City, UT

'SALT LAKE CITY The state's high court has determined that an unborn child qualifies as a minor child and, therefore, wrongful death lawsuits may be filed on behalf of those who die before birth.' - Article

Why stop there?

Why not inception?

This is foolish.

And also, why women pay men to BEAT THEM...

so they can 'abort' the child.

As exampled by:

*'Judge releases beaten teen, citing state's abortion law' - By Emiley Morgan - Published by DSNews - 10/14/09

'A 17-year-old girl who paid a man to beat her in the hopes of terminating her pregnancy has been...'

Now, I am not in favor of using abortion as a means of birth control...
but then a teens parents should teach them HOW to use birth control!

This is, very dangerous grounds.

As, BEFORE Roe vs. Wade in 1973 women would have abortions in alleyways. With metal coat hangers. Metal coat hangers became the symbol of abortion rights for a time.

Today, 38 years later...

we have to have the same, tired arguments.


Interesting comments. So do those criticizing this decision feel a mother who loses a baby one day before the due date as a result of someone's negligence should NOT have a right to recover? The drunk driver or sloppy doctor has no responsibility for the baby's death AT ALL?

Keep in mind the mother must still prove the negligent actions in fact caused the death of her baby. The finding by the Supreme Court is that that an unborn baby is a "minor child" under Utah's wrongful death statutes, therefore allowing recovery. Utah is now the 40th in a growing number of states that have formally recognized a mother who loses her unborn baby due to someone's negligence can sue for that harm. Utah's criminal law already prosecutes for crimes that result in the death of an unborn child (recall this issue in the Hacking murder). The Utah Supreme Court has formerly recognized what most Utahans intuitively knew: people who negligently cause a mother to lose her baby can be held responsible for doing so in Court. How could it be any other way?

Sandy, UT

Esquire_9811 posted the only sensible comment here . . . sorry days. Oh well, at least there was one.

Tempe, AZ

Pagan; I trust you meant "conception" not "inception"?

Fredericksburg, VA

Even though I think extending "minor child" to conception is wrong and will be overturned, I still feel that the mother should be entitled to compensation if the doctor did, in fact, do something wrong.

If there isn't existing law to cover this situation, it should be created at the state congressional/senate level instead of changing the definition of a term at a judicial level.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments