I'm surprised that anyone could think this is a good idea. I had a friend who had a miscarriage and she was somewhat sick for a couple days. The miscarriage was a result of some other health problems. To require a woman who could potentially be ailing to put herself for such a stressful event AFTER already ungoing such emotional and physical upset is barbaric. I would probably not report it. Especially if I hadn't told anyone else. I never told anyone else when I first got pregnant until I was already a month along and then it was only my husband. Later, when I was 3 months along I told my family and friends. No one could have even guessed it let alone the government. What kind of violation of privacy could this entail if someone else were to falsely "tip" off the police. Would they try to invade you're home to investigate the violation? This isn't something you can control so well. Some women can even have a "miscarriage" and not even know. They may think it's only a large blood clot as they start a "period" and beyond that they are clueless. Granted once the fetus is farther along in the gestational period it would be more recognizable but usually by then the woman is aware of things and seeing a gyno about the pregnancy. Asking a physician to report miscarriages using only numbers instead of names is fine in my eyes. At that point the CDC can keep track of certain trends that may encourage miscarriage and help other women prevent a miscarriage. But this - it's invasive, unnecessary, and downright mean to the woman who goes through such an experience.

I can't believe one person here endorses a woman not even telling the father that she is pregnant. That's just about the height of immaturity to me. I don't see how this law has any more potential for being abused than women falsely crying rape, which happens a lot. I suppose the only people against this are people who support abortion and fear the government is trying to make a blanket ban on it. Otherwise, I ask again, why does it matter if the government keeps tabs on who lives and dies in this country, born or not? I don't buy the privacy issue at all. We give up a lot of liberties for the common good. The police can force me to give a semen sample if someone accuses me of rape. That seems pretty invasive to me, but nobody is lobbying against rape laws. Preganancy is not and never should be a hidden process. I sincerely hope those against this don't support women aborting their children without even telling the father of the pregnancy. A few responses seem to be going in that direction but maybe I'm reading too much into it.

Looks like someone realized his ignorance.............

Legislation that would have required mothers who had failed to report fetal deaths to the police within 12 hours of the delivery to face a possible misdemeanor sentence will be withdrawn, its patron said on Monday.

"I've elected to withdraw HB 1677 from consideration by the General Assembly this year. The language is just too confusing," Del. John Cosgrove, R-Chesapeake, told The Augusta Free Press.

Seems the Web had something to do with this bieng pulled from consideration. Good for us.

http://democracyforvirginia.typepad...._for_virginia/

I'm sorry, but I dont buy it. I've been clawing tooth and nail for the liberties they've been attempting to rape us of over the course of the last 3-4 years. I've been a member of the ACLU for a lot longer than that, but it's become a much bigger fight lately. We were all (or at least a great deal of us were) born into this country that is significantly better off than most other places on the planet. We have all of these rights because thousands of people fought and died for us to have them, and to ignore that and willingly give them up is quite litterally worse than death. What use is the body without the heart?

Thats the best news i've heard in weeks.

I still fail to see what "common good" women would be sacrificing for in this circumstance. I think the rest of the posts on this board outline pretty well why this law would be an invasion of privacy but i've yet to see you (or anyone else, including the writer of the law himself) provide any evidence that reporting miscarriages to the state government of Virginia would provide for the common good.

That's a big relief its withdrawn. but still, the fact that someone wanted it through makes you wonder. "The language is just too confusing"? HA!

I think politicians write crazy legislation for laughs, or at least I hope that was the case here...

On this page

The legislation's intent wasn't as ominous as it's been made out to be. It clearly was just worded poorly. Just to throw my $.02, given the intent, notification shouldn't be required till after a period of time where the child could survive outside the womb.

This would be *somewhat* more reasonable but isn't abandoning a baby already illegal? I think there is usually a very clear line between babies who were born and abandoned and those that were miscarried. And i doubt very much that mother's who have choosen to abandon there baby would then *report* the birth as a miscarriage. This law still seems hard to enforce and easily ignored by the people it targets.

I cringe at the thought of this. Why does the government need record of your miscarriage? It's not something that most women want to remember themselves, much less have documented. I don't see something like this flying in the state of California.

Option 3.

The scientific way, when sperm meets egg.

Actually, the scientific term for this is "Zygote". Which will eventually become an embryo, which will eventually become a human child.

But hey....Call it whatever you want, just use the proper term when creating a Law that will affect others.

That zygote is still of the human species.

I read about this a few days ago, and it scares me quite a bit. Never mind that a) I'm not a woman, and b) I don't live in Virginia, the fact that this law would be proposed and NOT GET DISMISSED OUT OF HAND it more than a little troublesome. Not good. Not good at all...

No.....I am sorry, scientifically it is not. It is a group of Human spawned cells, But it is still a Zygote. Just as the Zygote spawned by a mouse.....is not yet a mouse, but it may very well become one in time.

Scientifically...there isn't an answer to this dispute. There's nothing in science that shows it to be more rational to call a zygote a non-human, outside of the fact that it isn't yet viable or can't yet think. There's nothing in science that shows it to be more rational to call a zygote a human, outside of the fact that it's a biological organism with unique human DNA that continually grows as other life forms do.

"Knowing what we know about that thing inside a pregnant woman's body and how it develops, when do we call it a human being?" is a philosophical question.

That's why it's incorrect to discount option #3.