Is there a more despicable crime than murdering a baby?

...

Yeah, being against gay marriage, if you go by the uproar from the left

I was not aware of this legislation, but I am sadly not surprised. We have been closing in on this gap since roe v wade. I wrote today about abortion on my blog, as a soldier in Alaska got ten years for causing his wife to miscarry. But we abort so many?!?

I guess as a society this is where we are because we have aborted 50 million in the womb so far, so why not blur the line a bit? (not my thoughts but clearly the reasoning behind this legislation.

I linked a post about a man who tossed a four month out his car window this week, in the eyes of our nation the line was only breached a bit(considering how long of a life span we have) therefore we should show him mercy?

Now to the Left something that is worse than killing a child- clinging to ones religion and/or guns

Its not decriminalized as stated in the title. Find another verb.

Actually yes it is decriminalizing. Decriminalize is defined as "To REDUCE or abolish criminal penalties for."

So being that the current penalty is to be tried for murder. You are decriminalizing it by calling it Infanticide and reducing the penalty. Thanks for playing Do You Know How to Use the Dictionary? You lost BTW.

Depends which dictionary you use. Maybe you lost too.

Thats what I expect from guys like you. Semantics. Notice the words: "Maybe" and "Depends." But if you just look it up here! Whatever you say junior. Just because you went to the decriminalize pot rally doesnt mean you know anything about defintions. You clearly stated that so eloquently in your two sentence reply.

Sorry, but I think you're over the edge on this one, Cassy. Read the whole thing that you posted: the offense should not be prosecuted as murder if "at the time of the act or omission, the person's judgment was impaired as a result of the effects of giving birth or the effects of lactation following the birth."

In simple terms, this clause is intended to cover one very rare, very specific circumstance: a mother suffering from postpartum depression. Case studies show that such women are in fact not in their right minds, and simply don't deserve to be prosecuted for murder one. Some degree of homicide is appropriate, and two years in jail is about right for what's usually called "involuntary manslaughter" or "negligent homicide." But a capital murder charge for a woman who was not capable of rational behavior? That's not justice, it's vengeance.

Its not decriminalized as stated in the title. Find another verb.

These liberals are tiring, aren't they? Never mind the substance of the bill, let's argue about words used in the title to the report. Jeez.

But a capital murder charge for a woman who was not capable of rational behavior? That's not justice, it's vengeance.

The bill does not speak to rational or irrational behavior. The bill as quoted in the article says "judgment was impaired." Kinda like driving while impaired--it's not even as bad as "under the influence."
The killer who is incapable of rational behavior still has an insanity or reduced capacity defense, I assume.

What next?

Greater understanding and compassion for "honor killing"?

-

Personally I'm a little confused as to what the point is. As it stands now, in my understanding, if you kill your kid you go on trial for murder. If you successfully prove the conditions used as mitigating circumstances in this new bill, you walk - maybe with treatment, etc. If you can't, you're convicted by a jury.

So now they introduce a new bill. So, what, they pre-determine if you meet the 'insanity' criteria and then only let you stand trial for a lesser charge? It seems to still allow for a murder charge for people that don't meet the 'insanity' criteria, right?

Isn't this just legislating for the sake of legislating? Or is it meant to remove or circumvent one's Constitutional 'impartial jury' protection?

I'm slightly amused, however, by the seemingly careful verbiage to avoid using the term 'mother'.

The killer who is incapable of rational behavior still has an insanity or reduced capacity defense, I assume.

Probably. But such a defense would give a binary choice between capital murder and a "not guilty" verdict. The current Texas penal law dealing with homicide is short, simple, and blunt. Killing a child under six years old is capital murder, period. There is no exception for reduced mental capacity (or whatever you want to call it). The new law that Cassy is talking about would provide a lesser charge that the prosecutor could use instead of capital murder, or the jury could consider in addition to capital murder. Whether the defendant's judgment actually was impaired is a question of fact for the jury to consider. I simply don't see anything wrong with that.

If the law was meant to cover post partum depression, why not state that clearly? Because Cassy is right. It is the first step. Lawyers will have a field day with it. Fortunately it will not pass. Just more proof of the extreme left's anti life of the child stance. ww

I agree-if there was a definite effect of postpartum depression to the point where the woman was incapable of rational thought, that should be brought up in the trial as a defense. The way this law would be worded, however, would make it far too easy for a woman who killed her child through neglect or abuse to claim that "breastfeeding made me do it".

I think it's like what the leftists want in the abortion bills limiting abortions-they want an exclusion for every woman who "due to her health" (depression, anxiety over finances, I don't want this babyitis) want to be able to abort the baby.

"the person's judgment was impaired as a result of the effects of giving birth or the effects of lactation following the birth."

That's exactly what this sounds like. Who decides whether a person's judgement was impaired? What exactly does it mean?

It means anything the leftists want it to mean. A nice loophole to kill babies that mothers decide they don't want up until they are a year old.

I can see both sides of this argument - taking murder off the table for a certain type of insanity defense makes some sense, making an over eager prosecutor unable to throw the book at the mother. But moreover I think I'm with Falze on this one... why not present it to the jury during the murder trial?

As a Texas resident, I don't think I'll ever understand Texas politics.

Ha, epador's a liberal now! How's that feel, epador? How's the patchouli smell? Smells terrible, don't it!

And poor ol' Willie: "Just more proof of the extreme left's anti life of the child stance." Yes, Willie, all leftists hate children. Thanks for distilling such a complex issue into such an incoherent slice of ignorance. You da man!

The impaired judgement is a joke. It is a loophole justifying each and every murder. Who will not claim to be impaired? Ever seen the McNaughton Rule was discarded the insanity defense has been used time and again.

The McNaughton Rule was simple, elegant and useful. It depended not on opinions but actions. If you acted in such a way to avoid the consequences of your actions you are sane. If you didn't (ie attempt to hide evidence, escape, lie, etc) and plain out admitted your crime you were probably incapable of understanding your actions and hence insane.

Can anyone imagine the evil of someone proposing such a law? I note this woman appears to be a Catholic, which only serves to demonstrate there are real Catholics, and false flag Catholics. Guess which she is?

I guess as a society this is where we are because we have aborted 50 million in the womb so far, so why not blur the line a bit?

Well, don't think of it as infancide, think of it as "post-natal late-term abortion".

/sarc.

Hyper: Its all cool baby, I've got my groove goin', don't ya know, eh? My hair will be long enough for a pony tail by the end of the summer. I'll send you a pic in my tie-dyes, holey jeans and Native American headband once its all down to my shoulders. I'm ready to relive the Summer of '69 all over again. BTW, I prefer Sandlewood incense. If I can infiltrate the enemy ranks so easily, with just the right, er I mean left, sentences, what does that feel like hyper? Shows there's a lack of careful reading and formation of arguments all around.

'Course I generally use my OED (the big one that requires me to use a magnifying glass) when I really want a definition. Mine doesn't say anything about reducing, just removing criminal penalties. I don't like hyperbole in a headline that detracts from an argument in the body of a post.

This is more an example of the legislator not trusting 12 peers to use their judgment (my goodness, we've never seen that happen to the dismay of part of the populace, have we, even in the enlightened Republic of Texas?) than of another "baby killer" legislator. I do fear, however, that this proposed statute makes it easier for someone to cop an insanity plea. Its poorly worded and defined. It institutionalizes an insanity plea. Now THAT's criminal. Its liberal. And I'm not for it.

'Course I generally use my OED (the big one that requires me to use a magnifying glass)

The twelve-pound monster that comes with it's own stand? My mother had that.

Amazing. Thanks for bringing attention to this disgusting bill.

http://www.rightklik.net/

Let's see, they want to pass a law that they say is to help women with post partum depression but they don't say that in the law only gray words, the words lawyers love. Hyper, you have it wrong, this could be a simple law but they made it complex for no reason. ww

I have just emailed Brian McCall, Eddie Lucio, Norma Chavez, Garnett Colman, Byron Cook and Brandon Creighton regarding HB3318. The courts are there to decide on a case by case basis if a person is quilty or innocent of a crime ,if there are extenuating circumstances etc. Who our laws protect speaks to who we are as a society. This is not a women's rights issue, please contact these legislators on behalf of our most dependent and innocent citizens.

wolfwalker:

"Some degree of homicide is appropriate"

Are you kidding me?! Unless it's a "degree of homicide" imposed on a convicted murderer huh?! You are fucked in the head.

Are you kidding me?! Unless it's a "degree of homicide" imposed on a convicted murderer huh?! You are fucked in the head.

He meant prosecution of some degree of homicide (other than capital murder), retard.

Chop down a tree where a spotted owls nest is GO TO JAIL Plow a field where a BLUNT NOSED LIZARD lives and GET YOUR TRACTOR CONSISCATED kill a unborn child and ITS PERFECTLY LEGFAL to LIBERAL GREEN NAZIS

Fluuuu-Bird! Fluuuu-Bird! Fluuuu-Bird!