I have worked with government in drafting legislation and prosecuting under legislation. I have also sat on the other side of the fence for clients. I can assure you that what people 'intended' the legislation to do, does not always come out in court. (Note I am not a lawyer, though I do have Masters in Law, but I have worked with many lawyers).
I am not really sure why this specific law is needed. Punching someone is already an offence, as is causing a traffic accident. A judge could use discretion to sentence with the impact on baby considered, a specific law shouldn't be required.
I feel the same about the new Queensland bikie laws. For example there are already laws making selling drugs illegal - prosecute the bikies for that - you don't need a specific law just because they all wear the same type of jacket.
You are also eligible for the baby bonus once the baby reaches 20 weeks. That is certainly a national policy.
It does seem kind of odd that babies are recognised as `people' for want of a better word (in QLD anyway) at 20 weeks, but if someone deliberately harmed the unborn baby (i.e. in an assault) they would not be held accountable for the death.
Last edited by NoteToSelf; 21-11-2013 at 20:23.
I agree that this law could be used against women (particularly when I hear the likes of Fred Nile are jumping on board) but if the bolded section is always at the core of the laws I am hopeful that the law can be used as intended....or maybe i'm living in a fools paradise .
Crimes Amendment (Zoe's Law) Bill 2013(No 2)Explanatory noteThis explanatory note relates to this Bill as introduced into Parliament.Overview of BillAt present, a person against whom a criminal offence can be committed does not include the foetusof a pregnant woman. Under the Crimes Act 1900, grievous bodily harm is defined to include thedestruction (other than in the course of a medical procedure) of the foetus of a pregnant woman,whether or not the woman suffers any other harm. Accordingly, proceedings can be institutedunder the Crimes Act 1900 against a person who unlawfully causes the destruction of the foetusof a pregnant woman if the proceedings are brought for the offence of causing grievous bodilyharm to the pregnant woman--for example, the offence of dangerous driving causing grievousbodily harm to a woman (section 52A (3)) or the offence of causing grievous bodily harm to awoman unlawfully or negligently (section 54).The object of this Bill is to amend the Crimes Act 1900 to recognise the separate existence of thefoetus of a pregnant woman that is of at least 20 weeks' gestation (as a living person) so thatproceedings for certain offences relating to grievous bodily harm may be brought against anoffender who causes the unlawful destruction of or harm to any such foetus as proceedings forgrievous bodily harm to the foetus rather than proceedings for grievous bodily harm to thepregnant woman. In the case of the unlawful destruction of a foetus of less than 20 weeks'gestation, the Bill retains the existing provision that enables proceedings to be brought forgrievous bodily harm to the woman.The Bill does not apply to anything done in the course of a medical procedure or to anything done by or with the consent of the pregnant woman that causes the destruction of or harm to a foetus.
once the baby is born there's no distinction between a baby that was terminated at 24 weeks for fetal abnormalities or a baby that was stillborn at 24 weeks for example.
So if they are registered with births deaths marriages, who is naming all these babies? I really don't think this registration applies to terminations.
Pregnant for the first-time?
Not sure where to start? We can help!
Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!