View Single Post
Old 05-09-2019, 01:42 AM
nelliebly is offline
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,530
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I read the whole law. Nothing in there says it is illegal to leave the state to have an abortion, that habeas corpus will be available for unborn children, or that life imprisonment for the death penalty will be available punishments for women having abortions, or that a woman can be jailed for a miscarriage.

The law leaves the current penalty for an illegal abortion intact: the doctor, not the woman can get 1 to 10 years in prison, same as before:

The Slate article the OP quoted seems like a liberal horror list created by very bad misunderstandings of how the law works and not from anything in the text of the law itself.
Again, I read the law. The sticking points arise from the law going to great lengths to declare that as soon as an embryo has a detectable heartbeat, it is a "natural person" and has the right to Equal Protection as guaranteed in the Fourteenth Amendment. It even quotes the Fourteenth to make this very clear.Yet at the same time, the law denies equal protection to embryos/fetuses/unborn that were conceived as a result of rape or incest. So on the one hand, you have embryos who are entitled to a form of child support and who count as dependents for state income tax deductions, yet on the other hand, you have embryos ("natural persons") who are denied equal protection due to circumstances beyond their--and in the case of rapes, the women's--control.

I also find it interesting that the law determines that personhood begins when a heartbeat is detectable, not when the heart actually begins to beat. That, of course, is a practical matter. Yet if the heartbeat is used as the determination of personhood, it would make sense to declare that natural personhood even earlier, at 3 weeks + 1 day. The issue of personhood is complex. The law both tries to simplify it and cover it completely and fails at both, as it was bound to do.