Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-08-2019, 04:49 AM
aldiboronti is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Troynovant
Posts: 8,176

Georgia governor signs strictest abortion bill in nation


Link

Quote:
On Tuesday, Georgia Republican Gov. Brian Kemp signed a “fetal heartbeat” bill that seeks to outlaw abortion after about six weeks. The measure, HB 481, is the most extreme abortion ban in the country—not just because it would impose severe limitations on women’s reproductive rights, but also because it would subject women who get illegal abortions to life imprisonment and the death penalty.

The primary purpose of HB 481 is to prohibit doctors from terminating any pregnancy after they can detect “embryonic or fetal cardiac activity,” which typically occurs at six weeks’ gestation. But the bill does far more than that. In one sweeping provision, it declares that “unborn children are a class of living, distinct person” that deserves “full legal recognition.” Thus, Georgia law must “recognize unborn children as natural persons”—not just for the purposes of abortion, but as a legal rule.
This idiotic law, as the article goes on to state, may have unintended consequences. If fetuses have legal personhood then they are entitled to due process. I look forward to thousands of Habeas Corpus suits for the thousands of fetuses illegally imprisoned across the state. The law defies belief. But will the Supreme Court strike it down? I'd like to think so but I'm not so sure it will.
  #2  
Old 05-08-2019, 06:04 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,574
This law seems to be part of a coordinated legal strategy across multiple states in an effort to force a Supreme Court case. But there are intentions beyond strictly legal considerations at work here.

One of these aims is to energize the religious right. After all, it's the theocrats who voted Trump-Pence into power, and they have been rewarded with two very conservative justices, and may very well be rewarded with a third at some point in the near future if Ginsburg goes down. Moreover, the Republicans are currently in the process of trying to radically remake the district and circuit courts, and given more time, that transformation will be complete, and they will have an impact on the courts for decades, regardless of whether a Democrat becomes president and regardless if they control Congress.

The other consideration is that this is about reversing the power and the gains that women have made in society. Don't for a moment believe that giving the middle finger to feminism and putting women back into their place isn't part of the agenda here. Conservatism in the United States comes from a patriarchal place, and this is proof of that. Sure, it's dressed up as a religious bill, but look at what the law does. It doesn't just restrict and regulate how women can respond to pregnancy; it imposes draconian forms of punishment if they violate these restrictions. It sends a very clear message: women are sperm receptacles and baby makers, and not much else.

In terms of the larger political significance, I go back to what I've said before: the extremists in this country need each other. They need Trump to give them access to power, and Trump needs the extremists to stay in power, and to save his ass from jail. This is only going to get more extreme. This country will only become more openly misogynistic, more openly racist, more openly anti-liberal, anti-atheist, anti-immigrant, and anti-everything else. The way that the 30-35% of people control the remaining 65-70% is to form a coalition of extremists. That's what they're doing now, and they've only just begun to march down the road of oppression.

Last edited by asahi; 05-08-2019 at 06:07 AM.
  #3  
Old 05-08-2019, 06:37 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,302
The other thing this law accomplishes is ascribing personhood to fetuses. On this board, people have stated that if Roe is overturned, it just goes back to the states. IANAL, but IMO, if this particular law is held up, it could end up leading the way to banning abortion nationwide -- if fetuses are legal persons, then they could get the rights to life, liberty, etc., that the rest of us get. The woman may have a right to privacy (which is where I think the rights in Roe came from), but those may be overcome by the fetuses right to life. Suddenly, the fetus has equal protection rights and so on, and, poof, abortion is illegal in the US.

Hopefully, I'm all wrong about this, of course.
  #4  
Old 05-08-2019, 07:21 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
The other thing this law accomplishes is ascribing personhood to fetuses. On this board, people have stated that if Roe is overturned, it just goes back to the states. IANAL, but IMO, if this particular law is held up, it could end up leading the way to banning abortion nationwide -- if fetuses are legal persons, then they could get the rights to life, liberty, etc., that the rest of us get. The woman may have a right to privacy (which is where I think the rights in Roe came from), but those may be overcome by the fetuses right to life. Suddenly, the fetus has equal protection rights and so on, and, poof, abortion is illegal in the US.

Hopefully, I'm all wrong about this, of course.
Indeed, which means women could, and almost certainly would, be jailed for miscarriage.
  #5  
Old 05-08-2019, 01:00 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Indeed, which means women could, and almost certainly would, be jailed for miscarriage.
Why would women "almost certainly" be jailed for miscarriage? Women today aren't generally jailed if their children get sick and die, or die from an accident. Why would miscarriages "almost certainly" result in jailing?
  #6  
Old 05-08-2019, 01:40 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Why would women "almost certainly" be jailed for miscarriage? Women today aren't generally jailed if their children get sick and die, or die from an accident. Why would miscarriages "almost certainly" result in jailing?
Right, not today. And today they're not generally jailed for miscarriages, but under the kinds of laws that some states are proposing, it would be very easy to put the burden of proof on the mother that she did something to induce a miscarriage, which could easily be treated as an abortion.

Last edited by asahi; 05-08-2019 at 01:40 PM.
  #7  
Old 05-08-2019, 02:37 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Why would women "almost certainly" be jailed for miscarriage? Women today aren't generally jailed if their children get sick and die, or die from an accident. Why would miscarriages "almost certainly" result in jailing?
It doesn't have to be all women. If there's a 1% rate of false accusation, then 1% of women who have a miscarriage become subject to arrest, imprisonment, etc. Sure, it won't generally happen. Probably. Who knows, really, since a law written without rational purpose is not likely to be applied rationally.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #8  
Old 05-08-2019, 07:21 AM
Snarky_Kong is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,314
And you guys thought it was a bad idea for the guy running for governor to be allowed to oversee the election!
  #9  
Old 05-08-2019, 07:36 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,962
While utterly monstrous and misogynistic and terribly harmful to women, politically overturning Roe v Wade would be an incredible boon for Democrats, as it's hard to imagine anything motivating progressives and young people (especially young women) as much as implementing government control over the bodies of pregnant women.
  #10  
Old 05-08-2019, 07:46 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
While utterly monstrous and misogynistic and terribly harmful to women, politically overturning Roe v Wade would be an incredible boon for Democrats, as it's hard to imagine anything motivating progressives and young people (especially young women) as much as implementing government control over the bodies of pregnant women.
The ends do not justify the means. Letting things turn to shit for a possible political gain isn't right.
  #11  
Old 05-08-2019, 07:53 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
The ends do not justify the means. Letting things turn to shit for a possible political gain isn't right.
Agreed, and I didn't suggest this. This should be fought tooth and nail with every tool available, even if overturning Roe v Wade would help the Democrats, as I think it would.
  #12  
Old 05-08-2019, 07:59 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
The ends do not justify the means. Letting things turn to shit for a possible political gain isn't right.
I beg to differ. It is the entire MO of the Right.

The frustrating thing of it is, is that progressive voters are always motivated in their reaction to the last terrible thing the Right has done. We saw that during the mid-term election. Progressives might even manage to maintain the momentum through the 2020 election. But sooner, rather than never, they'll call it job done, lose interest and go back to self-satisfied apathy. Never having learned the lesson that evil never sleeps.

Also want to add that Asahi nailed it in post #2. Well said.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.

Last edited by QuickSilver; 05-08-2019 at 08:03 AM.
  #13  
Old 05-08-2019, 07:49 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
While utterly monstrous and misogynistic and terribly harmful to women, politically overturning Roe v Wade would be an incredible boon for Democrats, as it's hard to imagine anything motivating progressives and young people (especially young women) as much as implementing government control over the bodies of pregnant women.
And, along the way, thousands of women will be forced to have children they don't want, some will die in childbirth, some will be forced to have babies where the father is a rapist, some will be jailed, some will die because of back alley abortions, some will live in lifelong poverty because they had a child when they weren't ready for it. The whole abortion infrastructure, or what still remains in various red states, will be taken down as abortion clinics disappear and doctors stop studying and practicing it. And, if Trump and climate-change-denying Republicans isn't enough of a motivation to get young progressives to vote in higher numbers, I don't see how this will be any better.

I know you don't want Roe overturned, of course. But I just don't like the thinking that goes with, well, if this disaster happens, then they'll that will really spell the end! Trump happened and Republicans gained seats in the Senate and did fine at the Governor level. It never seems to work out that way.
  #14  
Old 05-08-2019, 09:23 AM
Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 55,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
And, along the way, thousands of women will be forced to have children they don't want, some will die in childbirth, some will be forced to have babies where the father is a rapist, some will be jailed, some will die because of back alley abortions, some will live in lifelong poverty because they had a child when they weren't ready for it. The whole abortion infrastructure, or what still remains in various red states, will be taken down as abortion clinics disappear and doctors stop studying and practicing it. And, if Trump and climate-change-denying Republicans isn't enough of a motivation to get young progressives to vote in higher numbers, I don't see how this will be any better.
More older children will suffer in foster care while couples wait for babies to adopt, single motherhood will probably go back to being a disgrace, and the people who hae abortion and supposedly favor adoption will probably try next to ban gay adoption. Yeah, we support adoption, but only to the right people.
  #15  
Old 05-08-2019, 10:21 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 26,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas View Post
Yeah, we support adoption, but only to the right people.
Hmmmm... that sounds a lot like their stance on immigration, doesn't it?
  #16  
Old 05-08-2019, 09:55 AM
Bill Door is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
While utterly monstrous and misogynistic and terribly harmful to women, politically overturning Roe v Wade would be an incredible boon for Democrats, as it's hard to imagine anything motivating progressives and young people (especially young women) as much as implementing government control over the bodies of pregnant women.
We've seen that before, and it turns out the motivation of young people is a mile wide and an inch deep. Give them something new to worry about and it evaporates. Don't count on it.
  #17  
Old 05-08-2019, 02:01 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
While utterly monstrous and misogynistic and terribly harmful to women, politically overturning Roe v Wade would be an incredible boon for Democrats, as it's hard to imagine anything motivating progressives and young people (especially young women) as much as implementing government control over the bodies of pregnant women.
The problem is that they're coordinating with other extremists to completely suppress the rights of a broad cross-section of the population. White Christian Nationalism means just that. It means an American government that is run by Whites, for Whites. It means an America that is run by Christians, for Christians. Most importantly, it is a Nation, a society that is based on these criteria. Again, the laws don't just ban abortion - that would be bad enough. They are advocating putting women in prison forever for having one, no matter whether they were suffering from depression or raped by cousin Bubba. This is an attempt to do more than just outlaw abortion, it is an attempt to debase women in society.
  #18  
Old 05-08-2019, 08:20 AM
BwanaBob's Avatar
BwanaBob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Maryland
Posts: 4,161
Every sane woman (and man) should leave the state of Georgia and let the remaining misogynistic assholes jerk themselves into a stupor.
__________________
Go wherever you can be
And live for the day
It's only wear and tear
-IQ
  #19  
Old 05-08-2019, 09:40 AM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,874
Assuming this makes it all the way to the top, this challenge to Roe is way premature. Conservatives hold only a 5-4 majority on SCOTUS and Roberts likes to vote with the liberals here and there. Very likely, this would be struck down and the Court would further affirm and solidify Roe. Conservatives shouldn't be doing this unless they have a 6-3 or 7-2 majority.
  #20  
Old 05-08-2019, 07:52 PM
DinoR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Conservatives shouldn't be doing this unless they have a 6-3 or 7-2 majority.
There was a court case in 1992 where conservative appointees held an 8-1 advantage. The lone liberal appointee sided with the dissent in Roe V Wade. If you are just counting noses by political lean and previous decisions abortion should have been illegal in the US for decades now. By typical approach to counting votes we could have expected a unanimous overturning of Roe.

That's not what happened. That court produced a plurality opinion that upheld the central finding of Roe v Wade. It did create the "undue burden" standard for regulation and restriction of abortion that's been behind most of the big abortion cases we've seen since. See Planned Parenthood v Casey

An older Atlantic article asks "URL="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/04/what-is-a-conservative-judge/38786/"]What Is a Conservative Judge?[/URL]" The label tends to lump together both judges who might be expected to decide differently when there is an existing precedent for a decision that seems liberal. Counting noses by who appointed them or even by their decisions on unrelated cases without long held precedent is filled with the possibility of errors.
  #21  
Old 05-09-2019, 02:40 AM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Assuming this makes it all the way to the top, this challenge to Roe is way premature. Conservatives hold only a 5-4 majority on SCOTUS and Roberts likes to vote with the liberals here and there. Very likely, this would be struck down and the Court would further affirm and solidify Roe. Conservatives shouldn't be doing this unless they have a 6-3 or 7-2 majority.
Speaking as a former pro-lifer, I think it's put up or shut up time. Forty years is a long time to be sacrificing everything for a cause and failing.

The GOP and the Federalist Society can either overturn Roe, which will weaken the part of their coalition that thought abortion would still be there for them; or they can reveal that they're just playing the churchgoing rubes. Either way, the Reagan-Bush GOP coalition loses somebody.

I have a pretty good idea who is supposed to step in to replace the lost voters. I'm not sure which existing camp the GOP are cutting out in favor of the new race realist / neo-fascist constituency, but it may not matter. Get yourself enough stormtroopers, and you don't need a majority anymore.
  #22  
Old 05-08-2019, 09:47 AM
Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 20,571
Forced births are necessary to replace the children shot in schools.

What a shithole country.
__________________
Hour after hour, day after day, we paddled and sang and slept under the hot sun on the northern ocean, wanting never to return.
  #23  
Old 05-08-2019, 10:12 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by aldiboronti View Post
Link



This idiotic law, as the article goes on to state, may have unintended consequences. If fetuses have legal personhood then they are entitled to due process. I look forward to thousands of Habeas Corpus suits for the thousands of fetuses illegally imprisoned across the state. The law defies belief. But will the Supreme Court strike it down? I'd like to think so but I'm not so sure it will.
It would not be thousands of fetuses imprisoned. There are 3,940 female prisoners in the Georgia state prison system. If the percentage of pregnant prisoners is similar to national numbers then 4% are pregnant. That is a total of 158 total pregnant prisoners.

Since there is no way to incarcerate the mother without incarcerating the baby, I doubt habeas corpus suits will be successful. Especially since from the baby's perspective there location is inside the mother regardless of where the mother is.
  #24  
Old 05-08-2019, 12:06 PM
Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 55,413
In his book "Pro-Life answers to Pro-Choice Arguments" every time Randy Alcorn mentions adoption, it's always to "married Christian couples." I emailed him asking his stance on gay, Jewish or single people adopting, but I did not get a reply.
  #25  
Old 05-08-2019, 12:41 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 16,205
If fetuses are persons, will they get to vote? Will the pregnant mom get to cast two votes? Sounds crazy, but I wouldn't put anything past these fanatics.
__________________
"If we're not supposed to dance, why all this music?" Gregory Orr
  #26  
Old 05-08-2019, 12:45 PM
MEBuckner's Avatar
MEBuckner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 12,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
If fetuses are persons, will they get to vote? Will the pregnant mom get to cast two votes? Sounds crazy, but I wouldn't put anything past these fanatics.
Since 2-year-olds don't get to vote--for that matter 17-year-olds don't get to vote--presumably -1-year-olds won't get to vote either.

I mean, this is a horrible law, no need to offer up objections to it that don't really make sense.
__________________
"In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves." -- Carl Sagan

Ceterum censeo imperium Trumpi esse delendam
  #27  
Old 05-08-2019, 12:47 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 16,205
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEBuckner View Post
Since 2-year-olds don't get to vote--for that matter 17-year-olds don't get to vote--presumably -1-year-olds won't get to vote either.

I mean, this is a horrible law, no need to offer up objections to it that don't really make sense.
Okay. That was weird of me. It's just that so many things don't make sense any more, kwim?
__________________
"If we're not supposed to dance, why all this music?" Gregory Orr
  #28  
Old 05-08-2019, 12:50 PM
MEBuckner's Avatar
MEBuckner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 12,110
Yeah, we are pretty much through the looking glass these days, aren't we?
  #29  
Old 05-08-2019, 12:50 PM
Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 55,413
If the mother dies in childbirth, should the baby that killed her be tried as an adult?

And if the fetus gets to use a woman's body without her permission, shouldn't other people have the same right? Should marital rape be legal, or even recognized as possible?
  #30  
Old 05-08-2019, 01:11 PM
Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 55,413
Because the mother could have caused the miscarriage that killed the baby by having a drink, drinking coffee, taking an aspirin, or "thinking bad thoughts."

What if a woman miscarriages before she even knows she's pregnant?

Back before abortion was legal, a doctor had to find fetal tissue in the body of any woman claiming to have miscarried. If he didn't, the mother was turned over to the police as a "suspected illegal abortion." GREAT way to treat women who might have had a miscarriage.
  #31  
Old 05-08-2019, 01:20 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas View Post
... Back before abortion was legal, a doctor had to find fetal tissue in the body of any woman claiming to have miscarried. If he didn't, the mother was turned over to the police as a "suspected illegal abortion." GREAT way to treat women who might have had a miscarriage.
Do you have a cite for this?
  #32  
Old 05-08-2019, 01:30 PM
Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 55,413
This law is talked about in the book Intern by Doctor X and Choice: A Doctor's Experience With the Abortion Dilemma by Don M. Sloan, a doctot who started performing illegal abortions after seeing the effects of illegal abortions in the emergency room. A doctor could lose his hospital privileges and even his license if he did not turn suspected abortions over to the police.
  #33  
Old 05-08-2019, 02:02 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 17,009
Even ectopic pregnancies may not be terminated, even though it would result in the deaths of both the mother and the fetus. Defenders of the law claim that all you have to do is have surgery to remove the fetus from the fallopian tube and implant it into the uterus. Medical professionals say this is not a thing.

The law also makes it illegal to travel to another jurisdiction to have an abortion, and anyone who facilitates the transfer of the mother to another jurisdiction to have an abortion can also be charged.
  #34  
Old 05-08-2019, 02:09 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
The law also makes it illegal to travel to another jurisdiction to have an abortion, and anyone who facilitates the transfer of the mother to another jurisdiction to have an abortion can also be charged.
I missed this, but it's not at all surprising. As I said, this so much more than just an anti-abortion law. This is a law intended to intimidate and completely debase women.
  #35  
Old 05-08-2019, 02:25 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
Even ectopic pregnancies may not be terminated ...
This is false. The law provides that:

Quote:
any such act shall not be considered an abortion if the act is performed with the purpose of: ... (B) Removing an ectopic pregnancy.
It's literally the only mention of "ectopic pregnancy" in the bill.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 05-08-2019 at 02:29 PM.
  #36  
Old 05-08-2019, 02:27 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
... The law also makes it illegal to travel to another jurisdiction to have an abortion, and anyone who facilitates the transfer of the mother to another jurisdiction to have an abortion can also be charged.
I couldn't find where in the law this was, so if you can point to the particular line(s) or section of the law that make it "illegal to travel to another jurisdiction to have an abortion", I'd be curious enough to review them. Cite please?
  #37  
Old 05-08-2019, 02:50 PM
MEBuckner's Avatar
MEBuckner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 12,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
The law also makes it illegal to travel to another jurisdiction to have an abortion, and anyone who facilitates the transfer of the mother to another jurisdiction to have an abortion can also be charged.
The only mention I can find of this is what looks to me like some rather speculative reasoning in this Slate article by Mark Joseph Stern:
Quote:
Even women who seek lawful abortions out of state may not escape punishment. If a Georgia resident plans to travel elsewhere to obtain an abortion, she may be charged with conspiracy to commit murder, punishable by 10 years’ imprisonment. An individual who helps a woman plan her trip to get an out-of-state abortion, or transports her to the clinic, may also be charged with conspiracy. These individuals, after all, are “conspiring” to end of the life of a “person” with “full legal recognition” under Georgia law.
IANAL, but I'm really wondering if this holds water. Suppose Alice from Georgia travels to Texas and shoots Bob in the face; stipulate she traveled to Texas with the express purpose of doing that. But Texas' reaction is basically Ah, he needed killin'. Can Georgia prosecute Alice here? Is there any precedent for such a prosecution? And if Alice got her friend Chris to give her a ride to Texas, is there any precedent for Georgia trying to prosecute Alice and Chris for conspiracy to murder Bob, where the alleged murder took place entirely in Texas (and which Texas, for whatever reason, has no interest in prosecuting)?

I'm not just JAQing off here; this all sounds very improbable to me--as I said, I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that "jurisdiction" is a pretty fundamental concept in law. (I know the U.S. has some federal laws criminalizing conduct outside the United States, either because the victims of the crime are U.S. persons or because the perpetrators of the crime are U.S. persons; but the U.S. is a sovereign state; Georgia isn't.)

Even if Roe were totally overturned, I think SCOTUS could very well quash such a (hypothetical) law as this on federalism and jurisdiction grounds.

I wonder if any actual lawyers have said anything about that claim in the Slate article.
  #38  
Old 05-08-2019, 02:58 PM
Sinaptics is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 994
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEBuckner View Post
The only mention I can find of this is what looks to me like some rather speculative reasoning in this Slate article by Mark Joseph Stern:

IANAL, but I'm really wondering if this holds water. Suppose Alice from Georgia travels to Texas and shoots Bob in the face; stipulate she traveled to Texas with the express purpose of doing that. But Texas' reaction is basically Ah, he needed killin'. Can Georgia prosecute Alice here? Is there any precedent for such a prosecution? And if Alice got her friend Chris to give her a ride to Texas, is there any precedent for Georgia trying to prosecute Alice and Chris for conspiracy to murder Bob, where the alleged murder took place entirely in Texas (and which Texas, for whatever reason, has no interest in prosecuting)?

I'm not just JAQing off here; this all sounds very improbable to me--as I said, I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that "jurisdiction" is a pretty fundamental concept in law. (I know the U.S. has some federal laws criminalizing conduct outside the United States, either because the victims of the crime are U.S. persons or because the perpetrators of the crime are U.S. persons; but the U.S. is a sovereign state; Georgia isn't.)

Even if Roe were totally overturned, I think SCOTUS could very well quash such a (hypothetical) law as this on federalism and jurisdiction grounds.

I wonder if any actual lawyers have said anything about that claim in the Slate article.
I suppose they could still get Alice on conspiracy charges if they could prove it.
  #39  
Old 05-09-2019, 09:52 AM
Translucent Daydream is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Grand Valley
Posts: 1,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
Even ectopic pregnancies may not be terminated, even though it would result in the deaths of both the mother and the fetus. Defenders of the law claim that all you have to do is have surgery to remove the fetus from the fallopian tube and implant it into the uterus. Medical professionals say this is not a thing.

The law also makes it illegal to travel to another jurisdiction to have an abortion, and anyone who facilitates the transfer of the mother to another jurisdiction to have an abortion can also be charged.
I don't want to hijack, but I want to single out this post with a personal story and how I went from "on the fence" to "pro-choice."

This was about 20 years ago in Texas.

I dated a woman for years, and she was born when her parents were 16 (dad) and 15 (mom). We were in college, and her parents were still married but in their mid to late 30s and trying to have children again, at an appropriate time so that they could afford and be the mature, stable parents that my girlfriend never had. They were good people, just fucked up when they were young and had her.

So the mother gets pregnant finally. Everyone is excited. Her pregnancy ends up being ectopic, and she gets rushed to the hospital when she falls over in pain. We had no idea what was wrong. We all start driving to the hospital. The first (small townish) hospital has a doctor that refuses the DNC or whatever because there is some policy that lets the doctor refuse the procedure on moral grounds. By the time me and the girlfriend get there, the nurses (male and female) are screaming that her mom is going to die because she is about to rupture. Her dad is having a panic attack. The nurses load her up into another ambulance and send her to fucking Parkland in Dallas. I follow the ambulance in the car with her dad and it seemed to take forever to get there.

What we didn't know is that she was going into shock in the ambulance and almost died. By the time we pull up, I leave my car in the ambulance lane with the keys in it and we rush into the hospital. They rush her passed everyone in the hall behind the flappy doors.

We waited. When the doctor came out, he told us that she almost died and they weren't sure she would make it through the night. They had to do an entire hysterectomy because she did rupture on the way and they weren't really sure how she survived the ambulance ride. She made it, but she wasn't ever the same. Her dad never was the same because he thought somehow he caused it. She never did get to have the children she wanted.

Some dickhead piece of shit asshole doctor decided FOR HER that she would die. Or at the very least never be able to have the children they desperately wanted. They never got the chance to be the good parents I knew they would have been.


I gotta walk away now and smoke a cig or something. Each time I think about that situation I get filled with a very unhealthy rage. I watched three people get their whole world ripped away that day. It fucking haunts me.

These Georgia fucks don't seem to think about things like this.

Sorry for the cuss words.
__________________
I promise it’s not as bad or as good as you think it is.
  #40  
Old 05-09-2019, 11:01 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by Translucent Daydream View Post
I don't want to hijack, but I want to single out this post with a personal story and how I went from "on the fence" to "pro-choice."

This was about 20 years ago in Texas.

I dated a woman for years, and she was born when her parents were 16 (dad) and 15 (mom). We were in college, and her parents were still married but in their mid to late 30s and trying to have children again, at an appropriate time so that they could afford and be the mature, stable parents that my girlfriend never had. They were good people, just fucked up when they were young and had her.

So the mother gets pregnant finally. Everyone is excited. Her pregnancy ends up being ectopic, and she gets rushed to the hospital when she falls over in pain. We had no idea what was wrong. We all start driving to the hospital. The first (small townish) hospital has a doctor that refuses the DNC or whatever because there is some policy that lets the doctor refuse the procedure on moral grounds. By the time me and the girlfriend get there, the nurses (male and female) are screaming that her mom is going to die because she is about to rupture. Her dad is having a panic attack. The nurses load her up into another ambulance and send her to fucking Parkland in Dallas. I follow the ambulance in the car with her dad and it seemed to take forever to get there.

What we didn't know is that she was going into shock in the ambulance and almost died. By the time we pull up, I leave my car in the ambulance lane with the keys in it and we rush into the hospital. They rush her passed everyone in the hall behind the flappy doors.

We waited. When the doctor came out, he told us that she almost died and they weren't sure she would make it through the night. They had to do an entire hysterectomy because she did rupture on the way and they weren't really sure how she survived the ambulance ride. She made it, but she wasn't ever the same. Her dad never was the same because he thought somehow he caused it. She never did get to have the children she wanted.

Some dickhead piece of shit asshole doctor decided FOR HER that she would die. Or at the very least never be able to have the children they desperately wanted. They never got the chance to be the good parents I knew they would have been.


I gotta walk away now and smoke a cig or something. Each time I think about that situation I get filled with a very unhealthy rage. I watched three people get their whole world ripped away that day. It fucking haunts me.

These Georgia fucks don't seem to think about things like this.

Sorry for the cuss words.
Thanks for sharing. I hope it's that few "pro-life" people recognize how many monstrous things like this that their advocacy can lead to, rather than that they recognize it and just don't care. I know the latter is true for some -- so many have made it clear, again and again, that they really just don't value women as fully human beings. But hopefully there are lots more who just need to be educated to recognize how important this freedom of bodily control really is.
  #41  
Old 05-08-2019, 02:31 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 17,009
I'm reporting on what news reports I've read said. I have to ashamedly, admit to not having read the law.
  #42  
Old 05-08-2019, 02:34 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
I'm reporting on what news reports I've read said. I have to ashamedly, admit to not having read the law.
I think the news reports you've read are incorrect. If the Slate article from the OP is any indication of the general quality of "reporting" on this law, that's hardly surprising. Liberals appear to be stoking fear among their base about this law with unsupported and counter-factual claims.
  #43  
Old 05-08-2019, 02:38 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
I'm reporting on what news reports I've read said. I have to ashamedly, admit to not having read the law.
I think Ditka's right - I don't think that's accurate.
  #44  
Old 05-08-2019, 02:35 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 17,009
The Slate is liberal? OK.
  #45  
Old 05-08-2019, 02:44 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
The Slate is liberal? OK.
Yes:

  #46  
Old 05-08-2019, 02:55 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 17,009
Do expectant mothers get to claim their fetuses as dependents on their taxes?
  #47  
Old 05-08-2019, 06:35 PM
nelliebly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,533
HurricaneDitka isn't the only person to slog through the law. I did. Here are some oddities/points of interest:

1.The law is in fact very different from the previous law:

To amend Chapter 2 of Title 1 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to persons and their rights, so as to provide that natural persons include an unborn child; to provide that such unborn children shall be included in certain population based determinations... (bolding mine.)

Note that unborn children will be counted in population-based determinations. I assume all physicians will have to report any pregnancy of over 6 weeks to some state government agency so it can be counted as part of the population. Of course, those women who don't seek medical care until 8 weeks or after will make those numbers impossible to determine.

2. The law DOES allow for abortions before 20 weeks in cases where pregnancies are the result of rape or incest. This seems contradictory. If ALL embryos/fetuses with detectable heartbeats are "natural persons," then why are these embryos/fetuses excluded from that definition?

3. The law does allow exceptions for when the life of the mother is at stake or the fetus is not viable, but not for the cases in which the woman is suicidal. So she can't have an abortion, but if a woman kills herself and therefore the fetus--two natural persons dead--apparently that's preferable to that woman having an abortion.

4. Fathers will pay child support for embryos/fetuses: Section 5 of the bill amends current Georgia law to include embryos/fetuses, though the law restricts such support to
Quote:
the amount of direct medical and pregnancy related expenses of the
187 mother of the unborn child.
Of course, paternity can't be determined until after birth.

5. Rick Kitchen: Yes.
Quote:
...relating to income taxes, so as to provide that an unborn child with a detectable human heartbeat is a dependent minor for income tax purposes.
HurricaneDitka, you said you read the law and "haven't found anything yet I object to." I assume that includes the exclusion for rape and incest, even though such embryos/fetuses are not excluded from the definition of "natural persons"?

Last edited by nelliebly; 05-08-2019 at 06:38 PM.
  #48  
Old 05-08-2019, 06:38 PM
nelliebly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,533
For anyone interested, you can find the full text of the Georgia law here.
  #49  
Old 05-08-2019, 11:48 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
... HurricaneDitka, you said you read the law and "haven't found anything yet I object to." I assume that includes the exclusion for rape and incest, even though such embryos/fetuses are not excluded from the definition of "natural persons"?
Yes. I generally consider the law an improvement over the status quo ante.
  #50  
Old 05-09-2019, 01:12 AM
nelliebly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Yes. I generally consider the law an improvement over the status quo ante.
Perhaps you could explain how an embryo/fetus/baby can be considered a natural person ONLY if it was conceived through consensual sex by too people who are not too closely related to marry each other. If rape or incest results in a pregnancy, that embryo/fetus/baby is not a natural person?

This isn't a gotcha. I think you thought you answered my question, but you did not. I didn't ask if you thought this law was better than the status quo ante. I assumed you did. And it does not mean you oppose the law entirely if you don't approve of one part of it. I've noted many times when others have criticized you for sidestepping questions. I'm giving you a chance to avoid doing so here.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017