Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 05-08-2019, 02:58 PM
Sinaptics is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 995
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.
  #52  
Old 05-08-2019, 03:01 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Over in this thread, you advised liberals: "So do it the right way: get a Constitutional amendment ratified. This gimmicky state law business where you threaten to keep him off the ballot is the wrong way to go about this."

Do you believe Georgia should have passed a gimmicky state law instead of doing it the right way and changing the Constitution?

My guess is no. Only liberals have to change the Constitution, eh?
The Constitution does have a section detailing requirements to run for President. It does not have a section detailing requirements for abortions. Do you see the difference now?
  #53  
Old 05-08-2019, 03:01 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
So let's look at history. Georgia passed a 22-week abortion ban in 2012. Since then, how many women who have had miscarriages after 22 weeks have been jailed for it?
Since you're so busy asking chickenshit questions, can you answer some of my chickenshit questions?

1. Do you support the law?
2. Do you believe this law is constitutional?
3. If one is yes and the other is no; do you have a rough estimate of how many times you've criticized your political opponents for supporting laws that aren't constitutional?
4. Do you think women should be subject to long prison sentences, or perhaps even the death penalty, for having an abortion that would otherwise be legal under Roe v. Wade?
  #54  
Old 05-08-2019, 03:04 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
The Constitution does have a section detailing requirements to run for President. It does not have a section detailing requirements for abortions. Do you see the difference now?
So your suggestion is... that liberals should get a constitutional amendment passed to protect Roe v. Wade?

I refer you to my earlier comment that it always seems like your opponents need to amend the Constitution, but your side does not.
  #55  
Old 05-08-2019, 03:22 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,418
this could be another situation like HB2 that we had in NC where businesses and others decided to boycott a state over a law. GA is very big in movie production now and those folks are pretty far to the left.
  #56  
Old 05-08-2019, 03:28 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 17,141
So it turns out the article I was quoting about ectopic pregnancies comes from the author of the anti-abortion bill being considered in Ohio.
https://www.statenews.org/post/ohio-...heartbeat-bill
  #57  
Old 05-08-2019, 04:32 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Since you're so busy asking chickenshit questions, can you answer some of my chickenshit questions?

1. Do you support the law?
2. Do you believe this law is constitutional?
3. If one is yes and the other is no; do you have a rough estimate of how many times you've criticized your political opponents for supporting laws that aren't constitutional?
4. Do you think women should be subject to long prison sentences, or perhaps even the death penalty, for having an abortion that would otherwise be legal under Roe v. Wade?
They're not "chickenshit questions". I'm trying to find out if there's any real evidence to support asahi's claim about women "almost certainly" being jailed for miscarriages. So far all I've seen is hand-waving like "history + common sense > cite", but I'm happy to answer your questions anyways:

1) I have only a cursory understanding of this law (which is a good bit more than many of the Dopers posting in this thread have demonstrated), but I haven't yet found anything in it I object to.

2) I don't think there's anything in the Constitution that precludes it. I understand that it is likely to run afoul of current Supreme Court precedent, but one of the goals is presumably to challenge that very precedent. I guess we'll have to wait and see what SCOTUS says. I certainly hope they'll find it Constitutional.

3) N/A

4) I haven't given it much consideration, but probably not. More importantly, for this thread, I don't believe this law does that, Slate's nonsense notwithstanding.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 05-08-2019 at 04:33 PM.
  #58  
Old 05-08-2019, 04:49 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
So let's look at history. Georgia passed a 22-week abortion ban in 2012. Since then, how many women who have had miscarriages after 22 weeks have been jailed for it?
Understand something, boy.

I don't care whether I convince or persuade you. I don't write for you.
  #59  
Old 05-08-2019, 04:49 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Understand something, boy.

I don't care whether I convince or persuade you. I don't write for you.
Whether you want to convince me or not is irrelevant. You shouldn't write things that are false, which you have in this thread.
  #60  
Old 05-08-2019, 05:00 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Whether you want to convince me or not is irrelevant. You shouldn't write things that are false, which you have in this thread.
Nope.
  #61  
Old 05-08-2019, 05:07 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
1) I have only a cursory understanding of this law (which is a good bit more than many of the Dopers posting in this thread have demonstrated), but I haven't yet found anything in it I object to.

2) I don't think there's anything in the Constitution that precludes it. I understand that it is likely to run afoul of current Supreme Court precedent, but one of the goals is presumably to challenge that very precedent. I guess we'll have to wait and see what SCOTUS says. I certainly hope they'll find it Constitutional.

3) N/A

4) I haven't given it much consideration, but probably not. More importantly, for this thread, I don't believe this law does that, Slate's nonsense notwithstanding.
Lest any doubts remain, this is how authoritarianism and fascism become mainstream in an ostensibly free democratic society:

1) Restrict the ability of an identifiable segment of a population to exercise previously well established civil/personal rights.

2) Stack the courts and key government administrations to oppose any legal challenge to ensure overturn of standing law in favor of newly imposed restrictions.

3) Openly declare contempt for legal precedent and standing law by ignoring it entirely.

4) Trivialize and dismiss warnings of obviously dangerous downstream consequences of all of the above as mere alarmist "nonsense".


This right here is how some of the worst recorded events of human history repeat themselves.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.

Last edited by QuickSilver; 05-08-2019 at 05:09 PM.
  #62  
Old 05-08-2019, 05:13 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,153
Georgia banning most abortions after six weeks is so far down the list of "worst recorded events of human history" that I can't help but laugh at your silly post.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 05-08-2019 at 05:13 PM.
  #63  
Old 05-08-2019, 05:56 PM
MEBuckner's Avatar
MEBuckner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 12,137
As to the idea that this law (or some hypothetical future state law in Georgia or some other state) would make it illegal to travel to another state to get an abortion:

From the GQ thread Can a state punish you for doing something that is legal in another state but not in their state? (which is actually directly about that aspect of this law), Tired and Cranky cites a 1974 SCOTUS decision, Bigelow v. Virginia, which would seem to rule that out:
Quote:
Neither could Virginia prevent its residents from traveling to New York to obtain those services or, as the State conceded, Tr. of Oral Arg. 29, prosecute them for going there. See United States v. Guest, 383 U. S. 745, 757-759 (1966); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S. 618, 629-631 (1969); Doe v. Bolton, 410 U. S., at 200. Virginia possessed no authority to regulate the services provided in New York—the skills and credentials of the New York physicians and of the New York professionals who assisted them, the standards of the New York hospitals and clinics to which patients were referred, or the practices and charges of the New York referral services.

A State does not acquire power or supervision over the internal affairs of another State merely because the welfare and health of its own citizens may be affected when they travel to that State. It may seek to disseminate information so as to enable its citizens to make better informed decisions when they leave. But it may not, under the guise of exercising internal police powers, bar a citizen of another State from disseminating information about an activity that is legal in that State.
This was, in fact, an abortion case; since it was about advertisements in Virginia newspapers, it had First Amendment implications which would not necessarily go away if the Supreme Court struck down the "right to privacy"-based Roe and other decisions, but also wouldn't necessarily apply to some hypothetical "traveling for an abortion"/"conspiring to help someone else travel for an abortion" case. However, Bigelow does also seem to pretty clearly state (if only in passing) that a state may not "prevent its residents from traveling to [another state] to obtain [abortion] services or, as the State conceded, prosecute them for going there" (and there seems to be a string of precedents about that). Again, that statement likely falls outside the rationale for Roe and the other abortion-rights decisions, and it therefore seems to me that SCOTUS would have to strike down more than just abortion rights to permit a state to prosecute its citizens merely for traveling to another state to do something that is legal in that other state (or even for "conspiring" to assist its citizens in traveling to another state to do something that is legal in that other state).

(I am still not a lawyer.)
  #64  
Old 05-08-2019, 06:02 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,675

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Understand something, boy.

I don't care whether I convince or persuade you. I don't write for you.
You're welcome to not respond, but do not appear to use the pejorative, "boy" in this fashion.

[/moderating]
  #65  
Old 05-08-2019, 06:35 PM
nelliebly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,630
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.
  #66  
Old 05-08-2019, 06:38 PM
nelliebly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,630
For anyone interested, you can find the full text of the Georgia law here.
  #67  
Old 05-08-2019, 06:43 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
They're not "chickenshit questions". I'm trying to find out if there's any real evidence to support asahi's claim about women "almost certainly" being jailed for miscarriages.
They are chickenshit questions, because you and I know that you’d prefer to fixate on knocking down a particular claim without debating the actual issue at hand.


Quote:
2) I don't think there's anything in the Constitution that precludes it. I understand that it is likely to run afoul of current Supreme Court precedent, but one of the goals is presumably to challenge that very precedent. I guess we'll have to wait and see what SCOTUS says. I certainly hope they'll find it Constitutional.
So for consistency of arguments as long as you and I choose to participate on this board: your definition of the term “constitutional” relates only to one’s own reading and interpretation of the Constitution, without regard to precedent?

So if my interpretation of a particular law is at odds with precedent, I’m free to say that my interpretation is better than the Supreme Court’s (at least until the Court rules specifically on my take on the issue) and you won’t challenge me on that?


Quote:
4) I haven't given it much consideration, but probably not. More importantly, for this thread, I don't believe this law does that, Slate's nonsense notwithstanding.
The quality of your argument would be much inproved if you provided your own cite debunking Slate. Seeing as how you are asking people to support their assertions, you should support your own.
  #68  
Old 05-08-2019, 06:44 PM
nightshadea is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: a condo in hell 10th lvl
Posts: 5,518
so how long until all these laws are struck down by SCOUTS in such a way that it leaves a "we've made our decision on this back in the 70s so quit trying to go around it " mark ?

Last edited by nightshadea; 05-08-2019 at 06:46 PM.
  #69  
Old 05-08-2019, 06:47 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,418
The SCOTUS certainly can decide a case that reverses a previous decision. For example they once said it was OK to outlaw gay sex but then they ruled it was not OK. And of course later ruled that gay marriage cannot be prevented by a state.
  #70  
Old 05-08-2019, 06:48 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightshadea View Post
so how long until all these laws are struck down by SCOUTS in such a way that it leaves a "we've made out decision on this back in the 70s quit trying to go around it " ?
I think they're hoping to slant the SCOTUS to the degree that the entire hyperconservative platform can be made federal law, and fuck what the populace in general wants.

It's not even really a secret - there's a substantial slab of those who voted for Trump whose unsummarized reason for doing so was "judges".
  #71  
Old 05-08-2019, 06:52 PM
HMS Irruncible is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
Do expectant mothers get to claim their fetuses as dependents on their taxes?
I don't know but I'm scratching my head over this one:
Quote:
(d) Unless otherwise provided by law, any natural person, including an unborn child with
68 a detectable human heartbeat, shall be included in population based determinations.
I'm scratching my head over what this means. Population based determinations? For like... what? Political representation? Like a 3/5 compromise, but instead it's 5/5?
  #72  
Old 05-08-2019, 07:14 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Georgia banning most abortions after six weeks is so far down the list of "worst recorded events of human history" that I can't help but laugh at your silly post.
Color me shocked that you would consider the restriction of women's reproductive rights a laughing matter. Even less shocking is your disingenuous interpretation and response to what I actually said. Do people IRL let you get away with this bullshit?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #73  
Old 05-08-2019, 07:21 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Color me shocked that you would consider the restriction of women's reproductive rights a laughing matter. Even less shocking is your disingenuous interpretation and response to what I actually said. Do people IRL let you get away with this bullshit?
We shouldn't be shocked by this kind of thing any more. Some folks just prove over and over again that they don't think women should have full control of their own bodies.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #74  
Old 05-08-2019, 07:52 PM
DinoR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,653
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.
  #75  
Old 05-08-2019, 07:52 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
The SCOTUS certainly can decide a case that reverses a previous decision. For example they once said it was OK to outlaw gay sex but then they ruled it was not OK. And of course later ruled that gay marriage cannot be prevented by a state.
Sure -- but I would suggest that posters should pick a horse and ride it. If they want to define "constitutionality" as the state of the law as informed by case law, then that's perfectly fair. If they want to define "constitutionality" as their own opinion of the Constitution while criticizing the case law as being inconsistent with their reading, I can see that in some circumstances.

But to arbitrarily decide that one's self can abide by the second definition while criticizing others for holding the first (or vice versa) sis not arguing in good faith in debates that touch on the law.

Last edited by Ravenman; 05-08-2019 at 07:52 PM.
  #76  
Old 05-08-2019, 10:26 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Same question for you: do you know how Georgia law handled second- or third-trimester abortions prior to this law being enacted?
No. Can you establish the relevance so I can decide whether or not I should care?
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #77  
Old 05-08-2019, 11:48 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,153
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.
  #78  
Old 05-08-2019, 11:51 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Color me shocked that you would consider the restriction of women's reproductive rights a laughing matter. Even less shocking is your disingenuous interpretation and response to what I actually said. Do people IRL let you get away with this bullshit?
People IRL don't generally engage in the sort of extreme hyperbole you have here. It's not the restrictions that's a laughing matter, it's your post. Some day I hope I find you in a thread on gun control so I can quote your words back to you.
  #79  
Old 05-08-2019, 11:54 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
This is the law that Georgia passed. Which portion(s) of that bill will result in women "almost certainly" being jailed for miscarriages? Please cite a line number or section.

I'll help you get started: "miscarriage" is used precisely once in the bill, on line 108.
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:

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia...ion-16-12-140/

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.

Last edited by UltraVires; 05-08-2019 at 11:54 PM.
  #80  
Old 05-08-2019, 11:56 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
No. Can you establish the relevance so I can decide whether or not I should care?
it's my understanding that Georgia law has generally prohibited abortions after a certain point in pregnancy (recently, 22 weeks), and yet, I'm unaware of a single case of a woman in Georgia who had a miscarriage after that point in her pregnancy being jailed for it. Moving that point forward to ~6 weeks (which is what HB 481 did) does not seem to me to pose any additional danger of women being jailed for miscarriages.

Providing examples of women jailed for miscarriages would go a long ways towards justifying asahi and your concerns.
  #81  
Old 05-09-2019, 12:35 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
They are chickenshit questions, because you and I know that you’d prefer to fixate on knocking down a particular claim without debating the actual issue at hand. ...
The "actual issue at hand" is a bunch of misinformation and ignorance being spread by Slate about what the effects of the law. That's what I "prefer to fixate on knocking down": the ignorance of Dopers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
... So for consistency of arguments as long as you and I choose to participate on this board: your definition of the term “constitutional” relates only to one’s own reading and interpretation of the Constitution, without regard to precedent?

So if my interpretation of a particular law is at odds with precedent, I’m free to say that my interpretation is better than the Supreme Court’s (at least until the Court rules specifically on my take on the issue) and you won’t challenge me on that? ...
You're certainly free to share how you interpret it and if / why you think that interpretation is superior. Others are free to point out when your interpretation is at odds with precedent.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
... The quality of your argument would be much inproved if you provided your own cite debunking Slate. Seeing as how you are asking people to support their assertions, you should support your own.
You want a cite for something the law doesn't say? I've already provided a direct link to the law. It does not say that women can be sentenced to death for having an abortion.

ETA: ninja'd by UV, but that Slate article in the OP is still horseshit.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 05-09-2019 at 12:38 AM.
  #82  
Old 05-09-2019, 01:12 AM
nelliebly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,630
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.
  #83  
Old 05-09-2019, 01:27 AM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,974
It sounded to me like the classification of a fetus as a natural person conferred certain protections and incurred specific penalties if one were to cause death of such, whether the doctor who performs an abortion or a women who induces one. Is that not the case? I'm relieved to hear it, in that case.
  #84  
Old 05-09-2019, 01:42 AM
nelliebly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,630
Quote:
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:

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia...ion-16-12-140/

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.
  #85  
Old 05-09-2019, 02:40 AM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,828
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.
  #86  
Old 05-09-2019, 03:33 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
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.
Not quite accurate. If you re-read the law, it defines all unborn children/fetuses/embryos as "natural persons" and as part of Georgia law bestows the protections of the 14th amendment on them. It states that medical science has progressed since Roe and Casey that unborn children are "living persons" perhaps foreshadowing an eventual argument to the Supreme Court to overturn Roe.

But Georgia is bound by federal case law, most importantly Roe, and cannot take the logical conclusion of its personhood argument and say: no abortions. So it enacts a lesser scheme that it will argue in court complies with Roe and Casey. No abortions after a detectable heartbeat at all except for those listed reasons, and no abortions from heartbeat detection until 20 weeks except for rape and incest.

Nothing says that statutes have to be internally consistent. I don't see anything terribly wrong with a state, for example, granting personhood from the moment of fertilization yet also recognizing a woman's right to choose and stating that abortion is still legal up to 36 weeks for any reason. It is not logically consistent, but it doesn't need to be; it can be a recognition of competing values.
  #87  
Old 05-09-2019, 05:36 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
it's my understanding that Georgia law has generally prohibited abortions after a certain point in pregnancy (recently, 22 weeks), and yet, I'm unaware of a single case of a woman in Georgia who had a miscarriage after that point in her pregnancy being jailed for it. Moving that point forward to ~6 weeks (which is what HB 481 did) does not seem to me to pose any additional danger of women being jailed for miscarriages.
Maybe it doesn't, if this is just a feel-good law to make the base happy and there is no intention of bothering to enforce it. Trouble is, there's quite a difference between a pregnancy ending at 22+ weeks and one that ends at 8 weeks, in that the former is likely to have some medical records attached, i.e. the woman sought care from an OB/GYN at some point because she knew was pregnant and wanted the pregnancy to continue (i.e. she was not seeking to terminate it). I expect any reasonable law-enforcement officer who is told the woman miscarried will accept this on its face. Compare that to a woman who was 8 weeks pregnant and now isn't. If there's no positive indication that she wanted the pregnancy to continue, i.e. no prenatal medical appointments, can an law-enforcement officer demand she prove she didn't quietly get an abortion?

Of course, that's putting aside the larger issue of why this should be a law-enforcement issue at all. Heck, Georgia is a stand-your-ground state, which compels no duty to retreat on someone who, say, finds an unwanted trespasser on one's land. I'm vaguely hoping a Georgia woman tries to apply this argument to the greater intrusion posed by an unwanted trespasser in one's body, and then we'll get to see just how much respect the state actually has for individual freedom.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #88  
Old 05-09-2019, 06:31 AM
HMS Irruncible is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,382
In 2014 Georgia tried to charge a woman for murder after a miscarriage in the 2nd trimester. She had taken some abortifacient pills.

The prosecutor later determined that mothers were immune from punishment under the law of the time. The new law closes that loophole. Mothers are now liable for murder or manslaughter charges depending on whether someone else thinks their action caused the death of their fetus.

Further, they are liable to civil action to some other party acting as parent who can recovery damages for the value of the lost "child". So we'd allow, say, a rapist in jail to use the threat of lawsuit against a woman to force her to give birth to his child - which presumably she'd be on the hook for parental duties as well. This is what the law allows for.

The scary thing is the law leaves a wide interpretation of how a mother would cause her own miscarriage. Someone seen having a glass of wine or a cigarette, or going for a jog, and then has an unrelated miscarriage later, could find themselves on the hook for a murder charge if a crazy mother-in-law pursues it. Keeping in mind that fetuses are now people, we now have the risk of a crazy mother-in-law and a non-medical prosecutor deciding whether a woman killed her child with a cigarette, a glass of wine, or vigorous exercise.

Some will of course ask "where did this actually happen" and my response would be that it doesn't matter. If the law allows a ridiculous and unconscionable outcome, then it's a ridiculous and unconscionable law.
  #89  
Old 05-09-2019, 07:21 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
In 2014 Georgia tried to charge a woman for murder after a miscarriage in the 2nd trimester. She had taken some abortifacient pills.

The prosecutor later determined that mothers were immune from punishment under the law of the time. The new law closes that loophole. Mothers are now liable for murder or manslaughter charges depending on whether someone else thinks their action caused the death of their fetus.

Further, they are liable to civil action to some other party acting as parent who can recovery damages for the value of the lost "child". So we'd allow, say, a rapist in jail to use the threat of lawsuit against a woman to force her to give birth to his child - which presumably she'd be on the hook for parental duties as well. This is what the law allows for.

The scary thing is the law leaves a wide interpretation of how a mother would cause her own miscarriage. Someone seen having a glass of wine or a cigarette, or going for a jog, and then has an unrelated miscarriage later, could find themselves on the hook for a murder charge if a crazy mother-in-law pursues it. Keeping in mind that fetuses are now people, we now have the risk of a crazy mother-in-law and a non-medical prosecutor deciding whether a woman killed her child with a cigarette, a glass of wine, or vigorous exercise.

Some will of course ask "where did this actually happen" and my response would be that it doesn't matter. If the law allows a ridiculous and unconscionable outcome, then it's a ridiculous and unconscionable law.
There's also the case of Christine Taylor, of Iowa, who was arrested and nearly prosecuted for falling down stairs.

https://www.radioiowa.com/2010/02/10...with-feticide/

But specific examples and cites aren't really necessary because it's basic common sense that these laws are part of a Taliban-ish movement to debase women by turning their bodies into potential crime scenes. Imagine a wife and husband having to go through the grief of coming back from a hospital after a miscarriage, and then have emotionless detectives asking them questions about whether they did anything to cause their baby's death.

FFS, there's now a law in Texas that would make abortion capital murder and thus make mothers themselves subject to execution.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opi...e-13764311.php

There's a horse race among conservative states to see which legislature can introduce the most extreme anti-abortion bill. In all cases, abortion is a smokescreen for the real objective, which is to restore a kind of plutocratic society based on patriarchal and extremist values.

Last edited by asahi; 05-09-2019 at 07:22 AM.
  #90  
Old 05-09-2019, 07:52 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,355
For the people claiming that the law doesn't specifically punish the woman for having an abortion after the heartbeat is detected, can you address the personhood provisions of the law? It seems to me that if a fetus is a person with 14th amendment rights, then killing that person would come with punishment. Leaving the state to kill that person and then returning would also be punished.

I'm not a lawyer. But, if the law defines a non-rape fetus as a person, then it doesn't have to lay out all the rest of it -- the other implications come along with personhood.

Ultravires, regarding the rape and incest exception especially, can those fetuses be aborted any time? Are they never granted personhood? How about after birth?
  #91  
Old 05-09-2019, 07:57 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
In 2014 Georgia tried to charge a woman for murder after a miscarriage in the 2nd trimester. She had taken some abortifacient pills. ...
This has literally NOTHING to do with miscarriages. The woman didn't even have a miscarriage, she had a live birth:

Quote:
Kenlissia Jones, 23, gave birth in a car on the way to the hospital after taking the drugs. The child died 30 minutes later, a family member said.
  #92  
Old 05-09-2019, 08:04 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
The "actual issue at hand" is a bunch of misinformation and ignorance being spread by Slate about what the effects of the law. That's what I "prefer to fixate on knocking down": the ignorance of Dopers.
The issue at hand is not your jihad against liberals. The issue at hand is an abortion law, and whether it it good or not. Cherry-picking a couple arguments and pretending that if you disprove one, every other argument that the other side has thrown out is wrong is a chickenshit debate.

Quote:
You're certainly free to share how you interpret it and if / why you think that interpretation is superior. Others are free to point out when your interpretation is at odds with precedent.
So when I ask whether you will be consistent with how you assess the constitutionality of laws, you are asserting that you will pick and choose how you will answer that question? Just trying to be clear here.

Quote:
You want a cite for something the law doesn't say? I've already provided a direct link to the law. It does not say that women can be sentenced to death for having an abortion.

ETA: ninja'd by UV, but that Slate article in the OP is still horseshit.
There's millions of lawyers in this country, and I'm sure you can find a reputable expert who explains in some detail that your reading of the law is correct. Instead, we just have you repeating that you read the law, and that Slate is incorrect. You ask others for cites all the time; you should provide cites that your reading is correct. You may be right, who knows? But you have provided no reason whatsoever for anyone to listen to your opinion.
  #93  
Old 05-09-2019, 08:05 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
This has literally NOTHING to do with miscarriages.
Well, except for the part where she took medication that could cause a miscarriage and then miscarried. Pfffft.... details.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #94  
Old 05-09-2019, 08:05 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
... Leaving the state to kill that person and then returning would also be punished. ...
IANAL either, but let's start with this argument because it's been repeated several times and I think it's obviously wrong. Georgia doesn't have a law against leaving the state to murder a person. If you traveled to New York with a two-year-old in tow, which every state in the Union recognizes as a person, and then murdered that two-year-old in New York, Georgia could not prosecute you for the murder. New York would have to do that. That same logic would apply to an unborn child, except that New York would not prosecute you for it.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 05-09-2019 at 08:06 AM.
  #95  
Old 05-09-2019, 08:07 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Well, except for the part where she took medication that could cause a miscarriage and then miscarried. Pfffft.... details.
She did not "miscarry". She had a live birth. It's in the article. I quoted that bit of the article.
  #96  
Old 05-09-2019, 08:21 AM
Annie-Xmas is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 55,922
To throw another stone into the river, would a couple thawing out unwanted frozen embryos be considered "murder"?
  #97  
Old 05-09-2019, 08:24 AM
elbows is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 14,398
So let me see if I understand,

Bob needs a kidney, his identical twin brother Doug is a perfect match. Even though it’s a relatively safe medical procedure, and a grown man’s, life, (and the shape of his family’s future!), hangs in the balance, Doug’s rock solid body autonomy insures without question, that no one, not even the state, can force him to give his kidney.

His right to body autonomy extends beyond his lifetime and applies even to his corpse. He has to consent for his organs to be taken.

But if Bob impregnates Anne, at six weeks in, quite possibly before she knows she’s pregnant, she has lost all right to body autonomy? She now has no say in any medical risk her body undergoes, or the shape of her family and future?

So, doesn’t it come down to: do all people have full body autonomy? Or just men?
  #98  
Old 05-09-2019, 08:35 AM
Annie-Xmas is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 55,922
And let's not forget that Doug ruined Bob's kidneys when he stabbed him in the back. Yet the state still cannot make him give up a kidney.

And this would also apply to testicles: If Doug castrated Bob, the state still could not make him give Bob a testicle.
  #99  
Old 05-09-2019, 08:35 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by elbows View Post
So, doesn’t it come down to: do all people have full body autonomy? Or just men?
Per Trump and many of his supporters, just men, quite obviously. From pussy grabbing to jailing women for doing certain things to their bodies, it's quite clear how this administration and many of its supporters view women. They're okay with women not being in control of their bodies. This is what they want.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-09-2019 at 08:37 AM.
  #100  
Old 05-09-2019, 08:41 AM
Annie-Xmas is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 55,922
I always ask the anti-abortion folks I talk to if they would like to go back to the world like it was before abortion was legal. When men could beat their wives and children, use "I couldn't help myself" as an excuse for rape, sexually harass women, fire a pregnant single woman, yada, yada, yada. So far, nobody has answered yes.
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 11:49 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