This is ludicrous. There is nothing in the bill which purports to criminalise abortion, and the state A-G has advised that it will have no such effect. The mere fact that a fetus is deemed legally to be a person does not make abortion murder any more than judicial executions are currently murder. If the legislature wants to make abortion murder then, even if there were no constitutional objection, it would need to pass an act which actually does that.
It’s being done for its political effect, not its legal effect.
The terminology doesn’t matter. You “murder” a post-birth “person” or you “abort” a pre-birth “person”. That they promise the latter act won’t be criminalized isn’t very comforting, given the large number of Americans who would gladly do so.
They don’t have to make abortion murder, they just have to make abortion a crime. Or they could just require layer upon layer of regulatory bullshit (in the interest of making sure newly-vested persons are protected) until the number of legal abortion providers dwindles.
And that should annoy anyone in the districts represented by these clowns, seeing their elected officials wasting time like that.
There’s a fair amount of moaning about “unintended consequences” that result from ill-considered laws. I don’t see why questioning this effort before it gets its (admittedly unlikely) shot at becoming a law is so unacceptable.
Heh, Not an atheist here, more like a teapot agnostic. This reminded of a sarcastic piece from several years ago that I read from an atheist writer describing another yahoo politician proposing that idea decades ago.
He said atheists could hardly wait for the law to pass as they would use in-vitro fertilization to fertilize many ova, get them into frozen storage, demand person hood for each one of those ovum and get free benefits and money to use for their causes.
As many fundamentalist and Catholics oppose many artificial methods of insemination, the point was made that it would be unlikely for religious persons to follow suit.
The issue is not what would people like to do, but what would this Act actually do. This Act would not criminalise abortion. And (if the US constitution did not prevent it) if people wanted to criminalise abortion, they wouldn’t need to get this Act passed in order to do it. They’d need to get a quite different Act passed.
But this Act does none of these things, and does not enable thest things to be done, given the constitutional realities. And, if these things could be done, it would not be necessary to get this Act passed in order to do them.
Isn’t this a citiizen-driven initiative? Do the elected officials have any choice in the matter?
There’s no problem at all with questioning the Act; in fact, it’s good and important that is should be done. But it’s also important that the answers should be accurate and truthful.
The promoters of this Act do not expect it to lead to any material change in the law. Their objectives are to have a political campaign, to demonstrate the degree of popular support which their philosphical stance enjoys and, I imagine they hope, to increase that degree of support. It’s the referendum they want, more than the legislation.
I wonder if this could be used by Alaska residents with surplus in vitro embryos in cold storage to claim additional dividends from the Alaska Permanent Fund?
And they’re free to do so, but if members of the Klan were testing the political waters with a harmless piece of feel-good legislation, I would hope people could see the ultimate goal and call “bullshit” on them.
I do think this is an attempt to get a foot in the door on the anti-choice side. If this were to be enacted, the next step would be to argue that since an embryo is a person, then ending its “life” would be “murder,” which is illegal.
My other thought is if an embryo is considered a person, could I use it as a dependent on my taxes?
When a place like ALCOR freezes a body most of the cells are still living, and most
survive to be unfrozen.
So you could avoid a murder rap for years if you just kept up the utility bills on
the cryo chamber.
There was an episode of the much underrated 1980s British sci-fi series Star Cops about this very idea. A scientist sabotages a soon-to-be-launched deep space probe. A few months later when the airlock malfunctions and the crew needs help (and is still well beyond rescue), he suggests they use an improvised hibernation technology of his design and set a course that will put them in rescue range in eight years. At first, he’s hailed as a hero, but when the facts come out, it’s unclear if they can charge him with murder since they won’t know if the crew is actually dead for quite some time.