Federal Ban on Abortion

The article doesn’t describe what she did, but:

What we do know is that criminalizing pregnant people’s choices

Pregnant people, okay.

“I mean, they criminalized pregnancy, basically, and abortion access," she said. "And so we knew something like this was bound to happen eventually.”

But they didn’t. As much as I have disagreed with the Texas law, they did not criminalize this. They specifically did not criminalize it to stay within the bounds of Roe/Casey. As far as criminalizing “pregnancy” it’s absurd.

It’s in the title of the article.

Yes, but we don’t know what that means with all of the buzz words in the article. It is not a neutral commentary.

What?

It says she was “charged” for murder for a self induced abortion.

Was she charged with something else?

What is unclear here?

Given the slant of the article I will withhold any opinion until I hear more neutrally presented facts.

Ok, how much do you need?

I just saw this:

This is on the Fox News website:

There’s nothing that says it was under that ridiculous Texas abortion law, and it wouldn’t be, since that’s about lawsuits, not criminal behavior.

Anyway, my point really is that it’s not just fringe loonies that are treating fetuses like people.

ETA: I see the charges are dropped, but that’s beside the point. The reason I posted was to rebut the idea that it’s only a fringe that wants to treat fetuses like people.

This comports with much of what I hear from abortion opponents, that it should be left up to the States. That being the case, would you then preclude a Federal Ban, as described in the OP? Frankly, the notion of a Republican administration moving toward a Federal Ban would seem to be inconsistent with the logic of State primacy in this issue.

The article said this:

Additionally, Vladeck noted, Texas law explicitly exempts a woman from a criminal homicide charge for aborting her pregnancy.

It sounds like someone wildly exceeded their authority. All of the articles mention SB8 in an attempt to mislead the readers into thinking that SB8 caused this. This is just poor journalism.

Fetal homicide laws are common. Scott Peterson, for example, was convicted of murder of his unborn child in that hot bed of conservatism known as California. Are they a bunch of right wing nuts treating fetuses as persons? The article doesn’t give many details. Did her attempt at abortion cause a live birth which she then either killed or let die? We don’t know because the articles are too busy with the hysteria instead of simply reporting facts.

I would certainly disagree with a federal ban.

What was she charged under then (before charges were dropped)?

The article says murder.

I don’t know if they’re right wing nuts, but you and I agree that if they are treating fetuses as persons, they are nuts (or, at least, haven’t thought things through). And, if he was convicted of murder, then they are treating a fetus as a person.

Don’t charges usually cite the law you are being charged under as well as the details they think support that charge?

I mean, can the police knock on your door, say they are charging you with murder, and that’d be the end of it? No more details need to be given?

Of course not. The charging instrument would give details and cite the relevant TX code for murder, but none of that was provided in any of the linked articles.

Maybe - until 2019 the NYS definition of homicide was

Homicide means conduct which causes the death of a person or an unborn child with which a female has been pregnant for more than twenty-four weeks …

And “person” was defined as

“Person,” when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a human
being who has been born and is alive

Which in combination specifically says that an unborn child ( even after 24 weeks gestation) isn’t a person. If an unborn child post 24 weeks were a person, there wouldn’t be an “or” in the first quote, and the definition of “person” would be different.

In 2019, they changed the law so that it no longer applies to a fetus past 24 weeks gestation.

Glad they found sense. Treating a fetus as a person (which, the lay definition of homicide is the killing of a human, although it could be defined differently in state law books) is a bad path to go down.

I tend to agree although I think an assault on a woman which causes the fetus/unborn child to die should be a heightened penalty. For whatever may be said of legal abortion nobody thinks that an attacker has a “right to choose.”

Many problems arise with this. My state has a law which says that a fetus/unborn child is considered a person and can be a victim of a crime of violence, such that if you punch a pregnant woman in the stomach, you can be convicted of two counts of battery, or two counts of murder, etc.

But it has these exceptions:

W.Va. Code 61-2-30

(d) Exceptions. – The provisions of this section do not apply to:

(1) Acts committed during a legal abortion to which the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, consented or for which the consent is implied by law;

(2) Acts or omissions by medical or health care personnel during or as a result of medical or health-related treatment or services, including, but not limited to, medical care, abortion, diagnostic testing or fertility treatment;

(3) Acts or omissions by medical or health care personnel or scientific research personnel in performing lawful procedures involving embryos that are not in a stage of gestation in utero;

(4) Acts involving the use of force in lawful defense of self or another, but not an embryo or fetus; and

(5) Acts or omissions of a pregnant woman with respect to the embryo or fetus she is carrying.

Seems sensible enough, but what if the Supreme Court overrules Roe? Then this section comes back into force:

W.Va. Code 61-2-8

Any person who shall administer to, or cause to be taken by, a woman, any drug or other thing, or use any means, with intent to destroy her unborn child, or to produce abortion or miscarriage, and shall thereby destroy such child, or produce such abortion or miscarriage, shall be guilty of a felony, and, upon conviction, shall be confined in the penitentiary not less than three nor more than ten years; and if such woman die by reason of such abortion performed upon her, such person shall be guilty of murder. No person, by reason of any act mentioned in this section, shall be punishable where such act is done in good faith, with the intention of saving the life of such woman or child.

How do these two sections interact? It would seem like exception #1 does not apply because the abortion is not “legal.”

Exception #2 mentions abortion without the “legal” qualifier. Would that exception thus survive? Or could it be argued that this latter enacted statute supersedes the old abortion law? Or does the exception only apply to abortions to save the mother’s life?

On one hand, you would have the abortion law which punishes doctors with 3 to 10 years in prison but another section which either: 1) makes it murder, or 2) makes it legal!!!

Bad legislative drafting.

I think you have it backwards, RitterSport. The old New York law cited by doreen implied that fetuses were not persons, but even so, killing an unborn child past 24 weeks was a capital offense against the State.

The implication is that the California statutes in 2002 may have defined an offense of “fetal homicide” so as to include killing an unborn child, without necessarily defining fetuses as persons. NBC reported, in 2004,

"California’s fetal-murder law was passed by the Legislature in 1970. The law is being used to prosecute Scott Peterson in the deaths of his pregnant wife, Laci, and their unborn son. More than two dozen states have passed various versions of a fetal-murder law.

President Bush signed similar legislation last week to make it a crime to kill a fetus during the commission of a federal offense, and that law does not require knowledge of the pregnancy. Both the federal legislation and California’s law exempt the killing of a fetus during an abortion."

Emphesis in bold, due to relevance to the actual topic here.

~Max

I don’t think so. My point was that homicide, how it’s commonly defined, is the killing of a person. That law defined homicide somewhat uniquely, in that it’s the killing of a person or a fetus. As I mentioned in my post, words can be defined differently in state law books, but normally, homicide is the killing of a person.

As UV notes, you could easily have a heightened penalty for an assault or homicide that also results in the death of a fetus, but that law included the death of a fetus as a homicide in itself.