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.
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.
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.
And you guys thought it was a bad idea for the guy running for governor to be allowed to oversee the election!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Every sane woman (and man) should leave the state of Georgia and let the remaining misogynistic assholes jerk themselves into a stupor.
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.
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.
Forced births are necessary to replace the children shot in schools.
What a shithole country.
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.
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.
Hmmmm… that sounds a lot like their stance on immigration, doesn’t it?
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.
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.