Okay. That was weird of me. It’s just that so many things don’t make sense any more, kwim?
Yeah, we are pretty much through the looking glass these days, aren’t we?
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?
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?
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.
Do you have a cite for this?
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.
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.
The subject of this thread is not “the kinds of laws some states are proposing”. It’s a particular law, already enacted in the state of Georgia. You said (presumably about this law - at least the post you responded to was about this particular law) that women would “almost certainly” be jailed for miscarriages. Now you’re backpedaling. You went from “almost certainly” to long strained hypotheticals about burdens of proof and a vague “could easily be”. Do we agree that your “almost certainly” is unwarranted and unsupported by the facts?
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.
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.
No, not at all. It’s completely warranted and supported by facts.
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.
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.
This is false. The law provides that:
It’s literally the only mention of “ectopic pregnancy” in the bill.
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?
I’m reporting on what news reports I’ve read said. I have to ashamedly, admit to not having read the law.
It doesn’t matter whether the law mentions miscarriage 1 time, 100 hundred times, or zero times. The effect of this law is that it will inevitably lead some women who have miscarriages to be investigated and even jailed, even if only temporarily. I never said that this will happen frequently or even in a majority cases - I don’t care. If a woman is investigated, booked, incarcerated, and later has the charges dropped because of a misunderstanding, that’s still a case of a woman being jailed for nothing more than being pregnant. That was my point. My other point is religious zealots have no fucking business making decisions about a woman’s healthcare - there’s that, too.
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.
The Slate is liberal? OK.