There are a number of people who oppose abortion ‘except in the case of rape or incest’, and I’ve never been clear on how that is supposed to work. It sounds at least somewhat reasonable in theory, but in practice rape is extremely hard to prove even when the police aren’t biased against the victim, so I’m not sure what someone has to do to qualify for the ‘rape exception’ in real life. So, for anyone who believes that abortion should be illegal except in the case of rape or incest, how would the system you favor actually work for a woman who was pregnant by rape or incest?
For example, say a rich guy grabs a woman by the pussy, she doesn’t resist because she’s afraid he’ll destroy her career, and he goes on to have sex with her even though she doesn’t actually consent. A while later, she discovers she’s pregnant, and does not want to carry her rapist’s baby to term. How does she actually go about getting an abortion in your system? Is she required to go to the police and convince them to prosecute him, and she can’t get one unless not only do they prosecute but do so in less than two months? Or is she required to win a civil suit against his high-priced lawyers, and again manage to do so in less than two months? Or can she simply go in, declare that she was pregnant by sex that was against her will, and get the abortion without hassle? None of those seem like good options to me (the first two mean there’s no real exception in most cases, the third means the restriction is really just a technicality of ‘make this statement if you decide to abort’.
This is not my position that I am advocating, so it is difficult for me to argue in favor of it. However, I suspect that your third option is closest to the truth. The pregnant woman would have to swear out some sort of statement under oath describing the circumstances of the assault. I would think she has to name an individual perpetrator, though I don’t know what she is supposed to do if she does not know the name of the person. So, if an investigation finds that no rape actually occurred, then perhaps there is some consequence for the woman who cried “rape”. So, the people who advocate such a rape exception get to say that they favor the rape exception, but it really is no exception at all. In a case of something like date rape, where maybe the consent is a little murky, the pregnant woman has an unwinnable choice: carry the pregnancy or get the abortion and have the rape tossed out leaving her with a perjury charge or some such.
[Personally, I am strictly pro-choice. The state has no role in abortion decisions. However, I have never understood the rape exception. If the justification for banning abortion is that the unborn is a full person with all the rights pertaining thereto, then the circumstances of the conception should play no role. Suppose a woman is raped and carries the baby to term, delivering a healthy child. Can that baby be murdered at any time because he is the product of a rape? No one would advocate that position.]
It’s for political reasons. Saying that abortion is banned in the instance of rape would be a political nonstarter. Like pro-choicers who say that 3rd-trimester abortions shouldn’t be allowed.
I don’t get it on philosophical (it’s OK to kill a a baby for the sins of his father?) grounds, but the latest Trump news prompted me to wonder about how it’s even supposed to function in practice. I kind of expect that no one will have a real answer, but I’m interested if there is one beyond wishful thinking.
The life of the mother is separate from the other two. There’s probably immediate medical evidence to back her up, and it’s not a case of failing to value the life of the fetus, but simply of valuing the mother’s life at least as much. There aren’t really any practical issues with determining whether that is triggered, except I suppose some fringe cases. But if you say “until x weeks” you have fringe cases, there are always fringe cases.
I think the rape exception runs something along the lines of “you can’t force an invited guest to leave if it would kill them to do so, but you don’t owe that hospitality to the uninvited guest”. Where every instance of consensual sex is effectively considered to be inviting an embryo into your womb. I don’t really know how it is implemented in practice. That probably varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Um, ARE there any jurisdictions where that is the law?
Incest is sort of weird. I think people throw in incest so a woman doesn’t have to prove that her father coerced her.
The Hyde Amendment of 1976 prohibits the use of federal funding, such as Medicaid, for abortions. It provides an exception for rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is endangered. The law itself does not define a process for determining when a rape has occurred. But as a practical matter, a woman filing a police report saying a rape occurred has been considered sufficient proof.
That actually used to work, in California, in the years very shortly before Roe. A woman could explain to her doctor that being compelled to continue the pregnancy was driving her to suicide, and he would refer her to a clinic for an abortion. I know two women who obtained their abortions that way, c. 1971.
(Specifically, it wasn’t for “the life of the mother” but “the health of the mother.” Suicidal thoughts are unhealthy. Obviously, this is a loophole that can be abused.)
Requiring a conviction wouldn’t work, even in the retroactive case where the woman swears an affidavit first and then suffers some consequence if it’s not proven. Our innocent-until-proven-guilty legal system inherently means that there are going to be some crimes which really are committed for which nonetheless nobody is convicted.
Now, if someone swears an affidavit falsely, one could in principle charge them with perjury, with the burden of proof now in the swearer’s favor. It’d be very difficult to prove, of course, but then, that’s true of all perjury cases, and yet we still consider statements under oath to have legal meaning.
I would imagine that the woman in question would have to file a police report. If she was raped, it’s a crime, and logically, she should want the criminal arrested and punished.
The child does not belong to the State, nor is the State going to potentially carry it to term. The State has no right to infringe upon a person’s liberty to do with their body what they please so long as there is no detriment to another sentient person. Therefore I reject the premise that the State has any say in this activity.
This provides incentive for women to lie and make false accusations. If filing a police report is the only way a woman could get an abortion, some women wouldn’t hesitate to lie.
Because the purpose is not to “save babies” - it’s to punish women for deciding to have sex.
If the goal were to save babies, the pro-lifers would be the biggest pushers of birth control in the world, since that’s the best way to reduce abortions. Instead, they advocate against birth control, because it means that women can have sex of their own volition without having to worry about pregnancy as a consequence.
Rape and incest exceptions are the proof of this - it’s OK to kill the “innocent child” if the woman didn’t choose to have sex. If she did, then she must be punished by being forced to carry to term. Q.E.D.
That was also the subplot in Vera Drake; a young upper class woman was date raped, went to an aunt who coached her what to say then referred her to a psychiatrist who helpfully asked her leading questions to get her to say she was suicidal so he could recommend a therapeutic abortion, and then she went off to a private clinic in the countryside.
The main plot involved a working class cleaning woman who secretly administered abortions to other working class women (many of whom were married & pregnant by their husbands) with disinfectant douche. She was arrested when one of her patients almost died. The film took place in England during the 1950s, and the
Not if filing a false police report is a punishable offense, which I believe it already is in most jurisdictions. Sure, some might still do it, but it’s not an automatic winning strategy.
How are they going to prove that it’s false? Demand a list of all of a woman’s most recent consensual sexual partners and paternity test the fetus?
Would they run the DNA test before or after the abortion?
If it’s before, and the amniocentesis results in a miscarriage, and the fetus turns out to be the issue of an encounter, does anybody get charged with a crime?
Are any of these questions making anybody else feel a little gross?