South Dakota’s law does not define abortion as murder, and there the law is directed only at providers. No case is possible.
But if doing something is illegal, then certainly paying someone else to do it is illegal? For example, a contractor was illegally dumping his garbage in the dumpster where I worked two years ago. Rather his employees did it, for which they were paid by the contractor. The people who actually did the illegal dumping broke the law. The contractor broke the law, too. Isn’t it always a crime to induce someone else into committing a crime by offering them money?
[
](http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2006/bills/HB1215p.htm)Hmm, human life begins at the time of conception, and unborn child have rights and interests, but killing one isn’t murder?
If it’s not murder, why is it wrong?
CMC fnord!
[RIGHT]{DarkRed} = CMC[/RIGHT]
Obviously not. Read the law.
“Nothing in this Act may be construed to subject the pregnant mother upon whom any abortion is performed or attempted to any criminal conviction and penalty.”
Now I’m having 14th Amendment concerns. If the fetus is defined in the law as a child, and the child’s life was taken, at the behest of the mother, hasn’t the mother in fact met all of the elements of first degree murder? Big “John” McCoy thinks she has, and has 25 minutes to kill, and a name to make for himself. He actually just wants to go into the private sector, and he can get a sweet deal if he can show himself to be a top-notch litigator.
That brings us back to my New Jersey question.
](http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/amend1.htm#14)
Yes, roving bands of doctors forcably performing abortion without the consent of the woman involved!
CMC fnord!
[RIGHT]{DarkRed}BoldUnderlined=CMC[/RIGHT]
The whole insistance by the pro-choice people here that either you lock up women who have abortions for 25-life or you let them (and everyone else) off IMHO lacks imagination.
Legally there are any number of ways that abortion could be made illegal. Since under law a foetus does not have the legal rights of a person there is no need to give them those rights in outlawing abortion. You could simply make aborting a foetus a crime in its own right without ant reference to murder. The only issue then would be the issue that if you charged abortion providers with “providing an abortion”, technically women could be brought up on conspiracy charges. I am guessing though that the law could be written such that conspiracy is ruled out. Besides I think it is logical that whatever punnishment an abortion provider recieves that the woman should recieve less. A woman is involved in the single conspiracy to have her abortion. Abortion providers are typically the actors in large numbers of such conspiracies.
So you coulld quite easily make abortion illegal without any 14th amendment concerns. Just make abortion illegal on its own without any reference to the personhood of the foetus or to murder.
Thanks, crowmanyclouds. I wasn’t aware of the actual wording of the South Dakota law. So it seems that the law DOES define human life as beginning at conception. Which means that the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment almost certainly applies and the provision of the law excusing the mother from prosecution is unconstitutional.
Walloon a question.
Do you acknowledge that the reason the law is directed only at providers is because ‘they’ realize if they directed it at the other parties involved directly and indirectly, they would find the support for this law would quickly dry up?
It’s easy to scape-goat them rich doctors, but when it comes time to put the cuffs on ol’ Nancy, the jury of her peers might not stay with the program and might therefor choose the ability to have more abortions over no abortions, if having no abortions means putting their women folk in prison.
It seems to me, if people are willing to create laws to prevent abortion and punish those who provide it; and yet are so unsure of their position, that they are willing to turn a blind eye to the main cause of the ‘crime’… perhaps they should really examine whether or not they should be creating new laws at all.
Forget the abortion issue, would you really support any law that allowed the instigator a free pass, no matter how many times they committed the crime and only punished the guy who pushed the button? Yes, no?
This reminds me so much of Jim Crow in many ways; the state unable to stop the natural flow of society, had to create laws to force their will upon the masses. Laws created with the sole purpose of scaring off, of cowing, of limiting choice for a whole segment of society…for their own good of course. That’s something to be proud of.
Women are able to make informed decisions; by creating and/or supporting this law, you’re basically saying they’re unable to control themselves… so the big, all powerful state, must remove temptation from them.
You want to criminalize abortion? Then have the guts to stand up and treat all parties involved equally…too bad doing that would be the one thing to ensure that you’ll lose.
So to answer the OP, whatever punishment you give the Doctor, they get too.
What if I have more than one abortion? Are there to be special laws for multiple offenders? How many abortions do I have before I reach the point in which the state must acknowlegde what I’m doing with more than ‘conspiracy’ charge?
Ah, but then you run up against the precedent of Griswold. The Supreme Court has recognized that a “right to privacy” exists within the Bill of Rights (although it is never explicitly stated). In order to restrict a woman’s right to privacy the state needs to demonstrate a compelling interest. If the embryo is a human being with rights of his own then clearly the state has such an interest. But if the embryo is merely a collection of growing cells then the state doesn’t have a compelling reason to intervene. This is why the anti-abortion forces have pushed the personhood of the embryo as their primary line of attack.
Have you not read any of this thread? I have said that repeatedly.
The logic is that each crime carries a penalty. Abortion providers typically carry out far more abortions than the women that seek them. In other words there is typically one abortion provider for a number of women. Abortion providers have a much larger capacity for repeat offences than pregnant women.
But the whole right to privacy unless there is a “compelling interest” is IMHO a pretty flimsy legal proposition to rule a law unconstitutional, especially since the right to privacy is never explicitly stated. Using similar logic there are hundreds of laws that could be ruled unconstitutional in that they lack a compelling interest. Besides is there any standard for how compelling the interest has to be before the law is allowed, because there are other compelling interests that you could come up with. For instance due to the declining birth rate in the US, is encouraging a higher birth rate a “compelling interest”
Secondly this could actually work in the favour of pro-life people. Women could be assumed to have a “right to privacy”, and therefore be exempt from prosecution, where as the providers themselves may not be. There are already slabs of laws that regulate medical practices. Why not add one more in? And the SCOTUS has trend of allowing legislation that regulates how abortions can be performed. Assuming of course that Roe vs Wade is overturned why should the “right to privacy” extend to the abortion providers.
I wanted to make sure…because what you’re saying that you believe that women are basically stupid and implusive…sort of like young children. I don’t know any other way to say it.
If you believe that the only way to prevent abortions is to basically break the back of the people that provide it, then you’re admitting that you have no chance to win the hearts and minds of the public and without that, you’re just going to make a lot of guys rich and a lot of women ill.
If you admit that support for any anti-abortion laws would dry up once you treated all parties involved as equally responsible for the act of the abortion; then what does that tell you about the nature of this thing?
The lessor of two evils, is still evil…or so I’m told.
I’m going to ask you very politely not to put words into my mouth. That is a basic rule on the SDMB.
So clarify your position. Explain it to me.
You admit that any law that targets women for having an abortion will cause the support for abortion to dry up.
Therefor you support laws that target provider of abortions, because it will have the effect of reducing the number of abortions; because women won’t have as easy access to the service and will therefor have no choice but to carry to term.
Do you agree? If you do, then what does that say about the ‘state’s’ belief in the ability of women to make choices about their pregancy?
What does it say about yours?
I’m asking…why do YOU believe such a law is neccessary? Wouldn’t it more lasting and be more honest, to try win the heart and minds of the public?
Nowhere in this thread have I talked about “my position”. Nor do I intend to.