Pro-lifers: What should the punishment for getting an abortion be?

[holmes]

That should be the support to criminalizeabortion to dry up…but you knew that.

[holmes]

@Walloon

Nowhere in this thread have I talked about “my position”. Nor do I intend to.

Fair enough…your choice.

[Walloon]

@holmes

Wouldn’t it more lasting and be more honest, to try win the heart and minds of the public?

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Feb. 28-March 1, 2006. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all registered voters).
“Please tell me if you think abortion should be legal or illegal in each of the following situations . . . .”

“If the pregnancy is unwanted”

Legal: 43%
Illegal: 49%
Unsure: 8%

[crowmanyclouds]

@Stagger Lee

…Legally there are any number of ways that abortion could be made illegal…

Examples?

@Stagger Lee

…You could simply make aborting a foetus a crime in its own right without any reference to murder…

What theory of law lets you make illegal, a medical procedure, without a compelling state interest?
Could a state with a majority Jehovah’s Witness population make blood transfusions illegal?

@Stagger Lee

…I am guessing though that the law could be written such that conspiracy is ruled out…

Then there would be no conspiracy.

@Stagger Lee

…A woman is involved in the single conspiracy to have her abortion. Abortion providers are typically the actors in large numbers of such conspiracies…

Who is the doctor conspiring with other than the woman?
Do you understand what a conspiracy (in law) is?

@Stagger Lee

…So you could 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…

Again, What theory of law lets you make illegal, a medical procedure, without a compelling state interest?

@Stagger Lee

…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…

The 9th amendment just doesn’t ever count

@Stagger Lee

…Using similar logic there are hundreds of laws that could be ruled unconstitutional in that they lack a compelling interest…

Examples?

@Stagger Lee

…Besides is there any standard for how compelling the interest has to be before the law is allowed…

Yes, how could there not be?

@Stagger Lee

…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”…

I doubt that would survive a SCotUS challenge.
Any other compelling interest theories?

@Stagger Lee

…Secondly this could actually work in the favor 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.

@Stagger Lee

…the whole right to privacy…is IMHO a pretty flimsy legal proposition…especially since the right to privacy is never explicitly stated…

So which is it?

@Stagger Lee

…There are already slabs of laws that regulate medical practices…

Got a list of illegal medical procedures? Cite?

@Stagger Lee

…Assuming of course that Roe vs Wade is overturned why should the “right to privacy” extend to the abortion providers…

It doesn’t, the right is the womans, you would have to overturn Eisenstadt v. Baird and Griswold v. Connecticut too.

You really should read GvC, I don’t think you fully grasp where the right to privacy comes from it the CotUSA.

CMC fnord!

[Siege]

For those of you who are interested, here’s a link to “The Only Moral Abortion Is My Abortion.” The stories on it are telling, including the one about a woman who said loudly in the recovery room that she thought abortion should be illegal. This was after her second abortion; she got pregnant a month after her first one. Stagger Lee, may I suggest you, particularly, read this?

I asked this same question five years ago and I never did get a satisfactory answer to it, although the responses I got led me to stick around here. I’m afraid I can’t supply a link. The thread was lost in a board shut-down.

People here have talked about penalizing doctors for performing abortions. As with most things relating to birth control, pregnancy and abortion, it’s not that simple. Yes, a dilation and curettage (sp?) or D & C can be used to perform an abortion. It can also be used to remove a fetus which has died* within its mother’s womb. If you make D & C illegal, you place some women in a tragic position. Now, I understand the counter argument is these cases are few and far between and the most D & C’s are done to perform abortions. On the other hand, performing a surgical procedure isn’t something people are born knowing and it does take some training to learn to do so. If doctors don’t learn to do them because they are perceived as being illegal in all or most cases, what becomes of the women who do need them for legitimate reasons? Switching to a more concrete example, there have been bills which have banned “partial birth abortions”. From what I’ve read, however, the way these bills are worded, they wouldn’t just ban procedures used to perform third trimester abortions, but also second trimester ones.

CJ
*“Died” is shorthand for stopped showing a fetal heartbeat and brain waves

[catsix]

Stagger Lee said:
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.

So this doesn’t just jump right out at you?

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I can’t see anything reasonable about searching my uterus or anything that came out of my uterus for an embryo.

We’ve also, in this country, had a very long-standing tradition of confidentiality between a doctor and a patient such that a doctor could not be compelled to testify as to a patient’s medical affairs without consent from that patient. Why should abortion be any different?

[ShibbOleth]

@malkavia

I think if we’ve learned anything from the latest shakeup in abortion laws, it is this:

Girls, get a passport. Now.

I’m just reading through this thread, so sorry if this has been brought up, but if I go to another state/country to commit a “murder”, I can still be prosecuted for this crime when I return to my own jurisdiction.

[holmes]

@Walloon

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Feb. 28-March 1, 2006. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all registered voters).
“Please tell me if you think abortion should be legal or illegal in each of the following situations . . . .”

“If the pregnancy is unwanted”

Legal: 43%
Illegal: 49%
Unsure: 8%

Then there should be no problem treating the people, all the people, involved in acquiring the abortion as criminals who’ve committed an illegal act.

Right?

[Walloon]

First, abortion has never been defined as “murder” in laws against abortion. Second, you cannot be prosecuted for in state B for acts which are legal in, and occurred in state A. It’s a basic principal of constitutional law and the Full Faith and Credit prosition.

[Walloon]

@holmes

Then there should be no problem treating the people, all the people, involved in acquiring the abortion as criminals who’ve committed an illegal act.

If the poll addressed that question. But it doesn’t.

[wonky]

@Walloon

Nowhere in this thread have I talked about “my position”. Nor do I intend to.

So, you’ve created a strawman of someone else’s position for others to fight.

That’s pretty worthless for a debate.

[E-Sabbath]

Ah, but the Defense of Marriage Act suggests that Full Faith and Credit isn’t all that important.

… I say that if the fetus is legally a person, then it must be murder. Therefore, all involved should be prosecuted. Furthermore, I think it should be treated as a murder in all possible ways. If a doctor is arrested, all of his previous accomplices should be hunted down and arrested as well.

I would like to start applying this legal reasoning in the case of each and every SD state congressperson. I am entirely sure that their wives and daughters have never had abortions. Ever.

[Walloon]

BPNews:

Slowly but surely, female legislators in South Dakota are shattering the myth that says male politicians are the only ones who support abortion restrictions.

Of the 16 women in the South Dakota House and Senate, 11 voted in February for a bill that would ban all abortions in the state, unless it’s necessary to save the mother’s life. . . .

The bill crossed party lines, receiving the support of the majority of Democratic women (four out of five voted for it) and Republican women (seven of 11 supported it). The Senate sponsor was Julie Bartling, a Democrat.

[saoirse]

@Walloon

First, abortion has never been defined as “murder” in laws against abortion. Second, you cannot be prosecuted for in state B for acts which are legal in, and occurred in state A. It’s a basic principal of constitutional law and the Full Faith and Credit prosition.

The law defines a fetus as a person. It must be murder to kill a person deliberately, when it is planned beforehand. That’s where the 14th Amendment comes in.

Even if it didn’t, though, the principal instigator of this new crime goes unprosecuted under this law. Doctors do not sneak up on you and perform abortions. The consent and participation of the mother is required throughout. There is no way this crime can be committed without the mother participating, and being the principal mover in it. How can she go unprosecuted.

Again, suppose New Jersey wants to pass a law that says Italian-Americans cannot be prosecuted for first degree murder. Is that law constitutional?

[Der_Trihs]

@Walloon

BPNews:

Slowly but surely, female legislators in South Dakota are shattering the myth that says male politicians are the only ones who support abortion restrictions.

Of the 16 women in the South Dakota House and Senate, 11 voted in February for a bill that would ban all abortions in the state, unless it’s necessary to save the mother’s life. . . .

The bill crossed party lines, receiving the support of the majority of Democratic women (four out of five voted for it) and Republican women (seven of 11 supported it). The Senate sponsor was Julie Bartling, a Democrat.

Well, so what ? That doesn’t make it right. Besides, it’s not like such a law would affect them; they’'ll just fly to Europe if they want an abortion.

[Walloon]

The short answer is that, yes, the Supreme Court has and does allow different categorization of persons in the application of the law under the Equal Protection Clause, and it has established different levels of judicial review depending on the particulars. For instance, if the law categorizes on the basis of sex, the law is constitutional if it is “substantially related” to an “important” government interest.

[saoirse]

@Walloon

The short answer is that, yes, the Supreme Court has and does allow different categorization of persons in the application of the law under the Equal Protection Clause, and it has established different levels of judicial review depending on the particulars. For instance, if the law categorizes on the basis of sex, the law is constitutional if it is “substantially related” to an “important” government interest.

But has the court ever allowed one class of individuals to be exempt from prosecution for the commission of a specific crime? And exempt only because it is politically expedient to not prosecute the individual most responsible for the crime?

Again, how about that law in New Jersey?

[Walloon]

I think it would be very difficult to argue in court that the government has a “compelling”, “substantial”, or “important” interest in exempting Italian-Americans from prosecution for murder.

[Walloon]

Justice Anthony Kennedy, in Romer v. Evans (1996)

The Fourteenth Amendment’s premise that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the law must coexist with the practical necessity that most legislation classifies [people] for one purpose or another, with resulting disadvantages to various groups or persons. . . . [The Court] has attempted to reconcile the principle with the reality by stating that, if a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class [vulnerable group of citizens], we will uphold the legislative classification so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate end.

[saoirse]

[QUOTE=Walloon]
I think it would be very difficult to argue in court that the government has a “compelling”, “substantial”, or “important” interest in exempting Italian-Americans from prosecution for murder.

[QUOTE]

Suppose it makes the death penalty more palatable to a large proportion of the population, who would otherwise oppose and eventually repeal it?

If maintaining public support for a law is a “legitimate end” toward which some particular class of persons can be exempted from prosecution, then there really is no such thing as equal protection under the law.