Again, today adults are killed and the criminal repercussions for the perpetrators can differ vastly, even with premeditated killings.
I don’t think “suspect class” means what you think it does. It applies to specific things like race and gender. That’s the inherent vulnerability (in current scoiety) that they refer to. As another example, “the poor” are not a suspect class, however vulnerable we might consider them.
It certainly more than suggests that the unborn have no 14th amendment rights.
I don’t think that works. The victim is a 3rd party whose life is independent of the the person calling for the hit. In the case of abortion, the person calling the hit, must willingly provide direct access for the event to occur. This goes far and beyond making a phone call, telling where the victim is going to be.
I’m sorry, but I doubt that any person who held down the victim, loaded the gun, placed the gun in the killer’s hand, aimed it at the victim, steadied the gun while the killer pulled the trigger, but didn’t actually pull the trigger themselves would be treated differently than the guy who pulled the trigger.
Yet that is exactly IMO, what the SD statue would have us accept as reasonable.
You’re right… everyday, people are treated differently by the law. However as far as I know and I may be wrong, there’s no law that’s been created to automatically grant immunity from prosecution to a willing adult participant, regardless of the level of the participation in a crime, based solely on their social status.
Is there a legal definition for “suspect class” to bars the unborn? (I honestly do not know.)
From my point of view it seems that the unborn, if granted full status as citizens deserving the full protection of the law as the already born are, would most certainly qualify as a vulnerable or suspect class. How more unequivocal can you get when defining a suspect class? They are a clearly delineated class (more easily than any other class for which protections exist) and they of course have NO voice of their own with which to protect their rights (so again more easily desrving this status than any other class that exists).
Well…IANAConstitutionalScholar but if we follow this through then the mother trumps the unborn. If the unborn has NO rights under the 14th Amendment (or any other part of the Constitution for that matter) then cannot one put forward that denying a woman an abortion is denying her right to the “liberty and pursuit of happiness” part? Forget the moral aspects for the moment and just look at it from a legal perspective.
That last paragraph is more just thinking out loud for now as it seems it could be an interesting debate but I haven’t really given it much thought so go with it (or at it) as you like.
However, it seems SD could have issues with its own constitution.
Look familiar?
SD may not be able to modify or trum the US Constitution no matter what they write into law but they certainly can do it to their constitution.
We have that “born” bit in section 1 again but the new law seems to extend the definition of those who have rights to the unborn. Section 2 gets you back to not being deprived of “life” without due process of law.
Now the SD law seems to say that a woman can abort her own baby without any criminal penalty. If SD listens to its own law the unborn is a person deserving the FULL protection of the law. Depriving it of life without due process of law would therefore be against their own constitution. So, the SD law CANNOT legally write the unborns rights away by granting another class the ability to kill them with no criminal repercussions.
The number of ninja killings would skyrocket.
You don’t need to use a ridiculous example. Just exempt the hiring of a hitman from prosecution. How many killings by hitmen would you then have? It wouldn’t be safe to live in South Dakota.
[
](South Dakota Legislature)the above in particular, the SD legislature, (those who voted in favor of SD HB 1215) and the governor who signed the bill into law.
Posturing for the base? Which base? Virgins?, the religious?, brutally raped, sodomized and impregnated women?
[
](http://faculty.ncwc.edu/TOConnor/410/410lect05.htm)
CMC fnord!
But “full protection” already creates circumstances in SD where deaths–deaths for which someone is accountable–have vastly different outcomes in terms of categorization and sentencing. A victim is no less dead when it involves third degree murder. Would we argue an equal protection argument if the convicted person gets a lesser sentence than he would have for first degree murder? What consitutional provision prohibits the exemption of prosecution for a certain category of death, for certain people, if it’s already a given that we needn’t assign the same weight and sentence to every unlawful killing?
Even something like “premeditated murder” is not dictated by the U.S. Constitution. The varying definitions for this act are legislative concepts, designed and ratified by duly elected legislatures across the nation, along with all the other “degrees” of murder and manslaughter. These sentences and categories are functions of that legislature’s sensibilities with regard to the circumstances and intentions and motives involved.
What prevents these same legislatures from creating yet another legislative construct that recognizes another unique circumstance and creates a specific category and outcome for this act? You can absolutely disagree with their interpretation, that there is nothing so different about abortion. Well, they disagree. So, what makes their position unconstitutional? That the act doesn’t result in the same prosecution and sentencing as another criminal death would? That already occurs.
“Equal protection under the law” does not demand that every death result in the same outcome for anyone involved.
For the majority of “pro-life” people who still feel that certain exceptions are still warranted. I’m not asserting this position, by the way. Just noting that it exists, and that politicians, even “pro-life” politicians, ignore this group at their peril.
You’re supposing that the vigorous prosecution of ninjas / hitmen / abortion providers would have no effect on the number of deaths in the state. I don’t agree.
There is a world of difference between a question of whether a crime has been committed and what sentence should be imposed if a given crime is committed.
Sentincing does vary for different kinds of murder but all murder is a crime. People recognize, rightfully so, that there is a difference between someone who stalks another and kills them and someone accidentally killing someone.
Nonetheless you are avoiding the issue that SD, by their own hand, state that the unborn is a life from the moment of fertilization, has an inalianable right to life and is guaranteed due process of the law (essentially the unborn enjoys all the same protections the law affords anyone). How in the world do you think any state can legislate away your inalienable right to life such that a given class is free to kill you? Not that it is a lesser crime but that it is not even a crime.
I’m certainly no constitutional scholar, but I believe the definition of “suspect class” doesn’t bar the unborn necessarily, but it does not by definition include them. So, for example, a law that permitted abortions, but only if the unborn was black, might be considered to cross an equal protection boundary with regard to its effect on a suspect class. Here’s a cite that might be helpful:
This is the “vulernability” referenced, I believe, which is not a dictionary definition, but a specific legal concept.
Right. A five-year-old will not likely be prosecuted for murder, even if he angrily created a circumstance that killed someone. So, again, while you can disagree with the SD interpretation, why can’t they deem that the mental state of a woman seeking an abortion is such that she needn’t be prosecuted?
I’m avoiding it! I’m trying to take it head on. It is a prosecutable crime by virtue of this law. It just doesn’t prosecute a particular person whom they have deemed should be exempt. A person killed by a five-year-old is no less dead, but laws can right exempt those perpetrators. Again, you can see these as completely different. But if SD disagrees, what constitutional provision prevents them from doing so?
Why can’t they deem that a the mental state of poor person cracking you over the head with a baseball bat and taking your wallet, is such that they needn’t be prosecuted?
This woman has to make the choice, to make the appointment, she has to answer the questions, to fill out the paperwork, to climb into the chair, all with the relationization of exactly what she’s doing. I am to believe that these women, all this women are incapable of knowing what they are doing and therefor need to “protected”, from taking responsibility of what they do?
You should up in arms, that SD deems all women to be no more than children, that need the protection of the state.
Hitmen are already illegal and vigorously prosecuted, and they still exist and kill for money even when the people who hire them face the same vigorous prosecution.
What happens when the people who hire them don’t face the same penalties? If I wanted someone dead there would be no reason for me not to seek a hitman. Zero. Zip. Zilch. I wouldn’t care what the penalties would be for the hitman. That’s his problem. I would be free to send out as many feelers for hitmen as I wanted, free from any repercussions. I could hire the moron kid down the street for $50 and if he failed or got caught, big deal. I’d find another moron kid and try again.
Think of how many people crimes get committed even with severe penalties possible if they get caught. Now, take the penalties away. It’s even worse if you’re going to criminalize something people are used to being legal, but make it without penalties. The providers still have a reason to provide it: Money or ethics. The seekers have zero reason not to seek it if they would have sought it were it legal, because, in essence it is legal.
They could. Or, I should say, I’m not aware of any consitutional provision that would prevent this.
You’re free, of course, to believe whatever you like. As is the SD legislature. The issue here is if the manifestation of either belief is unconstitutional.
That’s quite another issue than whether or not it will withstand the SC’s scrutiny.
Yes, but abortion providers, just IMO, would tend to be much more likely to toe the line.
This law creates a penalty where none had existed. How in the world will that not reduce abortions?
Deeming pregnant women to be in some sort of mental state, temporary insanity or something, bears no relation to reality. I have met many women seeking an abortion (used to work for a women’s health clinic as well as knowing a few personally) and I can state unequivocally they were all in their right mind and fully aware of what they were doing. Indeed, most clinics I think would refuse an abortion to a woman if they felt she was so mentally unstable as to not be aware of what she was doing.
A five year old who kills someone is NOT exempted from the law. That child will face prosecution. Of course what you penalize a 5 year old with is a different matter but that goes to state of mind. Chances are a 5 year old cannot be fully aware of what their actions mean. This is not so for a pregnant woman.
I think what should prevent SD from doing this is that they are saying a given group may trample on another group’s protected rights. By your recknoning there should be no problem if SD says that it is ok for pregnant women to kill anyone. If SD maintains, by their own written decree, that the unborn is a life from the moment of fertilization, with an INALIENABLE right to life (their words not mine) and guarantees protection of the law to the unborn I simply cannot see how you think they can trash those rights in favor of another group.
Seriously, given how SD wrote the law what would be wrong if they granted the ability to pregnant women to kill anyone and be free from criminal wrongdoing?
I don’t know how else to state it. You’re entitled to your opinion, but what constituional provision do you think prevents the SD legislature from feeling differently?
I can tell you want this to be accepted as a given very much. But SD may disagree. What constituional provision do you think demands that they must be overruled?
No, I don’t think that follows. A woman who is desperate over her pregnancy, and who has been led to believe her child is a “blob of tissue” has mitigating circumstances with regard to terminating her pregnancy. Or so one could believe reasonably.
I’ve already answered this. There are adults in SD, right now, who can be killed, where one person involved in the death will be held accountable, and another will not (by virtue of mental capacity or other circumstance). That’s a fact.
As I noted earlier, they are not automatically considered innocent, just because of their class. There are different degrees of mental capacity and punishment varies depending on that.
SD, has created a special class of ‘criminal’ who are automatically exempt from the same laws that everyone is, based solely on their ability to become pregnant.
I’m not a lawyer, let alone a Constitutionist, but this stinks to me.
OK. But that doesn’t make it unconstitutional. Everyone who becomes pregnant and seeks an abortion is exempt.