One thing I’ve come to think about the pro life side: that they think abortion is the absolute moral equivalent of a 34 year old conjoined twin shooting their equally intelligent sibling in the head because they’re tired of sharing a body. I think that’s the way they resist the bodily autonomy argument in their minds.
Yep, that’s what this young lady and her sisters have been raised to believe. It’s been painful and frustrating watching her make endless social media posts about some really awful decisions while longing for “the good old days” when women didn’t have to worry about bills or car payments or the rent.
I don’t doubt that there are people who genuinely believe that an embryo is no different from an adult human; some of it seems to come from religion or faith (I’m thinking of pro-life folks who also rail against capital punishment), but some seems to be based in scientific ignorance (people who believe the planet is only a few thousand years old have no problem believing that every single pregnancy is a precious gift from The Creator). Once you’ve read a few of the anti-abortion laws being enforced now - or even the proposed ones - it becomes very clear that the “pro-life” sentiment is being used as a basis to punish women.
I’m not sure that is true.
Right, this is essentially where I was going with it–and while it’s not a popular position I was never a fan, solely from a strict legal perspective, of the rationale behind Roe. But without any compelling constitutional argument otherwise, I don’t see a good argument that without Roe, as it stands now, there is anything against Ohio making it a crime to have a miscarriage.
I don’t even think they have to go so far as to say “if the woman is proven to undertake actions a reasonable person suspects would cause a miscarriage” as a qualifier, I think they could just make it a strict liability crime–having a miscarriage is a crime, period. This is an intellectual exercise, and I don’t think they will write such a law. But I do think we already have miscarriages being investigated as crimes, and that means we’re almost certainly going to have women who had zero desire to abort their pregnancy but suffer a miscarriage (which are incredibly common) end up getting investigated.
If no one can offer up a compelling constitutional counter point, that’s a fairly reasonable expectation of the current jurisprudence. Which to me at least, is a big enough problem to speculate on whether there ought be a remedy for that, and whether one exists in the constitution.
I would generally agree when the laws criminalizing miscarriages come, they will be qualified with gross negligence. But that will be a policy choice, I see nothing at constitutional law that would prevent a State from simply making miscarriage a strict liability crime.
Keep in mind that to some degree this stuff is talked about out of an “abundance of caution.” “Old school” thinking, was that pregnant women should try to avoid virtually all strenous activity. My understanding is more modern medical understanding is that pregnant women are capable of pretty high levels of physical activity without serious risk to the baby, and that many “popular wisdoms” about doing X physical activity leading to a miscarriage was often kind of a backwards way of looking at it. i.e. ascribing some specific act to a miscarriage when the reality is a decent chunk of pregnancies just end in miscarriage for biological reasons that have nothing to do with the woman’s actions.
I don’t think it’s very likely.
Will some extremists propose such laws? Probably. But practically, will they get out of committee, brought up for a vote, pass both legislative chambers, signed by the governor, and survive the inevitable court challenges? And that’s just at the state level. Were such laws to pass in a state, then there will be challenges in federal court.
On what basis do you foresee challenges in federal courts?
When one of the parties doesn’t accept the state court’s decision. They’ll make a claim that the state law violates some federal law or the U.S. Constitution.
Yes, I understand that in the abstract, but what provision of the US Constitution would come into play, post-Dobbs?
I would argue the 8th certainly prohibits a murder or other felony charge for a natural miscarriage. And the 19th comes into play if every woman convicted of natural miscarriage is deprived the right to vote.
For a misdemeanor I could see it going both ways, I would have to rely on a proportionality argument which is less sure-footed.
ETA: The idea of any state, with a nearly half-female population, actually getting the votes together to criminalize natural miscarriage is inconceivable.
“Every one of them’s got a mother.” ~The Penguin
~Max
Theoretical, of course, because it won’t become law, but the House is trying to pass the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would “protect the right to access abortion” across the country. Then they can argue (and probably win) based on the Supremacy Clause.
First - you are suggesting appealing to the Supreme Court based on a law that doesn’t exist, and you don’t think will ever pass. In the current environment, what would you suggest?
Second - I have no doubt that this SCOTUS would refuse to apply the supremacy clause to an abortion law, saying that the Founder Fathers never intended for the Federal government to legislate in that area, citing the lack of national abortion laws at the time of the founding, and ignoring that there were no national laws at all at the time of the founding.
A woman with a life-threatening ectopic pregnancy sought emergency care at the University of Michigan Hospital after a doctor in her home state worried that the presence of a fetal heartbeat meant treating her might run afoul of new restrictions on abortion.
At one Kansas City, Mo., hospital, administrators temporarily required “pharmacist approval” before dispensing medications used to stop postpartum hemorrhages, because they can also be also used for abortions.
And in Wisconsin, a woman bled for more than 10 days from an incomplete miscarriage after emergency room staff would not remove the fetal tissue amid a confusing legal landscape that has roiled obstetric care.
Sorry, wrong thread.
Please say hello to North Carolina House Bill 158.
Under this language, it will be legal to murder an abortion doctor to stop him or her from doing his work. It will also probably be legal to murder an activist who is assisting a pregnant woman in traveling to another jurisdiction for said purpose. It may even be legal to murder the pregnant woman herself.
These people are fucking insane.
(This is not about whether it is or is not likely that such a proposal would ever become law. This is simply about how these American terrorists think.)
(Also, under the strict language above, anyone who assists in carrying out any form of capital punishment would similarly be put in legal and physical jeopardy, so I presume this will be amended before it proceeds, if it does. These people are not terribly great thinkers.)
Haha! That would put a damper on an execution – some protester runs in and shoots the guy getting ready to start the lethal injection process, and walks away free.
Any person has the right to defend his or her own life or the life of another person, even by the use of deadly force if necessary, from willful destruction by another person.
Orly? And just how do your state’s police feel about this target you want to paint on their backs?
Like I said.
And somebody shoots the would-be murderer for attempting to murder someone who is attempting murder. It’s turtles all the way down.
~Max
The only way to stop a good guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
But naturally it wouldn’t allow the pregnent woman herself to terminate her pregnancy, even if her life is in danger, because the fetuses actions aren’t willful. 