Before it this goes any farther, I was just asking a question. And I don’t mean it like Glenn “But I’m just asking questions!!!11!11” Beck would mean it, I was genuinely curious.
You may now return to being outraged.
My poor state. We have a split personality is all. Northern VA in the north (Duh!) with is practically DC, Jerry Falwell land in the south, Pat Robertson land in the east and nobody even knows what goes on out west unless it has to do with VA Tech somehow.
We are in a decidedly conservative time right now, as a response to the Mark Warner and Tim Kaine years, IMO. We’ll come back around somewhat. I think a lot of Virginians, myself included, feel like we have to be a little bit conservative being an old, eastern state.
As someone* who lives in Arizona I say, “HEY!”
Oh wait… that’s actually a very valid point. :smack: 
*But not someone who actually approves of what’s going on here. :mad:
True, I should have said conservative states. Mea culpa.
The only way in which this* wouldn’t* be complete and utter bullshit is if physician’s offices where they perform D&Cs on non-pregnant clients (often a treatment for endometriosis or after an incomplete spontaneous miscarriage) will also be held to these “hospital” standards. Are they? Or only abortions? It’s the same fucking procedure.
If I understand correctly, this rule would also apply to first trimester abortions that are early enough along to use abortificant medications, like RU 486. There is no surgery at all: you swallow a pill and put on a maxi pad. Why would a clinic that provides RU 486 possibly need to be more hospital-like than a plastic surgeon’s office?
The anti-abortion stance is hardly unique to Xtians.
Abortion is obviously abominable and its perpetrators (especially the mothers) the worst type of killers. However, that being said we live in a society of laws. Given what I feel are the relatively easy to understand decisions in Roe and Casey, I think it’s obvious the current legal status of abortions is that they should be essentially freely available pre-fetal viability and that the States have the right to restrict their use after this point. (People often still speak of trimesters, which was the specific wording of Roe, Casey specifically overturned the trimester system as a requirement upon the states. However many States still use the more permissive trimester system as is their right.)
Whether it’s something I support (gun rights) or oppose (abortion), I hate seeing legislators try to kill a currently protected constitutional right with a mountain of regulatory statutes that ultimately effect the removal of the free exercise of said right. I opposed it when Chicago responded to its gun ban being ruled unconstitutional by passing a package of laws directly gutting private gun ownership rights; and I’ll oppose similar action here. I think in both cases the local politicians need to work within the spirit of the current constitutional law. It’s crass, craven, bullshit to try and do an end run around it with these sort of laws. If you believe abortion should be illegal, you need to either pass a constitutional amendment or try and bring suit up to the SCOTUS level and get them to rule in your favor. Same thing for gun rights, other methods are disingenuous and not defensible ethically.
And the culmination of the anti-abortion position:
So now you have to prove you’re innocent of causing your miscarriage.
So much for the law of the land and the Constitution.
May I congratulate you for everything after your first sentence; I believe most foes of abortion would follow the first sentence with “and therefore almost any tactics to prevent it are permissible.” Some would leave out the “almost”.
And you have put your finger precisely on what was behind my rant, more accurately than I could have said myself. The value of living in a society of laws seems to be increasingly lost on most people, and there are damn few voices speaking up for that point of view.
I am reminded, yet again, of this scene from The Man For All Seasons:
Alice: While you talk, he’s gone!
More: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!
Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast - man’s laws, not God’s - and if you cut them down - and you’re just the man to do it - d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.
So thank you, again, Mr. Hyde, for reminding me exactly what I was so angry about.
Roddy
You’re quite wrong. In another recent thread we discussed Georgia’s law in quite a bit of detail. Here I’ll just point out that any law that establishes a crime places the burden of proof on the prosecution. The proposed law doesn’t say anything about making women prove anythiing; it means that the state must prove beyond a reasonabledoubt that the fetal death was caused by a human agency.
Here you’re quite right, although not for the reason you think you are… but because the bill seeks to explicitly deny the authority of the Supreme Court to decide cases like Roe.
(2) 'Prenatal murder' means the intentional removal of a fetus from a woman with an
115 intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus; provided, however,
116 that if a physician makes a medically justified effort to save the lives of both the mother
117 and the fetus and the fetus does not survive, such action shall not be prenatal murder.
118 Such term does not include a naturally occurring expulsion of a fetus known medically
119 as a 'spontaneous abortion' and popularly as a 'miscarriage' so long as there is no human
120 involvement whatsoever in the causation of such event.
BTW, “law of the land” in my post referred to RvW. "Constitution"referred to proof of guilt. From the above cite, it looks to me that all the prosecution has to show is some behavior of choice by the mother that can be shown to be “involved” in the causation of the event to categorize the miscarriage as murder.
I note further that this legislation overtly claims to nullify RvW.
Bottom line:
This is where the far right social conservatives would push the abortion issue. And the current attack plan of the GOP is to attack from the local political arena upwards, which ensures that the craziest of the crazy are spearheading GOP interests.
Yes, but they must show it beyond a reasonable doubt.
You said, “So now you have to prove you’re innocent of causing your miscarriage.” In fact, were this law, the state would have to prove this element beyond a reasonable doubt.
Yep, right there with you on this point.
Don’t forget Nebraska and their “justifiable homicide”.
They’re certainly among the most vocal and assholish about it though.
I would be the first one to agree with you.
Don’t let our state hear this news: Mississippi only has one (ONE!) abortion clinic, and a lot of people would jump at the chance to shut it down. I don’t know if they could comply with the regulations Virginia has imposed.
I’m uncertain if “reach” is the correct word, though it may just be a semantic quibble. “Reach” implies to me width of total limits, rather than currently selected limits. Am I understanding this issue wrongly?
I’m happy to substitute another word.
Holy shit, I thought I’d have to wait at least a week for an abortion thread to pop up. I’m happy to announce that the Starving Nadir rule of debate means that we MUST reject this new law because the ultimate goal is to ban abortions.
What’s slippery for the goose is slippery for the gander. And it’s always tough when it’s your sacred ox that slides down the slippery slope.
A fetus is neither a person or alive (at least until it can survive outside the womb) in any meaningfull sense. You can’t kill what isn’t alive.