Abortion and the Pro-lifers - Does anyone know?

[animalcrackers]

With all the talk of abortion, rape, life of the mother and redefining personhood I have found that little has been said on the actual implications of these positions, particularly in the mainstream media. It seems to me that the media is missing the point. Policies mean legislation, and that means laws.... but what would these laws look like and why haven't pro-lifer's been asked to explain? These are just a few questions I would like asked.




1) By criminaliziation will they redefine life according to Personhood Amendment values and will abortion be considered murder and if not what will be the punishment?

With Mitt and many other Repubs being on record supporting the Personhood Amendment (redefining life as begining at conception) it would effectively classify fetus at any stage as a human being and thus affording the full range of rights and liberties as anyone else. Therefore, would abortion be considered murder? If not, would they have to create a second class of human beings? Am I right to assume this (need a lawyer of legal scholars help here)? This is important because the ramifications could be severe.


2) What would be the punishment for those seeking an abortion?

Could just the act of seeking an abortion be considered conspiring to commit murder? And could someone helping such a person be considered an accessory?


3)What would be the punishment for those engage in abortion?

So far the discourse has been are you pro-life, and do you have exceptions for rape, or health of the mother. But what would be the sentence? If abortion is criminalized, would it not be considered 1st degree murder, as it would require intent/premeditation? And again the issue of accessories to the act.

4) Voluntary and involuntary manslaughter?

Supporters of Personhood often claim that re-defining life will not lead to criminalization of miscarriages or stillbirth. But this very thing was tried as recent as 2004 in Mississippi through very liberal interpretation of fetal homicide laws.

"In 2004, the Mississippi Legislature broadened the state's homicide laws to define "human being" to include an "unborn child at every stage of gestation from conception until live birth." The fetal homicide laws in Mississippi, as around the country, were passed to address third-party violence against a pregnant woman that caused harm to the unborn. In Lowndes County, however, a prosecutor decided that this law could be used to punish a pregnant woman who suffered a stillbirth. The prosecution targeted an African-American teenager and chose a set of "facts" least likely to elicit sympathy: The prosecutor claimed that the stillbirth was caused by the teen's use of an illegal drug."

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/04/04/personhood-measures-in-disguise

So how will this further affect the liberties of women? In the event of stillbirth or miscarriage could the mother be charged with voluntary or involuntary manslaughter, thus being subjected to an examination of her conduct while pregnant (could charges be brought up by the state, father, family or some third party)?

5) Receiving abortions abroad?

Lets assume the worst, that Romney does win the election and abortion is criminalized... and we will assume in the "limited sense". Could women who receive abortions in Canada, Mexico, or another country be charged with murder (or whatever punishment the government chooses) when they return to the US? This is a real concern, as it has been tried in Ireland where abortion in all cases except health of mother were criminalized.

In Attorney General v. X 1992 (just google "X case Ireland" for info) a 14 year old girl was raped by her neighbor and became pregnant. When she told her mother that she was contemplating suicide, they made plans to travel to England to abort the fetus. The Attourney General found out (when the mother inquired at a hospital as to whether DNA could be acquired to prosecute the neighbor) and attempted to stop the girl from having an abortion.

There is also questions regarding state v state travel, if the issue is left up to states to decide (though Mitt has said he would sign federal legislation or a constitutional amendment), extradition concerns, or in the case of "X" whether the government will prevent traveling to another country for abortion (which in itself is a violation of liberties).


Listen, I'm not a laywer and my knowledge regarding criminal law is severly limited (a few classes in Uni). So obviously I could be way off here. But I have yet to see this very substantial component of the abortion debate reach the media. It's the elephant in the room, and it seems people would rather talk about God having women raped, or legitimate rape (which is good politically, and brings the abortion issue to the forefront). Do you think these questions should be asked?

.

[jberryhill]

1. Typically, their answer is that they will only penalize doctors

If you did bother to ask them these types of questions, their usual answer is that they only intend to penalize doctors, such that safe legal abortion becomes unavailable, as doctors will not want to jeopardize their licenses. It's not as if we don't have experience with illegal abortion in this country historically. They just want things to work the way they did in, say, 1959.

The "personhood" thing is more of a distraction than anything else. Roe v Ware assumes that abortion involves a loss of life, but establishes that a woman's right of self determination outweighs the state's interest in preserving life in the early stages of pregnancy. The notion that "personhood" adds anything to the discussion is just so much voodoo.

[davidpdx]

2. I think they are all good questions

The way I understand the personhood amendments is they are done on a state by state basis. I haven't seen anything that one has passed yet, but they are pushing them through legislatures in red states.

There are also the "trigger laws" which ban abortion in the event Rove V. Wade was overturned (these assholes think of everything don't they).

As the other person who replied said, it's more likely the doctor would be threatened with legal action then the woman, but everything is hypothetically speaking. We don't really know for sure (and I think we don't want to know).

I strongly recommend Jeffery Toobin's new book The Oath which talks a little bit about how the right is taking case precedence, limiting them and then working to overrule the prior outcome. It very much sickens me (actually it pisses me off so much I want to scream) because it's not only abortion, but many other issues that are being screwed with.

I have taken two law classes for my MBA and am taking another one for my DBA starting next month. The law we are talking about is way outside that area, so I'm the wrong person to ask.