CDZ Abortion Perspective

Yet the anti-choice crowd now want to tell a 12 year old raped by her father that no she doesn't have the choice to take the morning after pill. And if she does- she will be a criminal.

always-S.jpg

Sigh- why are you always lying?
a) Abortion opponents until recently typically exempted the victims of rape and incest- now they insist those victims must risk their own lives and health to go through pregnancy and birth.
b) States and abortion opponents are indeed looking to throw women in prison who have abortions- see HB-481.
c) The 12 year old rape victim luckily will be too young to go to prison, but could still be criminally prosecuted like any other juvenile for murder.

The New York Times: The End Of The Rape And Incest ExceptionAll of a sudden, abortion opponents have abandoned rape and incest exceptions to abortion bans. Louisiana became the latest state to do so last month, following Ohio, Mississippi and, most notoriously, Alabama. That same month, younger abortion foes in groups like Students for Life of America fired off a letter asking the Republican Party to stop supporting exceptions that before this year had long been standard components of anti-abortion legislation. (Mary Ziegler, 6/11)

Georgia Just Criminalized Abortion. Women Who Terminate Their Pregnancies Would Be Subject to Life in Prison.

On Tuesday, Georgia Republican Gov. Brian Kemp signed a “fetal heartbeat” bill that seeks to outlaw abortion after about six weeks. The measure, HB 481, is the most extreme abortion ban in the country—not just because it would impose severe limitations on women’s reproductive rights, but also because it would subject women who get illegal abortions to life imprisonment and the death penalty.

The primary purpose of HB 481 is to prohibit doctors from terminating any pregnancy after they can detect “embryonic or fetal cardiac activity,” which typically occurs at six weeks’ gestation. But the bill does far more than that. In one sweeping provision, it declares that “unborn children are a class of living, distinct person” that deserves “full legal recognition.” Thus, Georgia law must “recognize unborn children as natural persons”—not just for the purposes of abortion, but as a legal rule.

But the most startling effect of HB 481 may be its criminalization of women who seek out unlawful abortions or terminate their own pregnancies. An earlier Georgia law imposing criminal penalties for illegal abortions does not apply to women who self-terminate; the new measure, by contrast, conspicuously lacks such a limitation. It can, and would, be used to prosecute women. Misoprostol, a drug that treats stomach ulcers but also induces abortions, is extremely easy to obtain on the internet, and American women routinely use it to self-terminate. It is highly effective in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. Anti-abortion advocates generally insist that they do not want to punish women who undergo abortions. But HB 481 does exactly that. Once it takes effect, a woman who self-terminates will have, as a matter of law, killed a human—thereby committing murder. The penalty for that crime in Georgia is life imprisonment or capital punishment.


Even women who seek lawful abortions out of state may not escape punishment. If a Georgia resident plans to travel elsewhere to obtain an abortion, she may be charged with conspiracy to commit murder, punishable by 10 years’ imprisonment. An individual who helps a woman plan her trip to get an out-of-state abortion, or transports her to the clinic, may also be charged with conspiracy. These individuals, after all, are “conspiring” to end of the life of a “person” with “full legal recognition” under Georgia law.

For now, Supreme Court precedent protecting women’s reproductive rights should bar such prosecutions—and indeed, require the invalidation of HB 481. But the court’s conservative majority may be on the verge of dismantling Roe v. Wade. If that happens, Georgia and other conservative states will be free to outlaw abortion, and to imprison women who self-terminate.

Abortion is a states rights issue. I'm talking about the Federal Government who should have nothing to say about it whatsoever.

Show me the list of women who have been sent to prison for having an abortion.

Your opinion is that the Federal government should have no say on abortion- does that mean if Roe v. Wade was overturned- you would oppose any federal legislation to outlaw abortion nationally?

No woman has been sent to prison for decades thanks to Roe v. Wade- and that is the only reason.

Once again- the law Georgia passed that will go into effect if Roe v. Wade is overturned:


Georgia Just Criminalized Abortion. Women Who Terminate Their Pregnancies Would Be Subject to Life in Prison.


On Tuesday, Georgia Republican Gov. Brian Kemp signed a “fetal heartbeat” bill that seeks to outlaw abortion after about six weeks. The measure, HB 481, is the most extreme abortion ban in the country—not just because it would impose severe limitations on women’s reproductive rights, but also because it would subject women who get illegal abortions to life imprisonment and the death penalty.

The primary purpose of HB 481 is to prohibit doctors from terminating any pregnancy after they can detect “embryonic or fetal cardiac activity,” which typically occurs at six weeks’ gestation. But the bill does far more than that. In one sweeping provision, it declares that “unborn children are a class of living, distinct person” that deserves “full legal recognition.” Thus, Georgia law must “recognize unborn children as natural persons”—not just for the purposes of abortion, but as a legal rule.

But the most startling effect of HB 481 may be its criminalization of women who seek out unlawful abortions or terminate their own pregnancies. An earlier Georgia law imposing criminal penalties for illegal abortions does not apply to women who self-terminate; the new measure, by contrast, conspicuously lacks such a limitation. It can, and would, be used to prosecute women. Misoprostol, a drug that treats stomach ulcers but also induces abortions, is extremely easy to obtain on the internet, and American women routinely use it to self-terminate. It is highly effective in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. Anti-abortion advocates generally insist that they do not want to punish women who undergo abortions. But HB 481 does exactly that. Once it takes effect, a woman who self-terminates will have, as a matter of law, killed a human—thereby committing murder. The penalty for that crime in Georgia is life imprisonment or capital punishment.


Even women who seek lawful abortions out of state may not escape punishment. If a Georgia resident plans to travel elsewhere to obtain an abortion, she may be charged with conspiracy to commit murder, punishable by 10 years’ imprisonment. An individual who helps a woman plan her trip to get an out-of-state abortion, or transports her to the clinic, may also be charged with conspiracy. These individuals, after all, are “conspiring” to end of the life of a “person” with “full legal recognition” under Georgia law.

For now, Supreme Court precedent protecting women’s reproductive rights should bar such prosecutions—and indeed, require the invalidation of HB 481. But the court’s conservative majority may

There should be no Federal interference.

Roe v Wade will NOT be overturned although it was wrong.

Who are the women who have been imprisoned because they had an abortion?
 
" Blubbering Because The Ninth Amendment Precedes The Tenth Amendment "

* Anti-Federalist Meats An Anti-Statist And Individualist *
Abortion is a states rights issue. I'm talking about the Federal Government who should have nothing to say about it whatsoever.
Show me the list of women who have been sent to prison for having an abortion.
Birth is a requirement for citizenship whether that citizenship is in a state or in the united states , and that is the basis of roe v wade .

Birth (parturition) is in fact a criteria for citizenship.

Nobody disputes that fact (14th Amendment.)

Now. Show me where birth / parturition is a requirement for a natural human being to be recognized as a natural human being / person.

You can't do it.
 
When you're lying on the ground after an accident, or in a hospital bed, someone checks your pulse to see if you're heart is beating to determine if you are dead or alive.

Why are the same criteria not used for determining if an infant is dead or alive?

Because biology.

And prognosis.

Among several other things.

Prognosis...so if someone has terminal cancer, a heart condition, or had a debilitation stroke, should, in your world, be euthanized. Cool, just like failed former President Barack Hussein Obama's medical adviser Ezekiel Emanual, brother of former Chief of Staff to Obama, Rahm Emanuel wanted.
 
Last edited:
Yet the anti-choice crowd now want to tell a 12 year old raped by her father that no she doesn't have the choice to take the morning after pill. And if she does- she will be a criminal.

always-S.jpg

Sigh- why are you always lying?
a) Abortion opponents until recently typically exempted the victims of rape and incest- now they insist those victims must risk their own lives and health to go through pregnancy and birth.
b) States and abortion opponents are indeed looking to throw women in prison who have abortions- see HB-481.
c) The 12 year old rape victim luckily will be too young to go to prison, but could still be criminally prosecuted like any other juvenile for murder.

The New York Times: The End Of The Rape And Incest ExceptionAll of a sudden, abortion opponents have abandoned rape and incest exceptions to abortion bans. Louisiana became the latest state to do so last month, following Ohio, Mississippi and, most notoriously, Alabama. That same month, younger abortion foes in groups like Students for Life of America fired off a letter asking the Republican Party to stop supporting exceptions that before this year had long been standard components of anti-abortion legislation. (Mary Ziegler, 6/11)

Georgia Just Criminalized Abortion. Women Who Terminate Their Pregnancies Would Be Subject to Life in Prison.

On Tuesday, Georgia Republican Gov. Brian Kemp signed a “fetal heartbeat” bill that seeks to outlaw abortion after about six weeks. The measure, HB 481, is the most extreme abortion ban in the country—not just because it would impose severe limitations on women’s reproductive rights, but also because it would subject women who get illegal abortions to life imprisonment and the death penalty.

The primary purpose of HB 481 is to prohibit doctors from terminating any pregnancy after they can detect “embryonic or fetal cardiac activity,” which typically occurs at six weeks’ gestation. But the bill does far more than that. In one sweeping provision, it declares that “unborn children are a class of living, distinct person” that deserves “full legal recognition.” Thus, Georgia law must “recognize unborn children as natural persons”—not just for the purposes of abortion, but as a legal rule.

But the most startling effect of HB 481 may be its criminalization of women who seek out unlawful abortions or terminate their own pregnancies. An earlier Georgia law imposing criminal penalties for illegal abortions does not apply to women who self-terminate; the new measure, by contrast, conspicuously lacks such a limitation. It can, and would, be used to prosecute women. Misoprostol, a drug that treats stomach ulcers but also induces abortions, is extremely easy to obtain on the internet, and American women routinely use it to self-terminate. It is highly effective in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. Anti-abortion advocates generally insist that they do not want to punish women who undergo abortions. But HB 481 does exactly that. Once it takes effect, a woman who self-terminates will have, as a matter of law, killed a human—thereby committing murder. The penalty for that crime in Georgia is life imprisonment or capital punishment.


Even women who seek lawful abortions out of state may not escape punishment. If a Georgia resident plans to travel elsewhere to obtain an abortion, she may be charged with conspiracy to commit murder, punishable by 10 years’ imprisonment. An individual who helps a woman plan her trip to get an out-of-state abortion, or transports her to the clinic, may also be charged with conspiracy. These individuals, after all, are “conspiring” to end of the life of a “person” with “full legal recognition” under Georgia law.

For now, Supreme Court precedent protecting women’s reproductive rights should bar such prosecutions—and indeed, require the invalidation of HB 481. But the court’s conservative majority may be on the verge of dismantling Roe v. Wade. If that happens, Georgia and other conservative states will be free to outlaw abortion, and to imprison women who self-terminate.

Abortion is a states rights issue. I'm talking about the Federal Government who should have nothing to say about it whatsoever.

Show me the list of women who have been sent to prison for having an abortion.

Your opinion is that the Federal government should have no say on abortion- does that mean if Roe v. Wade was overturned- you would oppose any federal legislation to outlaw abortion nationally?

No woman has been sent to prison for decades thanks to Roe v. Wade- and that is the only reason.

Once again- the law Georgia passed that will go into effect if Roe v. Wade is overturned:


Georgia Just Criminalized Abortion. Women Who Terminate Their Pregnancies Would Be Subject to Life in Prison.


On Tuesday, Georgia Republican Gov. Brian Kemp signed a “fetal heartbeat” bill that seeks to outlaw abortion after about six weeks. The measure, HB 481, is the most extreme abortion ban in the country—not just because it would impose severe limitations on women’s reproductive rights, but also because it would subject women who get illegal abortions to life imprisonment and the death penalty.

The primary purpose of HB 481 is to prohibit doctors from terminating any pregnancy after they can detect “embryonic or fetal cardiac activity,” which typically occurs at six weeks’ gestation. But the bill does far more than that. In one sweeping provision, it declares that “unborn children are a class of living, distinct person” that deserves “full legal recognition.” Thus, Georgia law must “recognize unborn children as natural persons”—not just for the purposes of abortion, but as a legal rule.

But the most startling effect of HB 481 may be its criminalization of women who seek out unlawful abortions or terminate their own pregnancies. An earlier Georgia law imposing criminal penalties for illegal abortions does not apply to women who self-terminate; the new measure, by contrast, conspicuously lacks such a limitation. It can, and would, be used to prosecute women. Misoprostol, a drug that treats stomach ulcers but also induces abortions, is extremely easy to obtain on the internet, and American women routinely use it to self-terminate. It is highly effective in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. Anti-abortion advocates generally insist that they do not want to punish women who undergo abortions. But HB 481 does exactly that. Once it takes effect, a woman who self-terminates will have, as a matter of law, killed a human—thereby committing murder. The penalty for that crime in Georgia is life imprisonment or capital punishment.


Even women who seek lawful abortions out of state may not escape punishment. If a Georgia resident plans to travel elsewhere to obtain an abortion, she may be charged with conspiracy to commit murder, punishable by 10 years’ imprisonment. An individual who helps a woman plan her trip to get an out-of-state abortion, or transports her to the clinic, may also be charged with conspiracy. These individuals, after all, are “conspiring” to end of the life of a “person” with “full legal recognition” under Georgia law.

For now, Supreme Court precedent protecting women’s reproductive rights should bar such prosecutions—and indeed, require the invalidation of HB 481. But the court’s conservative majority may

There should be no Federal interference.

Roe v Wade will NOT be overturned although it was wrong.

Who are the women who have been imprisoned because they had an abortion?

Okay- well thanks for being consistent.

I would say there is a 50/50 chance Roe v. Wade will be overturned in the next 5 years.

And I already answered your last question.
 
When you're lying on the ground after an accident, or in a hospital bed, someone checks your pulse to see if you're heart is beating to determine if you are dead or alive.

Why are the same criteria not used for determining if an infant is dead or alive?

Because biology.

And prognosis.

Among several other things.

Prognosis...so if someone has terminal cancer, a heart condition, or had a debilitation stroke, should, in your world, be euthanized. Cool, just like failed former President Barack Hussein Obama's medical adviser Ezekiel Emanual, brother of former Chief of Staff to Obama, Rahm Emanuel.

Cherry picking my comments to take them out of context and to mischaracterize my position does not do your own arguments or your credibility any good.

Thank you for that display of your own level of desperation.

I'll take it as a good sign that my point was made.
 
When you're lying on the ground after an accident, or in a hospital bed, someone checks your pulse to see if you're heart is beating to determine if you are dead or alive.

Why are the same criteria not used for determining if an infant is dead or alive?

A couple of issues with your post.

First of all- no heart beat doesn't necessarily mean that a person is not alive. And a heart beat doesn't necessarily mean that a person is alive.

Medical diagnosis of death follows either the common law standard of total cessation of cardiac and respiratory function or the medically accepted standards of brain death, the latter being based on irreversible loss of brain function. Cessation of cardiorespiratory function inevitably causes brain death; similarly, brain death inevitably causes cessation of cardiac function. The common law definition of death has been redefined: death is brain death which inevitably causes cessation of the cardiorespiratory functions. Legal determination of death, since the advent of cadaver organ transplantation, has been made by case law, which is briefly summarized, or by statute in most jurisdictions

Second: A fetus doesn't have an actual heart even at 6 weeks- there is no actual heartbeat as there is in a living, breathing human being- it is just an electric impulse- there is no heart beating.

Finally, a heartbeat itself doesn't distinguish whether a fetus is a living person or not- otherwise any heart being kept pumping by itself would be a person by your 'definition'

Heart in a Box 'gave me a new life'

There is a heartbeat at eight weeks and it is fully formed at 20 weeks.

Yes, a person kept alive by machines, when the brain is determined to be dead, is a person.
 
When you're lying on the ground after an accident, or in a hospital bed, someone checks your pulse to see if you're heart is beating to determine if you are dead or alive.

Why are the same criteria not used for determining if an infant is dead or alive?

Because biology.

And prognosis.

Among several other things.

Prognosis...so if someone has terminal cancer, a heart condition, or had a debilitation stroke, should, in your world, be euthanized. Cool, just like failed former President Barack Hussein Obama's medical adviser Ezekiel Emanual, brother of former Chief of Staff to Obama, Rahm Emanuel.

Cherry picking my comments to take them out of context and to mischaracterize my position does not do your own arguments or your credibility any good.

Thank you for that display of your own level of desperation.

I'll take it as a good sign that my point was made.

Cute try.

I cherry picked nothing, I used what you posted.

Your statement "Because biology" means less than nothing.

You said "Prognosis". Nothing else, just PROGNOSIS.
prognosis
[präɡˈnōsəs]

NOUN
prognoses (plural noun)

  1. the likely course of a disease or ailment.
    "the disease has a poor prognosis"

That is the exact definition I used, I'm sorry that you want to make up your own as you go along.

Then you said..."Among other things". Do you mean the weather? The race of the mother? The age of the mother? What?
 
" Clown Outfits For All "

* Legacy Of Antiquated Belief *
Birth (parturition) is in fact a criteria for citizenship.
Nobody disputes that fact (14th Amendment.)
Now. Show me where birth / parturition is a requirement for a natural human being to be recognized as a natural human being / person.
You can't do it.
A per son means male ( son ) and countable by census ( per ) .

Personhood - Wikipedia
In 2011, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia disputed the conclusion of Reed v. Reed, arguing that women do not have equal protection under the 14th amendment as "persons"[61][62]

Homunculus - Wikipedia .
A homunculus (UK: /hɒˈmʌŋkjʊləs/ hom-UNK-yuul-əs, US: /hoʊˈ-/ hohm-, Latin: [hɔˈmʊŋkʊlʊs]; "little person") is a representation of a small human being. Popularized in sixteenth-century alchemy and nineteenth-century fiction, it has historically referred to the creation of a miniature, fully formed human. The concept has roots in preformationism as well as earlier folklore and alchemic traditions.
 
When you're lying on the ground after an accident, or in a hospital bed, someone checks your pulse to see if you're heart is beating to determine if you are dead or alive.

Why are the same criteria not used for determining if an infant is dead or alive?

Because biology.

And prognosis.

Among several other things.

Prognosis...so if someone has terminal cancer, a heart condition, or had a debilitation stroke, should, in your world, be euthanized. Cool, just like failed former President Barack Hussein Obama's medical adviser Ezekiel Emanual, brother of former Chief of Staff to Obama, Rahm Emanuel.

Cherry picking my comments to take them out of context and to mischaracterize my position does not do your own arguments or your credibility any good.

Thank you for that display of your own level of desperation.

I'll take it as a good sign that my point was made.

Cute try.

I cherry picked nothing, I used what you posted.

Your statement "Because biology" means less than nothing.

You said "Prognosis". Nothing else, just PROGNOSIS.
prognosis
[präɡˈnōsəs]

NOUN
prognoses (plural noun)

  1. the likely course of a disease or ailment.
    "the disease has a poor prognosis"
That is the exact definition I used, I'm sorry that you want to make up your own as you go along.

Then you said..."Among other things". Do you mean the weather? The race of the mother? The age of the mother? What?

How many doctors would pull the plug on a comatose patient that has even a fraction of the prognosis that a typical child in the womb has for further life?
 
When you're lying on the ground after an accident, or in a hospital bed, someone checks your pulse to see if you're heart is beating to determine if you are dead or alive.

Why are the same criteria not used for determining if an infant is dead or alive?

Because biology.

And prognosis.

Among several other things.

Prognosis...so if someone has terminal cancer, a heart condition, or had a debilitation stroke, should, in your world, be euthanized. Cool, just like failed former President Barack Hussein Obama's medical adviser Ezekiel Emanual, brother of former Chief of Staff to Obama, Rahm Emanuel.

Cherry picking my comments to take them out of context and to mischaracterize my position does not do your own arguments or your credibility any good.

Thank you for that display of your own level of desperation.

I'll take it as a good sign that my point was made.

Cute try.

I cherry picked nothing, I used what you posted.

Your statement "Because biology" means less than nothing.

You said "Prognosis". Nothing else, just PROGNOSIS.
prognosis
[präɡˈnōsəs]

NOUN
prognoses (plural noun)

  1. the likely course of a disease or ailment.
    "the disease has a poor prognosis"
That is the exact definition I used, I'm sorry that you want to make up your own as you go along.

Then you said..."Among other things". Do you mean the weather? The race of the mother? The age of the mother? What?

How many doctors would pull the plug on a comatose patient that has even a fraction of the prognosis that a typical child in the womb has for further life?

Why are you dodging and weaving?

What does this even mean? "How many doctors would pull the plug on a comatose patient that has even a fraction of the prognosis that a typical child in the womb has for further life?"
 
Because biology.

And prognosis.

Among several other things.

Prognosis...so if someone has terminal cancer, a heart condition, or had a debilitation stroke, should, in your world, be euthanized. Cool, just like failed former President Barack Hussein Obama's medical adviser Ezekiel Emanual, brother of former Chief of Staff to Obama, Rahm Emanuel.

Cherry picking my comments to take them out of context and to mischaracterize my position does not do your own arguments or your credibility any good.

Thank you for that display of your own level of desperation.

I'll take it as a good sign that my point was made.

Cute try.

I cherry picked nothing, I used what you posted.

Your statement "Because biology" means less than nothing.

You said "Prognosis". Nothing else, just PROGNOSIS.
prognosis
[präɡˈnōsəs]

NOUN
prognoses (plural noun)

  1. the likely course of a disease or ailment.
    "the disease has a poor prognosis"
That is the exact definition I used, I'm sorry that you want to make up your own as you go along.

Then you said..."Among other things". Do you mean the weather? The race of the mother? The age of the mother? What?

How many doctors would pull the plug on a comatose patient that has even a fraction of the prognosis that a typical child in the womb has for further life?

Why are you dodging and weaving?

What does this even mean? "How many doctors would pull the plug on a comatose patient that has even a fraction of the prognosis that a typical child in the womb has for further life?"

Lol.

You are projecting.

If the point of a comparison between the prognosis of a comatose patient and a typical child in the womb is really that far over your head. . . I think we are done here.
 
I'm listening...Back that up with facts or logic.

When every living thing was once a fetus at some point...how can a fetus not be a life?

It's not a viable person when it is aborted. That's what makes abortion just fine, morally.

As a practical matter, unless you are going to throw women in irons the minute they test positive for pregnancy, you really don't have much of a say in the matter.

I've heard this argument before...

KKK member: "Blacks aren't people therefor killing them is not murder".

Hitler: "Jews are not people therefor killing them is not murder".

Except no one really made these arguments.

The South conceded that blacks were people. Maybe they didn't have the same rights, but they were counted as people after the 14th Amendment was passed. We STILL don't count fetuses. In fact, if you have ever been a census worker, you'd know that we have a formula of when to count a person, and we don't count them if they were still fetuses on April 30th.

Hitler never called for killing the Jews Publicly. In fact, most of the Holocaust was done in secret because they knew what they were doing was wrong.
 
[

Roe v Wade was a gross overreach by the Supreme Court. Unquestionably, it was a state's rights issue. That being said, it is what it is.

Let's look at the ACTUAL historical context of Roe v. Wade.

Prior to 1965, contraception and abortion were both illegal. Most of these laws were passed when there wasn't really safe and reliable methods of either. By 1965, though, there were safe methods, and people were routinely ignoring these laws that were rarely enforced.

In 1965, SCOTUS passed Griswald v. Connecticut, which struck down the remaining contraception laws on the basis of privacy.

Abortion in this period were routinely performed in doctors' offices and something else was written down on the charts. Insurance happily paid for these fraudulent charges, as they were cheaper than live births. SCOTUS passed both Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Boland essentially allowing abortion at any time for any reason. (Doe essentially struck down any 'viability' arguments in Roe.) No one really thought these laws being struck down were that big of a deal, since they were - again- being routinely ignored at this point.

Then the Christian Right decided they done der needed them an issue, Cleetus, as their continued support of Segregation was getting them the collective stink-eye from the rest of the country. Well, how about Abortion? While prior to the 1970's, Evangelicals looked at abortion and contraception as "A Catholic Thing", after they needed an issue, they were all against it.

Now, what's saved us from this stupidity is up to this point, Republican presidents have had the good sense to appoint justices that were reality based, and not about to bring back all these dumb laws. Stevens, O'Conner, Kennedy, Souter all had the good judgement to realize the legal chaos that would be caused if you let states start giving civil rights to fetuses.
 
Abortion is a states rights issue. I'm talking about the Federal Government who should have nothing to say about it whatsoever.
Show me the list of women who have been sent to prison for having an abortion.
Purvi Patel - Wikipedia
Bei Bei Shuai - Wikipedia

Neither were abortions. Both were also charged with child neglect.

A mother who gives birth to an addicted baby, whether alcohol, crack, cocaine or whatever can and do lose custody of the infant.

Purvi Patel
(born c. 1982) is an Indian American whose conviction and sentenced to 20 years in prison in Indiana for feticide and child neglect was overturned by Indiana Supreme Court?

Bei Bei Shuai After their breakup and a severe depression, Shuai attempted suicide by taking rat poison. She survived, but the fetus died on 3 January 2011 – 33 weeks after her conception, ten days after the poisoning and two days after her birth in an emergency cesarean section.[4]

 
Last edited:
[

Roe v Wade was a gross overreach by the Supreme Court. Unquestionably, it was a state's rights issue. That being said, it is what it is.

Let's look at the ACTUAL historical context of Roe v. Wade.

Prior to 1965, contraception and abortion were both illegal. Most of these laws were passed when there wasn't really safe and reliable methods of either. By 1965, though, there were safe methods, and people were routinely ignoring these laws that were rarely enforced.

In 1965, SCOTUS passed Griswald v. Connecticut, which struck down the remaining contraception laws on the basis of privacy.

Abortion in this period were routinely performed in doctors' offices and something else was written down on the charts. Insurance happily paid for these fraudulent charges, as they were cheaper than live births. SCOTUS passed both Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Boland essentially allowing abortion at any time for any reason. (Doe essentially struck down any 'viability' arguments in Roe.) No one really thought these laws being struck down were that big of a deal, since they were - again- being routinely ignored at this point.

Then the Christian Right decided they done der needed them an issue, Cleetus, as their continued support of Segregation was getting them the collective stink-eye from the rest of the country. Well, how about Abortion? While prior to the 1970's, Evangelicals looked at abortion and contraception as "A Catholic Thing", after they needed an issue, they were all against it.

Now, what's saved us from this stupidity is up to this point, Republican presidents have had the good sense to appoint justices that were reality based, and not about to bring back all these dumb laws. Stevens, O'Conner, Kennedy, Souter all had the good judgement to realize the legal chaos that would be caused if you let states start giving civil rights to fetuses.
Bottom line, as I said, the Supreme Court overreached in making that decision.
 
Okay- well thanks for being consistent.
I'm always consistent.

I would say there is a 50/50 chance Roe v. Wade will be overturned in the next 5 years.
Not a chance in heck.

And I already answered your last question.

Right, NONE. And none will be put in prison either.

As long as Roe v. Wade is not overturned women continue to not be put in prison for having safe legal abortions.

But the anti-abortionists are working hard to get Roe overturned- passing laws specifically designed to get the Supreme Court to rule NOW on Roe.

If the anti-abortionists get their way- and Roe is overturned- then women in Georgia who get an abortion will be going to prison- according to Georgia law.
 
Neither were abortions. Both were also charged with child neglect.

A mother who gives birth to an addicted baby, whether alcohol, crack, cocaine or whatever can and do lose custody of the infant.

Purvi Patel
(born c. 1982) is an Indian American whose conviction and sentenced to 20 years in prison in Indiana for feticide and child neglect was overturned by Indiana Supreme Court?

Bei Bei Shuai After their breakup and a severe depression, Shuai attempted suicide by taking rat poison. She survived, but the fetus died on 3 January 2011 – 33 weeks after her conception, ten days after the poisoning and two days after her birth in an emergency cesarean section.[4]

YOu do realize that a miscarriage is classified medically as a "spontaneous abortion", right?

These women had miscarriages, the government prosecuted them.
 

Forum List

Back
Top