Fetal homicide laws do not recognize fetal rights.
Furthermore, fetal laws do not challenge abortion rights because, although each act results in the same end (the destruction of the fetus), the actor is different in each scenario.
Feticide laws and the right to abortion are based on the rights of the actor, not the rights of the object. In each scenario, the actor is a different person with a different set of rights. With abortion, the woman, through her authorized doctor, is the actor.
With fetal murder, a third person, who does not have the same rights as the woman, is the actor.
Throughout the law, when different actors engage in exactly the same behavior, one may get penalized while the other may not. The reason is because Actor A may have affirmative rights to act in a certain way, whereas Actor B has no rights to perform the same act.
...The law says that the woman can abort her fetus, but a third party abuser cannot. Is this hypocrisy? Is it legal schizophrenia? Do the limitations on the aggressor somehow imply limitations on the mother? No, no, and no.
The permissions of the mother and the limitations on the criminal
depend on the rights of the respective parties, not the rights of the object being acted upon. Roe grants the mother alone the right to consent to abortion. She, and only she, holds that right. An abusive third party does not.
We need not assume that limitations on a criminal abuser create constitutional fetal personhood. They mean nothing more than the simple fact that different actors have different rights; a third party bad actor has no right to terminate someone else's pregnancy.
This idea has been used again and again by courts to quash equal protection challenges to fetal murder laws. Criminal and civil defendants, when faced with charges of either feticide or fetal wrongful death, often plead that the charges are a violation of equal protection.
Please explain how a person can be charged with MURDER if the person (child in the womb) they kill has no rights AGAINST being murdered.
"
Gloria Feldt, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, described the federal Unborn Victim's of Violence Act as "part of a deceptive anti-choice strategy to make women's bodies mere vessels
by creating legal personhood for the fetus."
If I understand it correctly, it Is not tbe fetus th
Can we agree or can we not agree that the common ground should be "when does a child's life and rights begin?"
If that is not to be the common ground then all other efforts and conversations on the sucbject are futile.
Agree?
Nope. The beginning point should be, "Can this law be practically enforced?"
They attempt to...and the result is a horrific loss of rights for the woman.
The Impact of Fetal Protection Laws on Women
A 2013 study by the National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW) identified 413 criminal and civil cases involving the arrest, detention and deprivation of liberty of pregnant women between 1973 and 2005.12 New data indicates that 250 such interventions have occurred since 2005.13 In almost all the cases identified, the woman would not have been prosecuted for any
crime, had she not been pregnant at the time of the violation.14
Since 1973, measures that have encouraged state actors to treat eggs, embryos and fetuses as entities separate from the mother have been used as the basis for punitive action against women all over the country (although disproportionately against women in the south, low-income women and African American women.)15 Following are five cases in which women were targeted for actions taken during their pregnancy.
Laura Pemberton, a resident of Florida, had previously delivered a baby by C-section. When she became pregnant again, she attempted to find a physician that would allow her to deliver vaginally. Unable to do so, Pemberton decided to give birth with the assistance of a midwife. On January 13, 1996, after a day of labor, she decided that she needed to go to the hospital. Upon arrival she requested only an IV so that she could return home and finish the delivery. Instead, the hospital set in motion a process used for patients who declined medically necessary treatment. A hearing was held where two doctors testified that vaginal delivery would pose a substantial risk of uterine rupture, resulting in the death of the baby. Ms. Pemberton, who had since returned home, was forced to return to the hospital against her will. Although lawyers argued on behalf of the fetus, Pemberton and her husband were not afforded legal counsel, but were “allowed to express their views.”16 The judge ordered that a caesarean section be performed. Later, when she sued for a violation of her civil rights, a court ruled that the state’s interest in preserving the life of the fetus outweighed her rights.17 She went on to give birth vaginally to three more children.
In 2010, Samantha Burton was 25 weeks pregnant and began showing signs of miscarrying. Her doctor advised that she go on bed rest, possibly until delivery, but Burton had two toddlers and a job. She planned on getting a second opinion, but the doctor asked the state to step in. She was ordered to remain at the hospital and undergo any medical treatment that her doctor, acting in the interest of the fetus, deemed necessary.18 She asked to switch hospitals, but the court denied her request. Three days later, Burton miscarried.
In 2011, Chinese immigrant Bei Bei Shuai, who was 30 weeks pregnant, attempted suicide by swallowing rat poison. The father of the baby had broken off his relationship with Shuai, who then became desperate. She survived and went to the hospital, complying with all medical staff. She then gave birth to a baby girl, who did not survive. Prior to her suicide attempt, Shuai had left a note to the father stating she was going to kill herself and take the child with her. Under Indiana law, it is a crime to knowingly or intentionally kill a viable fetus. Prosecutors used this to argue that she had intended to kill the baby. However, the molecular structure of the rat poison ingested does not easily cross the placenta, and it is not clear that this is the reason the baby died.19 In fact, Indomethacin, the medicine given to Shuai to prevent her from having contractions, can cause hemorrhages in babies.20 The forensic pathologist testified that she had done no research to determine whether the rat poison or medications killed the baby. Shuai was imprisoned for over a year until the charges were dropped and she plead guilty to criminal recklessness.
In 2013, Alicia Beltran, 28, went in for a prenatal checkup and revealed to a health-care provider that she previously had a drug addiction to the painkiller Percocet. The prior fall, she willed herself off the drug. She then obtained Suboxone, a medicine that blocks opiates and is often used in pregnancy, which she stopped taking three days before her appointment. A urine test found traces of Suboxone, but no other opiates, and three days later another test came back completely clean. Two weeks later, a social worker visited Beltran’s home and demanded that she either restart Suboxone treatment or face a court order to do so. On July 18, she was taken into custody under a 1998 Wisconsin law that allows child-welfare authorities to forcibly confine a pregnant woman who uses drugs or alcohol to a severe degree and refuses treatment (Minnesota, South Dakota and Oklahoma have similar laws in place).21 Her fetus was appointed a legal guardian, although her pleas for a lawyer were ignored. She spent 78-days at a drug treatment center, losing her job in the process.
