Posted on 03/21/2019 2:08:37 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The answer to the title question, at least in Kentucky, appears to be yes… at least for now. The Governor of Kentucky has signed a bill into law that prohibits the performance of abortions if the mother requests the procedure based on the sex or race of the child, or because of a disability. The law has already been challenged, and to say that the details of it are legally problematic is something of an understatement.
Kentucky governor Matt Bevin on Tuesday signed a bill that bans abortions chosen on the basis of an unborn child’s sex, race, or disability.
A court filing in the U.S. District Court in Louisville indicated that the governor has signed the bill, which included an “emergency clause” stipulating that it would go into effect immediately.
Physicians must now certify in writing that the patient did not request the abortion for a reason related to the baby’s sex, race, or disabilities. Flouting the new law puts doctors at risk of losing their medical license or being prosecuted for a felony, although the mother of the unborn child would not be targeted.
Without a reversal or at least partial dismantling of Roe v. Wade, any law that seeks to broadly ban abortions, including those done very early in the first trimester, is going to run into problems with the courts. And a law based on what could only be described as “motive” would also face an uphill climb.
But that’s not even the biggest question surrounding this bill from my point of view. While I sympathize with the intent, what mechanism allows the government to legally enforce the provisions of this law? First of all, in order to have a reasonable suspicion that a crime had taken place and needed to be investigated, you would have to know what conversations took place between the doctor and the patient. But that information is protected.
Let’s just say for the moment that you could get around the medical records privacy issue somehow. What’s to stop a doctor from informing their patients up front that they couldn’t have an abortion if they requested it for one of these specific reasons, but they can have the procedure with no problems if they just say they don’t feel like having a baby? It’s already been made clear that this law would restrict the actions of doctors, not the mother. Are we really going to be sending out the cops to drag a woman into court and attempt to force her to testify under oath as to what she said to her OBGYN?
I can see how this law would be quite popular among conservatives and Matt Bevin will probably get a lot of credit for it from his base. But at the same time, even if this law survives the court challenges that await, I’d be very curious to hear if it’s ever enforced and anyone is convicted of it even once. It seems like an impossibly high bar to meet.
Why ot target the mother? Shes tge one demanding a doctor abort her unwanted tissue.
And this makes zero sense.
If its not a person these emergency exceptions conflict with the fact the law doesnt consider it a person.
We cannot have laws where every single women gets to decide if its a person or not solely based on their subjective feelings at the present moment.
That is not law.
Science proves its a genetically separare person not the mom or the dad but a new blending of dna. Its a person.
We cant have laws that in some cases treat an unborn as a person and other times, no. Totally legally and morally inconsistent, based on personal subjectivity. That is not equality under the law. That is hypocrisy, that is gross iniquity.
Which is why no liberal should ever support the double murder rule when a pregnant woman is killed or her unborn child dies as a result of an assault.
This is wrong on many levels.
You can’t tell if someone is terminating because it is a sexist who wants a boy or a feminist who hates boys ... or just someone who says I don’t want to be a parent right now.
You can’t abort the child regarding the race ...? Are you going to ban abortions for black women, white women or anyone who says the child is interracial? Or are we going to go SJW and say Muslims can’t have abortions?
The last part banning it on the basis of disability will get push back across the board. Many who say have the healthy child and give it up for adoption will say it is OK to abort when there is a severe problem. The idealization of children with Down’s Syndrome is insane, and telling people you must have it and raise it is cruel. I say this having watched relatives struggle to outlive a mentally retarded son after caring for him all their lives.
This problem is compounded by genetic testing and fetal screening. What is the point of offering genetic testing if you cannot do anything except go to term with the child? Are we going to go so far as to say you can’t screen embryos unless it is IVF?
Then there is the insane solution - no, you’re not terminating a child with a genetic disorder, you just say you’re not ready to be a parent or some other acceptable excuse. Or it will be like Israel where they lie about being raped to have permission to abort.
Wait until they start making babies for spare parts. It IS going to happen. That should amp up the conversation.
“Wait until they start making babies for spare parts. It IS going to happen. That should amp up the conversation.”
I believe that is the reason they are allowing the full term babies to be born in the clinic. Who really knows what happens to them after they are born alive.
They have been selling aborted baby parts for years.
Sounds to me like a “feel good” law that wont do anything at all. But the Governor can claim he tried.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.