How Much Jail Time? (For women who get abortions)

Newsweek ^ | 8/6/2007 | Anna Quindlen

[mngran]

Buried among prairie dogs and amateur animation shorts on YouTube is a curious little mini-documentary shot in front of an abortion clinic in Libertyville, Ill. The man behind the camera is asking demonstrators who want abortion criminalized what the penalty should be for a woman who has one nonetheless. You have rarely seen people look more gobsmacked. It's as though the guy has asked them to solve quadratic equations. Here are a range of responses: "I've never really thought about it." "I don't have an answer for that." "I don't know." "Just pray for them."

You have to hand it to the questioner; he struggles manfully. "Usually when things are illegal there's a penalty attached," he explains patiently. But he can't get a single person to be decisive about the crux of a matter they have been approaching with absolute certainty.

A new public-policy group called the National Institute for Reproductive Health wants to take this contradiction and make it the centerpiece of a national conversation, along with a slogan that stops people in their tracks: how much time should she do? If the Supreme Court decides abortion is not protected by a constitutional guarantee of privacy, the issue will revert to the states. If it goes to the states, some, perhaps many, will ban abortion. If abortion is made a crime, then surely the woman who has one is a criminal. But, boy, do the doctrinaire suddenly turn squirrelly at the prospect of throwing women in jail.

[UndauntedR]

In this case, it seems the murder charge is just to put as much weight behind an assault charge as possible. He assaulted his pregnant girlfriend with intent to abort a fetus, a girl whom presumably trusted him. This is more heinous than a fist-fight in a bar and more criminal weight should be applied - even though the physical crime may not differ much.

It’s the same strategy with hate crimes, which get a bad rap around here. Hates crimes are charged on top of other crimes to simply provide more weight to a charge - in that case, to punish the terrorizing of an already intimidated group. The heightened disruption of the public sphere by a terrorizing offense requires a weightier charge than one which does not terrorize others. Hate crime is, however, a poor moniker.

For example, a killer could kill redheads because he hated redheads. This would almost certainly not elicit a hate crime charge though because redheads are not typically threatened or intimidated. Of course, other minority groups already are threatened and intimidated for being who they are. A crime against them for being who they are can terrorize the community - and should carry a heavier charge.

[UndauntedR]

You’re only incentivizing home abortions - coat hangers, pills, gut-shots - these are likely to be more dangerous than a doctor.

[MEGoody]

Because they are duped.

If abortion were to be made illegal, they can't claim to have been 'duped' unless they are retarded or mentally ill and not able to understand what it means for something to be against the law.

They don’t believe it is murder because the person doing the deed tells them it isn’t.

That won't be an excuse if abortion is made illegal.

There’s got to be some leniency granted, in my opinion.

I disagree. Either abortion is murder or it isn't. I most certainly believe it is. Therefore, it should be against the law, and the punishment should fit the crime.

[Antoninus]

You’re only incentivizing home abortions - coat hangers, pills, gut-shots - these are likely to be more dangerous than a doctor.

Pardon me, but bull cr@p. Some people are going to do patently illegal things in their homes. Society has a duty to tell them that such things are dangerous and not endorse them or make them legal just because "people are going to do it anyway."

And abortion is not just a woman doing something potentially harmful to herself. Every abortion is extraordinarily dangerous in every case--to the baby.

[Antoninus]

Ask anyone who worked in an ER prior to Roe vs Wade. They’ll tell you about the supply. They treated the aftermath, the butchered uterus, the spiky fevers, the hemorrhaging, the infections, the deaths.

Of course, such things never happen now that abortions can be done in the safe, clean, non-coercive, open, and free environment of a Planned Barrenhood clinic....right? And they also provide counseling for women in such straights and inform law enforcement when a statutory rape has been reported. Right?

Let's face it. Abortion isn't much safer now--but it's a lot more prevalent. Given this, the old system seems highly preferable.

What this comes down to is: You don't condone a brutal and horrible act that kills a baby simply because people are going to do it anyway. That's the 1960s hippy-lib mentality. I reject it utterly.

[Antoninus]

Whoa, I didn’t notice this piece was written by Anna Quindlen. Now it makes more sense. A more vicious, cold-hearted, Moloch-worshiping ghoul has never existed on planet Earth. She’s a good disciple of Maggie Sanger.

[Jaded]

What was the punishment before Roe?

She should have to work in an orphanage.

[hocndoc]

The medical realities 35 years ago are a world of difference from those today. For one thing our antibiotics and technology is better, so women and girls have more hope when injured.

But the biggest changes since 1973 are the development of the prenatal ultrasound and social climate that should have taken the stigma from pregnancy.

Women and men are much more knowledgeable about the development of unborn children. We know that the child is not just a clump of cells - if that was ever believed by anyone. There are also resources available for women who find themselves pregnant but unable to mother. Unwed motherhood is not the stigma it once was.

This nation adapted to the repeal of slavery, to female sufferage, and will adapt to the repeal of Roe v. Wade.

[UndauntedR]

Pardon me, but bull cr@p. Some people are going to do patently illegal things in their homes. Society has a duty to tell them that such things are dangerous and not endorse them or make them legal just because "people are going to do it anyway."

You said:

No penalty for the woman. Prison for the butcher.

If abortion becomes illegal, then by not punishing the woman for having a home abortion, there is no point to the law. "It's a symbolic law." How special. You're incentivizing home abortions with no doctor involved - a much more dangerous situation for everyone.

[Antoninus]

If abortion becomes illegal, then by not punishing the woman for having a home abortion, there is no point to the law.

Tell you what. Punishing the abortionist seemed to work well enough before the rogue activist courts decided to turn established state laws on their heads. Let's try it. The situation was certainly better than what we have now. Or do you really think that 40 million less Americans since 1973 is a good thing? Many of those slain were from my generation.

You really do need to ask yourself what's worse--several thousand women dead over a period of many years from botched home abortions or 40 million dead babies? The answer is a no brainer, if you ask me. And with the rise of crisis pregnancy centers, there is even less reason to ever put a baby to death.