Posted on 10/24/2008 1:17:06 PM PDT by victim soul
Clarke D. Forsythe
AUL Senior Counsel
Introduction
The political claim—that women were or will be prosecuted or jailed under abortion laws—has been made so frequently by Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and NOW over the past 40 years that it has become an urban legend. It shows the astonishing power of contemporary media to make a complete falsehood into a truism.
For 30 years, abortion advocates have claimed—without any evidence and contrary to the well-documented practice of ALL 50 states—that women were jailed before Roe and would be jailed if Roe falls (or if state abortion prohibitions are reinstated).
This claim rests on not one but two falsehoods:
First, the almost uniform state policy before Roe was that abortion laws targeted abortionists, not women. Abortion laws targeted those who performed abortion, not women. In fact, the states expressly treated women as the second “victim” of abortion; state courts expressly called the woman a second “victim.” Abortionists were the exclusive target of the law.
Second, the myth that women will be jailed relies, however, on the myth that “overturning” Roe will result in the immediate re-criminalization of abortion. If Roe was overturned today, abortion would be legal in at least 42-43 states tomorrow, and likely all 50 states, for the simple reason that nearly all of the state abortion prohibitions have been either repealed or are blocked by state versions of Roe adopted by state courts. The issue is entirely academic. The legislatures of the states would have to enact new abortion laws---and these would almost certainly continue the uniform state policy before Roe that abortion laws targeted abortionists and treated women as the second victim of abortion. There will be no prosecutions of abortionists unless the states pass new laws after Roe is overturned.
This political claim is not an abstract question that is left to speculation—there is a long record of states treating women as the second victim of abortion in the law that can be found and read. To state the policy in legal terms, the states prosecuted the principal (the abortionist) and did not prosecute someone who might be considered an accomplice (the woman) in order to more effectively enforce the law against the principal. And that will most certainly be the state policy if the abortion issue is returned to the states.
Why did the states target abortionists and treat women as a victim of the abortionist?
It was based on three policy judgments: the point of abortion law is effective enforcement against abortionists, the woman is the second victim of the abortionist, and prosecuting women is counterproductive to the goal of effective enforcement of the law against abortionists.
The irony is that, instead of states prosecuting women, the exact opposite is true. To protect their own hide, it was abortionists (like the cult hero and abortionist Ruth Barnett when Oregon last prosecuted her in 1968), who, when they were prosecuted, sought to haul the women they aborted into court. As a matter of criminal evidentiary law, if the court treated the woman as an accomplice, she could not testify against the abortionist, and the case against the abortionist would be thrown out.
There are “only two cases in which a woman was charged in any State with participating in her own abortion”: from Pennsylvania in 19111 and from Texas in 1922.2 There is no documented case since 1922 in which a woman has been charged in an abortion in the United States.
Based on this record—spanning 50 states over the century before Roe v. Wade—it is even more certain that the political claim that any woman might be questioned or prosecuted for a spontaneous miscarriage has no record in history and will certainly not be the policy of any state in the future.
How was abortion law enforced?
Going back as far as English and colonial law, the criminal law classified those involved in crimes as principals and accomplices. A principal is “the person whose acts directly brought about the criminal result.” An accomplice aids or abets the crime.
States did not treat women who had the abortion as either principals or accomplices. As the Oregon Supreme Court held as late as 1968, the abortionist commits the act, and the woman aborted is the object of that act. “A reading of the statute indicates that the acts prohibited are those which are performed upon the mother rather than any action taken by her. She is the object of the acts prohibited rather than the actor.”3
As one legal scholar in the 1980s who studied this issue concluded after surveying the 50 states, women “were never charged with murder, only seldom were named co-conspirators, and still more rarely were regarded as accomplices.”4
While some women were prosecuted for their abortions under the English common law, by the 1870s or 1880s, most American states came to recognize that the better policy was to not prosecute women. That was the position of New York by 1885.5
With the exception of [four] state cases, the vast majority of the states with reported cases that discussed this issue determined that states could not prosecute women under any theory of criminal liability.
States relied on various techniques of statutory interpretation, along with the generally held belief that women were victims of their abortions, to support their decisions to refrain from prosecuting women. As the appeals court in the District of Columbia wrote in 1901, “[b]y its terms, [D.C. Code Ann. § 809 (1901)] applies to the person or persons committing the act which produces the miscarriage, and not to the person upon whom it is committed, notwithstanding it may be done with her knowledge and consent. Not being liable to indictment thereunder, she is not an accomplice in the legal sense.”6
Based on the fact that abortion was dangerous and often fatal up to the 19th century, women were seen as victims.
In addition, another main reason for the non-prosecution of women is that relieving women from criminal liability provided states with a better chance of achieving convictions against abortionists---the principal.
While the reported cases in a minority of the states arrived at an opposite conclusion—as a matter of technical legal principle—even these states never took advantage of the opportunity they allotted to themselves to actually prosecute women.
This was expressly affirmed by the Maryland Supreme Court and by the Minnesota Supreme Court in almost identical terms.
Maryland: “While it may seem illogical to hold that a pregnant woman who solicits the commission of an abortion and willingly submits to its commission upon her own person is not an accomplice in the commission of the crime, yet many courts in the United States have adopted this rule, asserting that public policy demands its application and that its exception from the general rule is justified by the wisdom of experience.”7
Minnesota: “As a first impression, it may seem to be an unsound rule that one who solicits the commission of an offense, and willingly submits to its being committed upon her own person, should not be deemed an accomplice, while those whom she has thus solicited should be deemed principal criminals in the transaction. But in cases of this kind the public welfare demands the application of this rule, and its exception from the general rule seems to be justified by the wisdom of experience.”8
The target of abortion law was the abortionist—the principal in the crime.
The courts expressly affirmed that the statutes targeted the abortionist with their language. The Arkansas Supreme Court write in 1970: “Our own statute, … is directed toward the person who administers or prescribes medicine or drugs to any woman with child, with intent to produce an abortion, or to produce or attempt to produce an abortion by any other means.”9
The Oregon Supreme Court expressed the same conclusion in 1968: “A reading of the statute indicates that the acts prohibited are those which are performed upon the mother rather than any action taken by her. She is the object of the acts prohibited rather than the actor. The class of persons against whom the statute is directed does not include those upon whom abortions are performed. Most similar state statutes are so construed.”10
Are there any known cases of a woman being indicted or tried for having an abortion in the U.S.?
No. Not since 1922. There are “only two cases in which a woman was charged in any State with participating in her own abortion: from Pennsylvania in 191111 and from Texas in 1922.12
There is no documented case since 1922 in which a woman was even charged in an abortion in the United States.
Were women ever prosecuted for SELF-abortion?
Never in the United States. The last was in 1599—the end of the 16th century. As Villanova Law Professor Joseph Dellapenna, author of the encyclopedic book, Dispelling the Myths of Abortion History, has demonstrated, “in the entire history of Anglo-American law, it appears that the only woman to have been charged with a crime for self-abortion was Margaret Webb---in 1599.”
Iowa, as early as 1863, held that a woman could not be indicted for a self-abortion.13
Dellapenna also demonstrates that “while several states (including California, Connecticut, Indiana, New Hampshire, and New York) made self-abortion a crime, they did not prosecute any women---they enacted an exception to the accomplice evidence rule or granted women immunity from prosecution in order to obtain her testimony against the abortionist.”
As the Michigan Supreme Court held in 1963, “The majority view is that not only may she not be held for abortion upon herself but neither as an accomplice.”14
Those states with statutes on the books that prohibited women from aborting [self-abortion] did not prosecute.
As researcher Paul Linton has pointed out, “[a]lthough more than one-third of the States [including Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming] had statutes prohibiting a woman from aborting her own pregnancy [self-abortion] or submitting to an abortion performed on her by another, no prosecutions were reported under any of those statutes.”15
In the 1911 case in Pennsylvania, the trial court threw out the charge and the Pennsylvania Superior Court concurred, stating that “in the absence of clear statutory authority, ‘the woman who commits an abortion on herself is regarded rather as the victim than the perpetrator of the crime.’”
Based on this review of the 50 states, Linton concluded, “no American court has ever upheld the conviction of a woman for self-abortion or consenting to an abortion and, with the exception of [the Pennsylvania case from 1911 and Texas case from 1922], there is no record of a woman even being charged with either offence as a principal or as an accessory.”16
Which States treated women as victims?
At least: California, the District of Columbia, Iowa, Maryland, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas.
As long ago as 1880, a Texas court affirmed that the woman was a victim, not rhetorically but in the law: “The rule that she does not stand legally in the situation of an accomplice, but should rather be regarded as the victim than the perpetrator of the crime, is one which commends itself to our sense of justice and right, and there is certainly nothing in our law of accomplices which should be held to contravene it.”17
Many other state courts said the same thing:
California: “The abortee is considered the victim of the crime.”18
Delaware: Zutz v. State, 52 Del. 492, 160 A.2d 727 (1960).
District of Columbia (DC): “She is regarded as his victim, rather than an accomplice.”19
Idaho: State v. Rose, 75 Idaho 59, 267 P.2d 109 (1954).
Kentucky: Richmond v. Commonwealth, 370 S.W.2d 399 (KY 1963).
Maryland: “In Maryland a woman upon whom an abortion has been performed is regarded by the law as a victim of the crime, rather than a participant in it.”20
Minnesota: “in cases of this kind the public welfare demands the application of this rule, and its exception from the general rule seems to be justified by the wisdom of experience…She was the victim of a cruel act.”21
South Dakota (1924): “She does not, by consenting to the unlawful operation, become an accomplice in the crime. She should be regarded as the victim of the crime, rather than a participant in it.”22
Which states did NOT treat women as an accomplice?
At least 30: Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and Virginia.
As long ago as 1915, one Texas court held, “It has been so many times decided by this court that the woman upon whom an abortion is committed is not an accomplice that we regard the question as settled.”23
As late as 1960, the Delaware Supreme Court wrote: “It is generally held in most states that a woman in an abortion case is not an accomplice. [citing Commonwealth v. Fisher, 189 Pa. Super. 13, 149 A. 2d 666 (1959); State v. Montifoire, 95 Vt. 508, 116 A. 77 (1921); State v. Hyer, 39 N. J. L. 598 (1877)] The reasoning of the courts seems to be that the woman is generally regarded as the victim of the crime rather than a participant in it.” [citing Wilson v. State, 36 Okla. Cr. 148, 252 P. 1106 (1927); Smart v. State, 112 Tenn. 539, 80 S. W. 586 (1904)]).24
Basoff v. State, 208 Md. 643, 653-654, 119 A. 2d 917, 923 (1956) (“it is also held in this State that a pregnant woman upon whom an abortion is produced is not an accomplice of the person who administers the substance or performs the operation to produce the abortion…In Maryland, a woman upon whom an abortion has been performed is regarded by the law as a victim of the crime, rather than as a participant in it.”25
See Thompson v. United States, 30 App. D.C. 352, 362-363 (1908) at 364 (“As the victim of an unlawfully procured miscarriage was not an accessory before the fact, she is not indictable as a principal offender…”).
Which states did treat a woman as an accomplice?
There were 20 states in which statutes technically made it a crime for the woman to participate in her own abortion: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. However, these were not enforced or applied against women. There is no record of any prosecution of a woman as an accomplice even in these states.
Alabama: In 1916, an appeals court held that, as an evidentiary matter, the woman was considered an accomplice, but the woman’s guilt was not actually at issue in the case.26
Some states did treat the woman as a conspirator.
Technically, courts in a handful of states treated the woman as a possible conspirator: Colorado, Iowa, New York, North Dakota,27 and Wisconsin.
Even in these states, however, the issue in the recorded cases was not the woman’s guilt—no woman was charged or was a co-defendant in the cases—but the admissibility of evidence against the abortionist. No woman was prosecuted.
Other states rejected treating the woman as a conspirator: California, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
But statutes in these states have been repealed, and the legislatures would have to enact wholly new legislation to address abortion.
Some states had statutes prohibiting solicitation of abortion—under the general rule that solicitation of any crime is a crime—but these were evenhandedly applied to men and women.
At least Arizona, California, Connecticut, Idaho, South Dakota, and Utah.
For example, South Dakota had an anti-solicitation law for abortion. S.D. Compiled Laws Ann. 22-17-2 (1967).
However, there’s no record of any woman being prosecuted under this law, let alone convicted.
Even pro-abortion historians admit this record.
The pro-abortion historian Leslie Reagan, in her 1997 book When Abortion Was A Crime, admits that states did not prosecute women for their abortions and that women did not face criminal liability as principals, accomplices, conspirators, solicitors, or murderers, and concedes that the purpose behind that law was not to degrade women but to protect them.
Conclusion
The wisdom of not prosecuting women was based on extensive practical law enforcement experience in many states, over many years.
It will certainly be influential with prosecutors and state policy makers when Roe is overturned, and that should be the policy of legislators who are interested in the effective enforcement of abortion law.
Based on the 50-state record of enforcing abortion law for more than a century before Roe, Linton concluded that “if Roe is overruled, no woman would be prosecuted for self-abortion or consenting to an abortion, even in those few States where abortion prohibitions would be enforceable.”
Prolife legislators and pro-life leaders do not support the prosecution of women and will not push for such a policy when Roe is overturned. This is demonstrated by abortion regulations enacted in the past 20 years—like the federal partial birth abortion ban—in which women are expressly excluded from any possible prosecution. Instead, pro-life legislators are advocating laws that defend the unborn and protect women from the negative impact of abortion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Endnotes
1. Commonwealth v. Weible, 45 Pa. Super. 207 (1911).
2. Crissman v. State, 93 Tex. Crim. 15, 245 S.W. 438 (Tex. Crim. App. 1922).
3. State v. Barnett, 249 Or. 226, 228, 437 P.2d 821, 822 (1968).
4. Paul D. Wohlers, J.D., Women and Abortion: Prospects of Criminal Charges (published in
People v. Vedder, 98 N.Y. 630, 632 (1885) (“It is quite clear that the woman spoken of in the statute is not regarded as one of the persons who could be guilty of the crime described in the 294th section and that she could not, therefore, be indicted under that section.”)
5. Thompson v. United States, 30 App. D.C. 352, 362-363 (1908).
6. Basoff v. State, 208 Md. at 654, 119 A. 2d at 923.
7. State v. Pearce, 56 Minn. 226, 231 57 N.W. 652, 653.
8. Heath v. State, 249 Ark. 217, 219, 459 S.W. 2d 420, 422 (1970) (citing Ark. Stat. Ann. §41-303 (Supp. 1969), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 910 (1971).
9. State v. Barnett, 249 Or. 226, 229, 437 P. 2d 821, 822 (1968) (emphasis added).
10. Commonwealth v. Weible, 45 Pa. Super. 207 (1911).
11. Crissman v. State, 93 Tex. Crim. 15, 245 S.W. 438 (Tex. Crim. App. 1922).
12. Hatfield v. Gano, 15 Iowa 177 (1863).
13. Petition of Vickers, 371 Mich. 114, 115, 123 N.W.2d 253, 254 (1963).
14. Paul Benjamin Linton, The Legal Status of Abortion in the States if Roe v. Wade is Overruled, 23 Issues in Law & Medicine 3, 6 n.15 (2007).
15. Paul Benjamin Linton, The Legal Status of Abortion in the States if Roe v. Wade is Overruled, 23 Issues in Law & Medicine 3, 6 n.15 (2007).
16. Watson v. State, 9 Tex. Ct. App. 237, 244 (1880).
17. People v. Reinard, 33 Cal.Rptr. 908, 912, 220 Cal.App.2d 720, 724 (1963). See also People v. Gibson, 33 Cal.App. 459, 166 P. 585 (1917).
18. Thompson v. United States, 30 App.D.C. 352, 363 (1908).
19. Basoff v. State, 208 Md. 643, 654, 118 A.2d 917, 923 (1956). This was the policy of Maryland as early as 1912. Meno v.
20. State, 117 Md. 435, 83 A. 759 (1912).
21. State v. Pearce, 56 Minn. 226, 230, 57 N.W. 652, 653 (1894).
22. State v. Burlingame, 47 S.D. 332, 198 N.W. 824 (1924).
23. Gray v. State, 77 Tex. Crim. 221, 229, 178 S.W. 337, 341 (1915).
24. Zutz v. State, 52 Del. 492, 496-497, 160 A. 2d 727, 729 (1960).
25. Meno v. State, 117 Md. 435, 83 A. 759 (1912).
26. Trent v. State, 15 Ala.App. 485, 73 So. 834 (1916).
27. State v. Mattson, 53 N.D. 486, 206 N.W. 778 (1925); State v. Reilly, 25 N.D. 339, 141 N.W. 720 (1913).
Long article.
I’m sorry but if a woman kills her baby, she should be charged with murder.
Hopefully, that will be the law in states when Roe is overturned.
A good comphrehensive article...thanks...magritte
I like your signature. It reminds me of a quote by Thomas Sowell: "If the Democrats proposed jumping off a 1000 foot cliff tommorow the Republicans would propose jumping off a 500 foot cliff next week."
If there are no abortionists, who would perform the abortions?
Agreed. It’s really no different than a woman contracting a hit-man to kill her husband when a woman hires an abortionist to kill her child.
Not likely. Most states would pass legislation initially to legalize abortion unless old laws were still on the books otherwise (IMO). I'm sure there would be some hold outs but doubt many would/could pass laws outright banning it.
The matter would at least be resolved at the federal level concerning whether or not a state has the right to choose whether or not abortion is legal.
See how I did that? ...Giving the state the right to choose?
I am pro-choice, and this article illustrates why. Pretending the abortion provider is a “bad guy” while the woman is an innocent victim is absurd and infantilizes women.
I don’t think it makes any sense to punish the person who performs the abortion if you don’t also punish the people who decided to get an abortion also, including the woman. If abortion is a crime, they are all accessories to the crime.
If the woman’s parents pay for the abortion, and the boyfriend drives her to the place where the abortion is performed, they should all be punished if the abortion provider is. If a man hires someone to kill his wife, does only the hit-mam go to jail?
Very few people are prepared put women in jail to punish them for abortions. If that is the case, the pro-life movement should give up its delusion that legal sanctions are going to eliminate abortion.
Although I would oppose state laws banning all abortions, I also oppose the fabrication of a constitutional “right” to abortion of Roe v. Wade.
It’s a moral issue not a criminal issue. Mothers should not be jailed. If the Bishops spent more effort in directing letters to mothers, they would not have to make it a political issue and pass the buck with letters to voters every 4 years.
The Bishops might also say something from time to time about shacking up and the pill.
I think the whole point of the article is to minimize voices like yours. If it became known that any significant number of pro-lifers wanted to prosecute women for having abortions, it would only strengthen Roe politically.
At least you’re not (I hope) calling for retroactive (hence illegal) prosecutions.
“If Roe was overturned today, abortion would be legal in at least 42-43 states tomorrow, and likely all 50 states.”
If that is true, there is no point in overturning Roe.
I agree that if abortion is murder, and abortionists are prosecuted (though they were not prosecuted for murder when abotrion was illegal in many states, abortion was not considered murder), then the women (and their partners) who engage the abortionists should be prosecuted as well.
Trumandogz, the point here is not a perfect judgment of souls (which can only be done by God), but an effective enforcement of public policy.
If public policy is actually to stop criminal abortion, this is the way to do it.
If YOU, Trumandogz, wish to press the point that adult women who are mentally competent must be held morally responsible, OK, good point: but in LAW it is perfectly legitimate, even necessary, to refrain from prosecuting the aborted women, in order to shut down the guy with the knife.
“It’s a moral issue not a criminal issue.”
Too many can’t see that making abortion a legal issue instead of a moral issue makes them the same as the leftist in this country. If you can’t convince someone that your right make them a criminal.
Same comparison with the KKK and the Black Panthers, just different skin color.
Neither group really believes in the Constitution. I guess a Christian Theocracy is OK but Sharia is not?
The Constitution and abortion will always be a paradox.
I see most of the arguments for criminalization as a lack of faith in God.
I guess I’m PO’d because so many put this issue above what is good for the Country. If we loose to Obama it won’t matter. Abortion will be frequent and cheap.
Now for the attacks.
Great post, for the history of abortion laws and the myths about the ramifications of overturning Roe-v-Wade. Only here can one be so well informed, by each other.
Young Women and Sexual Coercion: Reproductive Health Realities
By Esta Soler
Created Oct 23 2008 - 8:00am
Nearly every time a candidate, presidential or otherwise, discusses reproductive health in this year’s election the conversation turns to prevention. Each has his or her specific ideas about what prevention means. Unfortunately, this conversation has been woefully incomplete.
There is an important contributor to unintended pregnancy, especially among young people, that is rarely mentioned on the campaign trail or even among advocates — namely, the strong link between unintended pregnancies and dating violence or coercion.
We’ve all heard the stereotypes and assumptions—”she’s pregnant because she was too irresponsible to use birth control” or “she got HIV because she sleeps around.” But emerging data is shining a light on a very different story: an astonishing number of young women, while dating or in relationships, are raped or coerced into sex, prevented from using protection, or forced into choices that are not their own.
The correlation between abuse and pregnancy is complex - and overdue for further research and public discussion. Consider the following facts:
Rates of sexual coercion are high. New research conducted for the Family Violence Prevention Fund finds that nearly 1 in 5 women age 18 to 24 report having experienced forced sexual intercourse at least once in their lives. The most common types of force are verbal or physical pressure, and being physically held down. More than half the women forced to have sexual intercourse report experiencing each of these types of force. Approximately a quarter of the women report being physically hurt.
Abused women are more likely to have an unintended pregnancy. Forty percent of pregnant women who have been exposed to abuse report that their pregnancy was unintended, compared to just eight percent of non-abused women. As many as two-thirds of adolescents who become pregnant were sexually or physically abused some time in their lives.
Pregnant women are more at risk for abuse. Homicide is the second leading cause of death for pregnant and recently pregnant women.
The Family Violence Prevention Fund’s new kNOw MORE initiative [1] is designed to start a dialogue about the birth control sabotage and reproductive coercion that many teens and young women face, and help draw the link to the resulting reproductive health problems. We are creating a space for women to share stories, and raising awareness among those who may be at risk as well as their friends, policy makers and others.
Abuse often takes the form of birth control sabotage or other reproductive control.
The kNOw MORE initiative shines a spotlight on the prevalence of coercion and the ways it affects reproductive health. The stories on our site shed light on how this plays out.
One woman, Kylie, who shared her story [2], wrote, “when I first met my ex, he never wanted to use condoms. He did want me to use the ‘morning-after pill,’ I’ll admit. I was quite young and didn’t know how to stand up for myself, so I became pregnant after coerced sex. For the next four years, I stayed with my ex for the sake of the baby, suffering the most horrific kinds of abuse—physical and emotional. His “reason” for abusing me? Because I ‘trapped’ him through pregnancy. Although the only thing I’d been doing since the pregnancy was begging him to let me leave, he threatened to kill me, the baby, and my entire family if I ever attempted it.”
Too often, victims of reproductive coercion are stigmatized and labeled. They hide their stories because they feel judged and shamed.
The bottom line is that unintended pregnancies are not simply a matter of promiscuous young women who do not use birth control. A pregnancy may be the result of a controlling partner who has engaged in birth control sabotage or coerced sexual intercourse. Anyone who is serious about turning back the tide of unintended pregnancies in this country must also understand the profound connections between violence, coercion and the reproductive health consequences - which include pregnancy, STD’s and HIV and emotional trauma - for women.
We can, we must, take action. October is National Domestic Violence Awareness month, and this year it also coincides with the 2008 elections - a time when we gather as a nation to discuss important issues. The time has come for a meaningful dialogue about how we are going to commit to stopping sexual coercion and the unintended pregnancies that can result. A generation of young women is counting on us.
Source URL (retrieved on Oct 24 2008 - 4:55pm): http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/10/21/making-link-between-reproductive-health-and-violence-against-women
Links:
[1] http://www.knowmoresaymore.org
[2] http://www.knowmoresaymore.org/2008/07/story-kylie/
The penal code is not written for mechanical abstractions, but for people. It is unrealistic not to build concepts like "duress" and "due reflection" into criminal penalties and procedures. To say that the abortionist has more moral culpability than the woman whose baby he kills does not "infantilize" women; it recognizes that a woman, because of inescapable biology, has more at risk from pregnancy than any man. She faces profound, life-altering suffering, if her social situation is bad, and therefore has less accountability for her efforts to avoid it.
It's true that infants and children are legally accountable for essentially none of their own actions, except for murder in some cases. But that does not erase the the moral and legal importance of accountability for adults. Men who commit illegal acts under duress or misapprehension are also less legally accountable than those who do wrong with their eyes open.
An abortionist renews his reflection and his intent to induce abortions every day he shows up at the office. He simply is more accountable than his patients, who are ALL under personal duress. He makes his living, like a drug dealer, by exploiting that duress.
Book 'im, Dan-o!
Absent Roe, I think many States would end up with European-style laws: abortion is legal in the first trimester, regulated in the second and heavily limited in the third.
Seems to work for most European countries, since they have lower abortion rates than the US.
Bump for later.
What happens when the baby butchery industry realizes the immunity of mothers, and so is born/perfected the home-kit type abortion, making mothers the abortionist?
If the mother is immune why should she testify against the abortionist? Is the immunity based on cooperation in court?
You are smarter than me when it comes to this stuff, so I asked some questions I always have with the “mothers can’t be held responsible by law as concerns abortion if you want to really protect the unborn” argument (which could be the way to go but I’m too dumb to see it).
Freegards
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.