Posted on 12/04/2008 1:37:22 PM PST by NYer
Abortion is state matter as any murder. Drug regulation has been traditionally federal.
You're not talking about law, but about an end-run around law. Yes, a lawyer could probably be found who would sue drug companies in various states for the harm caused by contraceptive drugs. It's been done for other drugs. I think there's a case pending in California regarding the deaths caused by RU-486. Maybe a court would find manufacturers legally liable; it did with tobacco companies. I don't buy the reasoning, personally, since the risks of the drugs are there in writing, and the choice to use them is the responsibility of the user.
Okay, I've discussed the premise. What's so bad about it? It's how our court system sometimes works. Note that tobacco is still being sold, following the financial settlements; this was, in fact, necessary to keep the money flowing to the states.
We're talking about writing law, and I'm talking about taking into consideration the proposition that if you do it badly that end-run will be successful and you could end up back where you started or worse.
If you consider the New Deal tradition.
If there isn't any serious idea or intent of legislation being involved, what's it doing in a political activism forum?
My instincts are anarcho-libertarian, by the way. I’d much rather see a wholesale return to customary law, which in the US means state case law, and regulation done through successful tort cases.
However, whatever the juriducal system is, in natural justice abortion is murder, and abortifacient behavior is at best involuntary manslaughter.
Being discussed in a theoretical and philosophical sort of way.
You still haven't explained why your "worst-case outcome" is so bad, or how many times you've been pregnant.
OK. Now you need to define exactly what "abortificant behavior" is that would constitute grounds for conviction, and what evidence can be accepted as reasonable suspicion for investigation and reasonable proof of guilt.
Legislation gets passed, somebody sues the pharma companies, they take birth control pills off the market, legislator's telephones light up, the repeal the legislation and quickly lose interest in ever trying it again. You're back where you started and a bunch of lawyers got rich. What's not to like?
No, I don’t need to define that; the court would determine that.
If your point is that much of abortifacient behaviors cannot result in indictment, let alone a conviction I absolutely agree.
What will they base that determination on?
Would you vote for legislation that allows conviction on charges of manslaughter or homicide based on criteria "that will be determined by the courts later"?
I wouldn't, and wouldn't encourage my representatives to.
If you can't say objectively what it is, then it can be prosecuted arbitrarily.
Courts operated under customary law for centuries without much positive law. No one needs the government to tell the court what a murder is: the court looks into the evidence of harm caused, the perpetrator, and the intent, and delivers the verdict. It is no different when the victim is a fetus.
There's something very wrong with that statement.
Let us separate the pro-life legislation form my personal views on the origin of law.
No matter what legal system one has, one way or another it is capable of adjudicating murder with several degrees, and unintentional manslaughter, again with several degrees. If a legal system has that, it is capable of applying the same laws to the killing of the unborn. This is why demanding that specific to the fetus putative laws are spelled out is a diversion.
If you are curious about origin of law and how it is separate from government, read up on common law (more accurately called “customary” law). That has been the foundation of English, and by extension, American legal system; it was also commonplace in the Middle Ages. It is not necessary to have a government in order to have jurisprudence.
If you write legislation that prescribes manslaughter or homicide charges for "abortificant behavior" but doesn't spell out what "abortifcant behavior" is it will never withstand a court challenge, and will be overturned.
All the legislation has to say is that a fetus has the same rights as any child under the US law.
Then various cases will be heard in courts, involving harming fetuses. Some will be won and some lost for the prosecution, and a legal state-by-state standard will emerge.
Let me know when you find a legislator that is willing to propose legislation that says just that.
How are you going to put a fetus into protective custody if the parents are deemed unfit?
Some state legislators pushed for a similar state constitutional amendments. You are correct that presently even a modest goal of introducing restrictions on surgical abortions is out of reach. This doesn’t invalidate long term objectives.
Obviously, taking a fetus into protective custody is not an option; however, if the mother is a systematic threat to her child, she certainly can be taken into custody herself, where her access to harmful substances can be blocked.
I realize that scenarios exist when the mother can harm the fetus and nothing can be done about it, same as scenarios when the mother can harm her toddler or other dependent.
Neither the political climate or enforcement specifics invalidate the issue of justice.
What exactly are the long term objectives?
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.