America transitions into Gilead

[Minoosh]

I'm pretty sure you are conflating the Georgia and Alabama laws.

Nope. I'm talking about Georgia. Killing a fetus is homicide.

For example, the idea that women seeking abortions cannot be charged in Georgia is firmly established by legal precedent.

The law smashes a boatload of precedents. It's weird to me that you would not see that possibility.

However, that's legal precedent, not the actual text of the law. I can easily see a judge, even an appellate judge, saying that the precedent doesn't apply since it was formed under a prior statute, and at a time when Roe v. Wade was a defining precedent for abortion generally. I can easily see a woman being charged under the Georgia law (not the Alabama law, which explicitly says she can't be) for participating in an illegal abortion.

Bingo. I must be confused, but you agree with me.

Summary: Give up on the online magazine articles, or the web pages of PACs, or of advocacy groups.

My lady brain is very poor at evaluating Internet content, so thanks for the tip.

Find what lawyers are saying about the laws. Surely You'll find them saying that abortion is not murder, and that the pregnant women (probably) can't be charged in Georgia.

Yeah, I did that. Abortion is at least homicide if you define a fetus as a human being.

I say "probably" because opinion is not unanimous among the authors I have read, even after dismissing the agenda driven authors whose purpose is to stir the pot, as opposed to telling the truth.

So you agree with me.

Killing a person is the definition of homicide. If you have a different word for it, please share.

 

[JoeMorgue]

By declaring the fetus to be a person, complete with all the tax implications, census counts, everything else that they can count the fetus as a person for the purposes of state law, they are stating that under Georgia law, the fetus is a person, and so any consideration of equal rights under the law, as provided by the 14th amendment, must include the fetus among those that have equal rights.

Which is all a load of nonsense and chips since nobody in Georgia or Alabama leadership is putting anything on the table about counting fetuses in the census or given them any other rights under the law.

 

[Bob001]

Of course it can, but I don't know if the law would stand. But as far as I can tell, there's no explicit "carve out" in the Georgia law. The claim that women could not be punished rests on interpretation of pronouns but that usage is not entirely consistent. More assurance offered up is a Georgia Court of Appeals ruling that absolved a woman for shooting herself in the abdomen, killing the fetus.

Apparently there are laws still to be written that might clarify things, but one big question looms: If fetuses are counted as people, holding women harmless who self-abort would IMO be a MASSIVE constitutional issue. The fetus is a person with human rights, and how can you provide equal protection if it's OK for some people to kill them?.....

Who says a fetus is a "person," and what rights do you think it has? That is the core of the dispute, and many flatly do not agree. The original laws against abortion were based on protecting the woman and holding a man responsible, not on any claim that a fetus is a person. Beyond that, we recognize that people have rights that belong to them, even at the expense of others. People die every day because they need kidney transplants and can't find donors, even though you have two healthy kidneys (presumably), and it would only be a minor inconvenience for you to be forced to give one up. After all, it would save somebody else's life. You're okay with that, right? Livers regenerate; you could be required to donate half your liver a couple times a year. Great idea, right?

Even if a fetus was a person, it really shouldn't be controversial for a woman to say "I do not choose to share my body, my blood and my health with this person. Please separate him/her/it from me," just as she could if somebody -- even her own child -- grabbed her on the street and said "Gimme your kidney!"

 

[Bob001]

.....
Killing a person is the definition of homicide. If you have a different word for it, please share.

"Homicide" is in fact killing a person. But it's not necessarily a crime. A hunting incident might resolved as an accidental homicide. Killing in self-defense can be deemed justifiable homicide. Even if you want to claim that a fetus is a person, you can still accept that the mother's rights have priority over any rights it might have.

 

[Meadmaker]

Which is all a load of nonsense and chips since nobody in Georgia or Alabama leadership is putting anything on the table about counting fetuses in the census or given them any other rights under the law.

In Georgia, they most specifically are doing exactly that. Well, the federal government runs "the census", i.e. the one we are familiar with that is used to tally up electoral votes. Georgia can't dictate how to do that one. On the other hand, they can count them in population numbers that have to do with state legislative districts, and with state taxes, and with distribution of state funds, and any other state law that deals with counting how many people are in a particular location.

Under this new law, fetuses will be included in every population count that is conducted by the State of Georgia.

 

[Meadmaker]

Nope. I'm talking about Georgia. Killing a fetus is homicide.

"99 years" doesn't appear in the Georgia law, but it does in the Alabama law. That's why I'm pretty sure you're conflating the two.

 

[Meadmaker]

Who says a fetus is a "person,"...

The legislature of the State of Georgia.

 

[JoeMorgue]

In Georgia, they most specifically are doing exactly that. Well, the federal government runs "the census", i.e. the one we are familiar with that is used to tally up electoral votes. Georgia can't dictate how to do that one. On the other hand, they can count them in population numbers that have to do with state legislative districts, and with state taxes, and with distribution of state funds, and any other state law that deals with counting how many people are in a particular location.

Under this new law, fetuses will be included in every population count that is conducted by the State of Georgia.

Call me when they do literally anything to improve the lives of the unborn (or indeed the born) in anyway that's functionally different from punishing women. Until then it's all a meaningless distinction without difference.

They only care about fetuses when caring about fetuses allows them to punish women.

You can't be 50th in education and be super-concerned for the next generation without an ulterior motive.

 

[Meadmaker]

Call me when they do literally anything to improve the lives of the unborn (or indeed the born) in anyway that's functionally different from punishing women. Until then it's all a meaningless distinction without difference.

They only care about fetuses when caring about fetuses allows them to punish women.

You can't be 50th in education and be super-concerned for the next generation without an ulterior motive.

You are missing the point.

It's all about Roe v. Wade. That's why the "personhood" stuff is in the law. It isn't about any practical effects that would come about, other than derailing one argument that was used by the court majority in Roe v. Wade.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You are missing the point.

It's all about Roe v. Wade. That's why the "personhood" stuff is in the law. It isn't about any practical effects that would come about, other than derailing one argument that was used by the court majority in Roe v. Wade.

I'm well aware of what it's "about." Hell I'm surprised it took this long, I would have figured this would have happened damn near literally the day after Kavanaugh got confirmed.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'm well aware of what it's "about." Hell I'm surprised it took this long, I would have figured this would have happened damn near literally the day after Kavanaugh got confirmed.

I was kind of confused about that myself. I might be inclined to believe that it just takes a bit of time to draft legislation and bring it to the floor, but the fact that four states all delivered new laws at almost precisely the same time seems like an odd coincidence.

Regardless, the game is on. They are aiming at Roe and at abortion rights. I think they'll win at the Supreme Court level. I'm not sure what happens after that.

 

[Minoosh]

Who says a fetus is a "person," and what rights do you think it has?

Georgia says the fetus is a person.

People die every day because they need kidney transplants and can't find donors, even though you have two healthy kidneys (presumably), and it would only be a minor inconvenience for you to be forced to give one up. After all, it would save somebody else's life. You're okay with that, right? Livers regenerate; you could be required to donate half your liver a couple times a year. Great idea, right?

Who do you think you're talking to? I never said any of that stuff.

Even if a fetus was a person, it really shouldn't be controversial for a woman to say "I do not choose to share my body, my blood and my health with this person. Please separate him/her/it from me," just as she could if somebody -- even her own child -- grabbed her on the street and said "Gimme your kidney!"

Again, I have no idea what you think my position is, but I proposed thinking like this several pages back.

 

[Minoosh]

"99 years" doesn't appear in the Georgia law, but it does in the Alabama law. That's why I'm pretty sure you're conflating the two.

OK. Try to understand. As I indicated, when I searched, I could not find any reference to 99 years; it was a number that had stuck in my mind and I said very clearly that I could not source it at this time. Setting Alabama aside, totally aside, I then focused on Georgia, because Georgia is the one with the personhood statute. Then, on my own, I asserted that the appropriate word for killing another person is homicide. I am 100 percent sure of that, whether Georgia calls it homicide or not.

I'm not sure how condescending you sound when you again propose that I am conflating the two bills.

 

[Minoosh]

"Homicide" is in fact killing a person. But it's not necessarily a crime. A hunting incident might resolved as an accidental homicide. Killing in self-defense can be deemed justifiable homicide. Even if you want to claim that a fetus is a person, you can still accept that the mother's rights have priority over any rights it might have.

Right. I knew that. I'm not sure why you think I didn't.

 

[Minoosh]

In Georgia, they most specifically are doing exactly that. Well, the federal government runs "the census", i.e. the one we are familiar with that is used to tally up electoral votes. Georgia can't dictate how to do that one. On the other hand, they can count them in population numbers that have to do with state legislative districts, and with state taxes, and with distribution of state funds, and any other state law that deals with counting how many people are in a particular location.

Under this new law, fetuses will be included in every population count that is conducted by the State of Georgia.

I am not at all sure the Supreme Court will let this stand. In fact, I'm pretty sure it won't.

I could be wrong.

 

[phiwum]

Of course it can, but I don't know if the law would stand. But as far as I can tell, there's no explicit "carve out" in the Georgia law. The claim that women could not be punished rests on interpretation of pronouns but that usage is not entirely consistent. More assurance offered up is a Georgia Court of Appeals ruling that absolved a woman for shooting herself in the abdomen, killing the fetus.

Apparently there are laws still to be written that might clarify things, but one big question looms: If fetuses are counted as people, holding women harmless who self-abort would IMO be a MASSIVE constitutional issue. The fetus is a person with human rights, and how can you provide equal protection if it's OK for some people to kill them?
I got frustrated searching around and this seemed like a reasonable link from snopes.com which lists the more dire claims as "unproven." It uses precedents and traditions to speculate that women will not be held liable. But as far as I can tell there is no explicit statement that gets women off the hook. An expert said a woman could be charged. It's just not clear that it would stick.

ETA: I don't mean to browbeat, but I'm baffled that you don't see a problem allowing some people to get away with killing people.

I never said I'd be okay with a law that lets folks solicit hit men, but there's enough wrong with this law that I don't much care that it criminalizes doctors but not their patients.

I don't know anyone offhand who favors going after doctors but not their patients, outside of this legislature. It's a strange law in that respect, but it's a very bad law for other reasons. I focus on those reasons, not the uncertain side aspects.

 

[phiwum]

One more thing. A lot of people wonder what the point is of saying the fetus is a person, if not to say that killing one is murder.


It's all about Roe v. Wade. It has been many years since I read the Roe v. Wade decision, so I don't remember it absolutely clearly, but one of the lines of argument used by the court majority was that the rights of the woman clearly overrode the rights of the fetus, because the fetus was not a person. To bolster that judgement, they noted that fetuses weren't counted in the census. Fetuses weren't counted as dependents for tax purposes, etc. Well, the Georgia legislature is trying to shortcut that argument. By declaring the fetus to be a person, complete with all the tax implications, census counts, everything else that they can count the fetus as a person for the purposes of state law, they are stating that under Georgia law, the fetus is a person, and so any consideration of equal rights under the law, as provided by the 14th amendment, must include the fetus among those that have equal rights.

I don't think you're right that the court said the fetus wasn't a person.

I was mistaken. They said this.

All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.

Thus, the meaning of person in the Fourteenth Amendment does not include fetuses.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Regardless, the game is on. They are aiming at Roe and at abortion rights. I think they'll win at the Supreme Court level. I'm not sure what happens after that.

What happens next for abortion, or the SC? I expect every red state is drawing up plans to outlaw it the moment it becomes possible.

As for the SC, assuming Kavanaugh passes this loyalty test, at a minimum we're looking at a new Jim Crow era. The GOP is well aware they can win with only the deplorable vote and a bit of gerrymandering and disenfranchisement, so they will move to solidify that position.

 

[phiwum]

ETA: I don't mean to browbeat, but I'm baffled that you don't see a problem allowing some people to get away with killing people.

I'd like to return to this comment.

Here's a law that criminalizes abortion, punishing doctors who perform it. Surely, your main concern isn't that it lets women off the hook, so why so much attention to that part?

As well, what I have said here is that I don't see a clear argument that the focus on doctors to the exclusion of patients is unconstitutional. You do understand that it doesn't mean I "don't see a problem"?

 

[Meadmaker]

I don't think you're right that the court said the fetus wasn't a person.

I was mistaken. They said this.



Thus, the meaning of person in the Fourteenth Amendment does not include fetuses.

Exactly. I also suspect that if you were to look at "all this" referred to in the opinion, it would be very specifically the things found in the Georgia law. I think the Georgia law provisions were aimed, specifically, at undermining the argument that they used, the conclusion of which you quoted in your post.