America transitions into Gilead

[Meadmaker]

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.

I meant for abortion.

For most of our lives, abortion has been legal. That means the people trying to overturn the status quo have been more energized, while the people who take it for granted that they can always have an abortion have grown complacent. I don't know what will happen once the reality of the end of legal abortion hits home. Will it energize the pro choice base, resulting in elections of pro choice, probably Democratic, legislatures?

I don't know. I just can't predict it. My hunch is that it will, and the result will be gains for Democrats in the post-ruling state houses, but I wouldn't put money on that result.

 

[phiwum]

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.

I think so too, but I sure didn't remember that line the last time I read Roe v Wade, which was several years ago and may have been an excerpted version.

 

[Minoosh]

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.

Kellyanne Conway winced when Trump said women should be punished, because it conflicts with a major theme in right-to-life circles. Women are victims, the thinking goes. Maybe this bugs me more because I'm a woman, but it's basically saying women have no agency, and this position seems indefensible to me. It's blatantly discriminatory, something I hope is not lost on the federal judiciary.

Someone mentioned the 14th Amendment earlier and said fetuses would be entitled to equal protection under the law. But what about this:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

That explicitly defines citizens as people who are born. I'm not sure Georgia gets to add a whole new category of citizens. Other states are bound to object.

And the practical implications are just creepy. Is the state of Georgia going to keep a database of pregnant women in the guise of protecting the unborn? Will women be required to report their pregnancies to the state? Will miscarriages need to be independently evaluated to rule out foul play? Will death certificates be required? Are birth certificates going to be supplanted by certificates of conception?

I'm pretty sure Meadmaker will think that I'm getting this from alarmist websites, but I'm not. These are things occurring to me on my own as I think over the implications of this radical new law.

 

[Puppycow]

I suppose I'm never going to get an answer to this:

I have the obligation to stand up for the right of that other person to live. That's my duty as a moral being.

And will you pay her hospital bill and the cost of all her doctor's visits? And take responsibility for raising the child once it's born?

If we're going to have a society where women are going to be forced to carry their fetuses to term, then the least we can do is to make society responsible for all the medical care that comes with that, as well as the responsibility for raising the child once it comes out of the womb (unless of course the mother wants to keep it). If she doesn't, then her responsibility ends there and someone else has to take responsibility for raising the child.

I would prefer of course that abortion remain legal. But pro-lifers, if they truly believe that, should step up and take the responsibility for raising unwanted children.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'm finding conflicting answers on whether women face prosecution in Georgia. The sponsor of the bill says no, but the fetus is legally a human, and if you participate in killing a human, generally all the plotters are prosecuted. Some may receive leniency for cooperation, but they're usually not entirely off the hook. I also saw the figure "10 years" (vs. 99 for doctors) but I'm not exactly sure where I read it.

I see potential for people falsely accusing doctors.

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.

My mistake.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'm pretty sure Meadmaker will think that I'm getting this from alarmist websites, but I'm not. These are things occurring to me on my own as I think over the implications of this radical new law.

Well that certainly doesn't surprise me. The people who write the alarmist websites are doing the same thing.

However, I recommend consulting lawyers, or at least journalists who are quoting lawyers. Most of that stuff that I have been writing is not stuff that occurred to me on my own thinking over the implications of the law. I had some of those thoughts, and then I went out to the web to find more scholarly descriptions of the law, and that's what I've been reporting to you, gentle readers of this thread.

 

[Minoosh]

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.

Thanks, when we were cross-posting I missed the fact that you had already talked about the 14th Amendment and who is counted as a person.

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?

Sorry to keep beating a dead horse; I had missed this post of yours. My concern is not that it lets women off the hook - it's that it treats women as innocent bystanders to a process that they themselves set into motion. We're being told that we don't own our actions, that we are unfortunate victims and we shouldn't worry, because no one would dream of holding us responsible for our choices. I'm identifying logical inconsistencies that, to my way of thinking, should make this law DOA when it's brought before any judge, long before it can make its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. It should never get that far.

It's a cynical, manipulative piece of legislation, propagated (promulgated?) in extremely bad faith, and I have homed in on one a particularly glaring (to me) inconsistencies that signal no one should take law seriously. I would be shocked if Georgia can make this stick. We live in interesting times, though, and while I think this law is ridiculous, well, ridiculous things sometimes happen. If Georgia had simply written a statute outlawing abortion and providing for penalties to all involved parties I would have less to quarrel with. I still wouldn't like its provisions, but I wouldn't have found it such an outright insult to the thinking people of Georgia.

 

[Meadmaker]

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

That explicitly defines citizens as people who are born. I'm not sure Georgia gets to add a whole new category of citizens.

The Georgia law doesn't address the question of citizenship.


Please understand what I'm up to here. You're thinking of things that are occurring to you, and that's a great place to start, but I'm encouraging people, you and others, to go beyond thinking about things, and speculating, and connecting the dots in any way that they can with the limited information available to them and, instead, go out and find the actual words of the actual law and see if they match the ideas that occur to them. In some cases, things are vague and it will be up to the judge that hears the case. In other cases, the law is absolutely crystal clear.

That specific line of the constitution was indeed cited in Roe v. Wade, but not with respect to citizenship, and the Georgia law doesn't deal with citizenship. It deals with personhood.


But even if the questions were, what does that line in the constitution say? And does it help us see how to interpret the law?


It says, "All persons born ... in the United States, ..., are citizens..."

So, people might remember this one from philosophy or logic classes.

All persons born in the US are citizens.

Fetus X has not been born (in the US or anywhere else)


Therefore...…(the conclusion is left as an exercise for the reader.)

And the practical implications are just creepy. Is the state of Georgia going to keep a database of pregnant women in the guise of protecting the unborn? Will women be required to report their pregnancies to the state? Will miscarriages need to be independently evaluated to rule out foul play? Will death certificates be required? Are birth certificates going to be supplanted by certificates of conception?

I agree it is kind of creepy. But why would any of the things you asked about be true? There is an actual law with actual words in it, and these questions can be answered there.


Database? No.

Pregnancy reporting? No, but see below.

Miscarriages evaluated? The law makes no provision for this, but if there is suspicion of a crime, i.e. a suspicion that an illegal abortion has occurred, then it ought to be like every other crime. There's a lot of discretion involved on whether or not to investigate, but I can certainly imagine this happening.

Death certificates? They are already required under Georgia law. In the case of fetal death or of induced termination of pregnancy, paperwork is required.


Conception certificates? No.


Could future legislation change any of the above answers? Yes. Indeed, as someone pointed out, we can expect if Roe is overturned that this will be only the first step in the war against abortion. First, they have to get Roe out of the way.


One thing that I am fairly certain would be true is that a woman who has a miscarriage after six weeks or more would be entitled to claim the fetus as a dependent for tax purposes. The law seems fairly clear on that part.

 

[Roboramma]

It says, "All persons born ... in the United States, ..., are citizens..."

So, people might remember this one from philosophy or logic classes.

All persons born in the US are citizens.

Fetus X has not been born (in the US or anywhere else)


Therefore...…(the conclusion is left as an exercise for the reader.)

All X are Y
Z is not X

Therefore.... nothing. There's no implication either way.

 

[ponderingturtle]

"Hey I don't care if a Woman's basic rights are taken away as long as I get my Tax cuts".

That isn't true, republicans don't like women having rights in the first place.

I just kind of wonder to these people is a pregnancy where the result is form combining of two initial conceptions is that baby a killer or two people?

 

[Lurch]

A question I mooted earlier, that I'd have liked to ask lawmakers, but now would pose to all who would support a law outlawing abortion in cases of rape...

If *your* daughter were raped and inseminated, would you demand she carry her baby to term? Your wife? Your sister? Your mother? If the rapist were to be of what to you consider to be a less savoury race?

I'm obviously thinking in the first place of those white Southerners inclined to bigotry and hypocrisy who would drift to draconian laws revealing their views of women as chattel. You know, the kind who clutch the Bible on Sunday and quietly pay for their mistress's abortion on Monday.

When the rubber hits the road, and their own kin are impacted, will they stand as firmly for the laws they would foist upon society?

 

[ponderingturtle]

A question I mooted earlier, that I'd have liked to ask lawmakers, but now would pose to all who would support a law outlawing abortion in cases of rape...

If *your* daughter were raped and inseminated, would you demand she carry her baby to term? Your wife? Your sister? Your mother? If the rapist were to be of what to you consider to be a less savoury race?

Please they never care about their positions in the first place when it is their daughter or mistress who is pregnant.

 

[phiwum]

Thanks, when we were cross-posting I missed the fact that you had already talked about the 14th Amendment and who is counted as a person.

Sorry to keep beating a dead horse; I had missed this post of yours. My concern is not that it lets women off the hook - it's that it treats women as innocent bystanders to a process that they themselves set into motion. We're being told that we don't own our actions, that we are unfortunate victims and we shouldn't worry, because no one would dream of holding us responsible for our choices. I'm identifying logical inconsistencies that, to my way of thinking, should make this law DOA when it's brought before any judge, long before it can make its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. It should never get that far.

It's a cynical, manipulative piece of legislation, propagated (promulgated?) in extremely bad faith, and I have homed in on one a particularly glaring (to me) inconsistencies that signal no one should take law seriously. I would be shocked if Georgia can make this stick. We live in interesting times, though, and while I think this law is ridiculous, well, ridiculous things sometimes happen. If Georgia had simply written a statute outlawing abortion and providing for penalties to all involved parties I would have less to quarrel with. I still wouldn't like its provisions, but I wouldn't have found it such an outright insult to the thinking people of Georgia.

I think I get your position, but it seems to me that you focus on the wrong front.

Suppose Georgia passed a bill that outlawed abortion without calling the fetus a person and charging women if they seek abortion. You would oppose that law as well, even though it doesn't have the features which have dominated the conversation recently. Why? Because it isn't the details of the actual bill that make it an affront. It is the outlawing of abortion.

So why not focus on the real reason that it is a bad law. That reason has nothing to do with whether women will be charged or the fetus called a person. It has to do with the outlawing of abortion.

 

[phiwum]

All X are Y
Z is not X

Therefore.... nothing. There's no implication either way.

To be fair, the Fourteenth is probably read to say: all and only those born in the U.S. or naturalized are citizens. Hence, the fetus is not a citizen.

But citizenship is irrelevant. Our laws protect non-citizens from homicide.

 

[phiwum]

A question I mooted earlier, that I'd have liked to ask lawmakers, but now would pose to all who would support a law outlawing abortion in cases of rape...

If *your* daughter were raped and inseminated, would you demand she carry her baby to term? Your wife? Your sister? Your mother? If the rapist were to be of what to you consider to be a less savoury race?

I'm obviously thinking in the first place of those white Southerners inclined to bigotry and hypocrisy who would drift to draconian laws revealing their views of women as chattel. You know, the kind who clutch the Bible on Sunday and quietly pay for their mistress's abortion on Monday.

When the rubber hits the road, and their own kin are impacted, will they stand as firmly for the laws they would foist upon society?

That's not a good test for whether the law is reasonable or not. Most people are in favor of laws regarding stopping at a stop sign, even though they think it's an injustice when their spouses get tickets for rolling through a stop sign in certain circumstances.

That someone would dread the consequences of a law when applied to a loved one is no reason to reject the law. It's just a sign that folks are biased and hypocritical.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That's not a good test for whether the law is reasonable or not. Most people are in favor of laws regarding stopping at a stop sign, even though they think it's an injustice when their spouses get tickets for rolling through a stop sign in certain circumstances.

Not really. There is a difference between being angry at the penalties of a law and encouraging people in your life to break it for one. When you encourage your wife to never break for stop signs and come out as highly pro stopping at stop signs for everyone else that is clear hypocrisy, which we often see in leaders campaigning for abortion.

Better would be a lawmaker who writes drunk driving laws arrested for drunk driving. Clearly nothing hypocritical there either. What does it take for a lawmaker to be hypocritical?

 

[Hlafordlaes]

I have the obligation to stand up for the right of that other person to live. That's my duty as a moral being.

The key is the legal definition of person, not a moral one. Regardless, moral imperatives always require interpretation. Defend all human life? Really? How many gazillions of ways are you not taking an active stand on that every day? Why cherry pick abortions? .... Oh, I see. Yes, handy millstone, that. Jesus said not to do that, though. Oops. Now what?

 

[Minoosh]

In your own words:

That specific line of the constitution was indeed cited in Roe v. Wade, but not with respect to citizenship, and the Georgia law doesn't deal with citizenship. It deals with personhood.

But earlier,

By declaring the fetus to be a person <snip> 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.

Do you think the Supreme Court will count fetuses in one state as people, but allow them to be killed elsewhere else?

You're thinking of things that are occurring to you, and that's a great place to start, but I'm encouraging people, you and others, to go beyond thinking about things, and speculating, and connecting the dots in any way that they can with the limited information available to them and, instead, go out and find the actual words of the actual law and see if they match the ideas that occur to them.

Here's a briefer sentence: Precedents matter.

Abortion is going to stay legal in Michigan for at least the next four years. ...

You need to look up citizens' initiatives.

Uhhhh…...honey......it's not illegal. It's ok to leave Ohio and go to Michigan, and the Ohio legislature can't make anything illegal that happens in Michigan.

The Supreme Court can.

Regardless, the game is on.

...we can expect if Roe is overturned that this will be only the first step in the war against abortion.

But your wife is overreacting.

Miscarriages evaluated? The law makes no provision for this, but if there is suspicion of a crime, i.e. a suspicion that an illegal abortion has occurred, then it ought to be like every other crime.

Do you expect Georgia authorities to show restraint in this matter? The states with the highest incarceration rates are Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana and Oklahoma.

With abortion drugs available online I predict more miscarriages will be investigated as crimes. And if a woman aborted herself, she's de facto guilty of homicide.

Death certificates? They are already required under Georgia law.

In most states it's after 20 weeks. In Georgia it's at conception. Putting the law in women's underpants. What could possibly go wrong?

Why wouldn't doctors be compelled to issue "certificates of personhood"? You have to keep tabs on all those new, protected people somehow. Voila, a database.

I don't know why I should consider your reassuring "there, there the law doesn't say that" attitude to be more valid than your wife's well-founded speculation. She sounds more in touch, frankly. You say we should listen to "legal scholars." Legal scholars get it wrong all the time. Look at any any split-panel decision.

 

[Minoosh]

I think I get your position, but it seems to me that you focus on the wrong front.

Suppose Georgia passed a bill that outlawed abortion without calling the fetus a person and charging women if they seek abortion. You would oppose that law as well, even though it doesn't have the features which have dominated the conversation recently. Why? Because it isn't the details of the actual bill that make it an affront. It is the outlawing of abortion.

You're wrong about my thinking. The details make a difference. As Meadmaker explained, the "personhood" thing is meant to give fetuses 14th Amendment protections. Well, Roe v. Wade did not just change abortion law in Texas; it changed it everywhere. Meaning that if the SC upholds Georgia's "personhood" bill, it could make it the new standard everywhere.

And if that's the case, or even if it's just in Georgia, wouldn't it be necessary to keep some kind of registry of these new people? Doctors could be told to report all positive pregnancy tests, but that leaves a gap. How does a woman know she's pregnant? Usually, because her period is late. Then she might buy a home pregnancy test. Well, if we want to register new people, perhaps we should keep a record of who buys those tests, and follow up on the results.

Or ... maybe we need to be even more vigilant. Maybe we should police women's periods.

If you think that no state would possibly go that far ... well, yeah, they could.

So why not focus on the real reason that it is a bad law. That reason has nothing to do with whether women will be charged or the fetus called a person. It has to do with the outlawing of abortion

Again, this is your thinking, not mine. Though I've personally never wanted to make abortion illegal, I had some sympathy for folks who declared, "It's a child, not a choice." I still do, if they're acting in good faith. But my view of who's acting in good faith has grown more jaundiced.

And that's partly because of the hypocrisy on display in Alabama. Oh, the woman is not doing anything wrong. She's a victim.

These are bad laws. Even if you are anti-abortion, they deserve to fail.

 

[Meadmaker]

You need to look up citizens' initiatives.

Point well taken.

The Supreme Court can.

No. They can't. Not unless they just want to start writing law themselves.


Of course, they say that they are against that sort of thing, but others say that it has actually happened in the past. I guess we'll see.

Do you expect Georgia authorities to show restraint in this matter?

I do. Some, at least. I think that investigations of miscarriages will very rarely happen, although "very rarely" is too often for my taste. It will happen sometimes, which is not a good thing.

With abortion drugs available online I predict more miscarriages will be investigated as crimes.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but non-prescription abortion drugs only work within a short period after conception. Is that right? In that case, it's not illegal. There won't be any reason to investigate someone who takes "emergency contraception". After six weeks? Possibly, but if there's a doctor's prescription for a legitimate medical condition other than seeking to terminate a pregnancy after the legal limit, once again there will be no need for an investigation.

And if a woman aborted herself, she's de facto guilty of homicide.

What she is guilty of is spelled out in the law itself. Find what the lawyers are saying.

In most states it's after 20 weeks. In Georgia it's at conception.

Under the new law, it's after a fetal heartbeat, approximately six weeks. I'm not defending the law or saying it's a good idea, but if you are going to criticize the law, criticize the actual law, not some imagined version of it.

Why wouldn't doctors be compelled to issue "certificates of personhood"?

Because the new law doesn't require it, nor did the old law.

I don't know why I should consider your reassuring "there, there the law doesn't say that" attitude to be more valid than your wife's well-founded speculation.

Beam me up, Scotty.