America transitions into Gilead

[thaiboxerken]

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

QFT. They make these laws knowing full well that they can use their privilege and wealth to bypass those laws if it affects those close to them.

 

[Minoosh]

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

Ask yourself: Did Roe v. Wade throw out first-trimester restrictions only in Texas? Did Brown v. Board of Education outlaw public school segregation only in Kansas? And a ruling that fetuses are people with 14th Amendment rights is not going to protect only fetuses in Georgia. I don't know the exact process of rewriting state statutes under these conditions, but they do get rewritten.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but non-prescription abortion drugs only work within a short period after conception. Is that right?

OK. You're wrong. That's not what a "medical abortion" is. It's an alternative to "surgical abortion." It uses a combination of drugs: mifepristone and misoprostol. It can be used into the second trimester. It's not "emergency contraception." That's Plan B.

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

How about what the law says?

(Purpose) To amend Chapter 2 of Title 1 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to persons and their rights, so as to provide that natural persons include an unborn child.... 'Unborn child' means a member of the species Homo sapiens at any stage of development who is carried in the womb.

When you find the part that makes it clear that "natural persons" have to have a detectable heartbeat, let me know. 'Cause I'm not seeing it.

Here, I think these guys are lawyers:

In Georgia, under OCGA § 16-5-1, “causing the death of another human being” is murder regardless of whether they’re the product of rape or incest. It’s a crime regardless of whether that person’s life is “medically futile.”

Why does he say that? I don't know; I checked the link so many times I can't see the article anymore. He must think the personhood clause might be open to abuse.

Here's what Georgia Right to Life has to say about personhood:

Personhood is the prolife battleground of the 21st Century ... A person is a living physical/spiritual being created in the image of God, male and female, from their earliest moment of biological beginning until natural death.

I'd be shocked if their fingerprints aren't all over this legislation.

Beam me up, Scotty.

If you think politicians are too honorable to use "personhood" as a backdoor to "life begins at conception" (except for IVF embryos), you're the one who's out of touch with reality.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The purpose of personhood bills is to ban abortion and treat all abortions as murder. I don't understand why Meadmaker refuses to see this fact.

 

[Meadmaker]

OK. You're wrong. That's not what a "medical abortion" is. It's an alternative to "surgical abortion." It uses a combination of drugs: mifepristone and misoprostol. It can be used into the second trimester. It's not "emergency contraception." That's Plan B.

Right. But I can't just order those drugs over the internet, which is what you originally referred to. I need a doctor's prescription. If a woman has a medical condition that requires treatment using a specific drug, and a side effect of that drug use is a miscarriage, then no crime has been committed. If, on the other hand, there is no medical condition, and the doctor prescribes the drug anyway, knowing that it will cause a miscarriage, that would be an illegal abortion under the new law.


The original question was whether there would be investigations by prosecutors following miscarriages. In a situation like the above, the investigation would consist of a simple check of the doctor's records. Was there a medical reason for ordering the drugs? Yes? No problem. No? Crime.

How about what the law says?



When you find the part that makes it clear that "natural persons" have to have a detectable heartbeat, let me know. 'Cause I'm not seeing it.

I stand corrected. Sorry. You are right. The definition of "person" includes any organism from the moment of fertilization, although the actual changes in the statute all refer to having a heartbeat.

Here, I think these guys are lawyers:
Why does he say that?

I couldn't read the whole article without registering, but I think the headline is accurate. "Murky prosecutorial discretion" is a legitimate fear. That's a problem (and if you were to go back to the beginning of the conversation, you would see that I identified that problem then.) However, as murky as it is, it's not all that murky, and any attempt to prosecute would be thrown out on appeal if not right away. The law establishes that a specific act is a specific crime with a specific penalty. If some prosecutor were to say, "Aha! But it also says this other thing in this other section so I can actually prosecute for some other crime that carries a much harsher penalty!" it would be thrown out.

Of course, in the meantime someone would have had to spend a zillion dollars in lawyer fees and possibly spend time in jail before it was thrown out on appeal, so that's not a lot of comfort. It's not a good law, and the "murkiness" makes it even worse.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

The purpose of personhood bills is to ban abortion and treat all abortions as murder. I don't understand why Meadmaker refuses to see this fact.

Because apologetics works by presenting a minimal surface for defense. You're making excuses for what's happening right now, not what might happen in the future, no matter how obvious. You only read intent when it helps your guys look better, and are completely myopic otherwise.

 

[Meadmaker]

Because apologetics works by presenting a minimal surface for defense. You're making excuses for what's happening right now, not what might happen in the future, no matter how obvious. You only read intent when it helps your guys look better, and are completely myopic otherwise.

That's really not it. What it's really all about is that I think the election of Donald Trump is a backlash against the hysterical shrieking of the American left. The shrieking is counterproductive. Let's stick to reality.

 

[Belz...]

I think the election of Donald Trump is a backlash against the hysterical shrieking of the American left.

Given how low his support was, I don't see where you got that idea.

 

[JoeMorgue]

That's really not it. What it's really all about is that I think the election of Donald Trump is a backlash against the hysterical shrieking of the American left. The shrieking is counterproductive. Let's stick to reality.

Is it worth it to you? Is "showing up the Libs" such a goal for you that nothing else matters?

 

[Meadmaker]

Is it worth it to you? Is "showing up the Libs" such a goal for you that nothing else matters?

Quite the opposite. The important thing is maintaining a liberal society. The hyperbole represented by this thread's op is, in my opinion, counterproductive to that end.

 

[Meadmaker]

Given how low his support was, I don't see where you got that idea.

I talk to Trump supporters. More importantly, I listen to Trump supporters.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Quite the opposite. The important thing is maintaining a liberal society. The hyperbole represented by this thread's op is, in my opinion, counterproductive to that end.

given the potential impact of a change in the current law, I find it natural to be extremely worried, even if the chance of the laws going into effect are very small.
Republicans said the same thing about the ACA: that they can vote to repeal as much as they like, since it would never find a majority.

 

[Belz...]

I talk to Trump supporters. More importantly, I listen to Trump supporters.

I'm sure you realise that your sample may not be representative. We have the full sample: Trump got fewer votes than Romney at the elections. Clearly the Republican voters weren't particularily motivated, as a whole.

 

[phiwum]

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.

It's conceivable that the SJC would decide fetuses are persons, but not likely. Far more likely is that they decide more narrowly that abortion laws and personhood status be left to the states. I think it's fairly unlikely that they'd go even that far, but not so unlikely that we shouldn't be seriously concerned.

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.

Drunk driving is a serious offense but rarely caught. The obvious way to catch more folks driving drunk is to require breathalyzers in every car with results uploaded to a central registry. We don't do that and it is nigh inconceivable that the surveillance you suggest would pass a laugh test in the courts.

You simply go way, way too far in your concerns.

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.

Agreed, though I'd guess that most folks on the pro-life side would embrace the personhood issue.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

That's really not it. What it's really all about is that I think the election of Donald Trump is a backlash against the hysterical shrieking of the American left. The shrieking is counterproductive. Let's stick to reality.

...and when you get called out on it, change the subject.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Quite the opposite. The important thing is maintaining a liberal society. The hyperbole represented by this thread's op is, in my opinion, counterproductive to that end.

If you're willing to tell a 13 year old rape victim that's she acceptable losses to knock the "hyperbolic" Libs down a notch, I don't an argument for that.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It's conceivable that the SJC would decide fetuses are persons, but not likely.

Why? They can finally get what they want with such a ruling. That has been the goal for decades of republicans why wouldn't all that work pay off?

 

[Babbylonian]

Quite the opposite. The important thing is maintaining a liberal society. The hyperbole represented by this thread's op is, in my opinion, counterproductive to that end.

It's 13 pages since the OP. I'm pretty sure very damn few of your posts have been in reply to Travis, let alone the OP.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's really not it. What it's really all about is that I think the election of Donald Trump is a backlash against the hysterical shrieking of the American left. The shrieking is counterproductive. Let's stick to reality.

You don't think it was a bit of racism backlash?

 

[Meadmaker]

It's 13 pages since the OP. I'm pretty sure very damn few of your posts have been in reply to Travis, let alone the OP.

The only interesting thing to me in this thread is the legal analysis, which is what I have been doing.

The law has words. The words have meaning.

 

[phiwum]

If you're willing to tell a 13 year old rape victim that's she acceptable losses to knock the "hyperbolic" Libs down a notch, I don't an argument for that.

Meadmaker's point is quite the opposite. He wants abortion to be legal. He doesn't think that the case is helped when people exaggerate what's at stake. There's a serious push to make abortion illegal. There is no push to monitor pregnancy test results.