Cont: Texas bans abortion. Part 2

Present law authorizes the defense of justification in certain circumstances, including when
any crime, except murder, is committed through the compulsion of threats by another of
death or great bodily harm, and the offender reasonably believes the person making the
threats is present and would immediately carry out the threats if the crime were not
committed.
Proposed law amends the above present law defense of justification to exclude murder where
the victim is not an unborn child.
To take that generously, women are allowed to be defended in court as maybe having justification, even if their actions are "otherwise criminal." So not necessarily an instant conviction if you've got the money (or, given Louisiana, the right color of skin). They're still "murderers," though. I do admit that I could be confused with some of the specifics of the legalese, of course. Either way, removing "implantation" is more directly an attack on contraceptives (and potentially some early pregnancy loss that involved failures to implant, given the flow of things).

That text was not too clear to me on first reading (or second or third, for that matter). It seems to be saying that, up to the point of this bill being passed and enacted, certain defenses exist for what otherwise would be criminal acts up to but not including murder; and that this bill extends these defensible crimes to include murder as long as the murder does not involve an "unborn child".

If my reading is not completely wrong, it would seem to make abortion from fertilization onward as special category of murder that might be less excusable than regular murder?
 

https://www.azmirror.com/blog/gop-senate-candidate-blake-masters-wants-to-allow-states-to-ban-contraception-use/

Blake Masters, a Tucson-based venture capitalist, boasts on his website that he will only vote to confirm federal judges “who understand that Roe and Griswold and Casey were wrongly decided, and that there is no constitutional right to abortion.” Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, decided in 1973 and 1992, respectively, both upheld a constitutional right to abortion access.


But the ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 protected a married couple’s right to buy and use contraceptives without government restrictions. The case centered on a Connecticut law that banned the use of contraceptives, which the court determined violated a married couple’s constitutional right to privacy, establishing the basis for the right to privacy with respect to intimate practices.


Masters’ stance puts him on the opposite side of the issue from the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the campaign arm of GOP senators, which has advised candidates on talking points following the leak of a draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade.

[...]


President Donald Trump hasn’t yet endorsed an Arizona Senate candidate, but Masters is viewed as the favorite to receive his endorsement. His campaign is also being supported by his former boss and mentor, technology investor Peter Thiel, who is spending at least $10 million to bankroll a campaign to support Masters. Masters has already won the support of some extremist Republicans, most recently Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who spoke to a white nationalist conference earlier this year. Other media reports have noted his past praise for the Unabomber and Hermann Goering, one Hitler’s top military leaders and one of the most prominent members of the Nazi Party.


It’s unclear where the NRSC stands on all Republican candidates in Arizona, but Florida Sen. Rick Scott – who leads the group – was trying hard to convince term-limited Gov. Doug Ducey to jump into the race on several occasions, signaling possible disinterest in the field.
 
That text was not too clear to me on first reading (or second or third, for that matter). It seems to be saying that, up to the point of this bill being passed and enacted, certain defenses exist for what otherwise would be criminal acts up to but not including murder; and that this bill extends these defensible crimes to include murder as long as the murder does not involve an "unborn child".

If my reading is not completely wrong, it would seem to make abortion from fertilization onward as special category of murder that might be less excusable than regular murder?

I don't think that I can truly confirm or deny that. We can certainly agree that the legalese is confusing and I think that I offered my best interpretation of it after a whole bunch of rereadings. Still, by my reading, it changes the exception bit to allow a defendant to potentially defend themselves with the defense that they were justified in "murdering" an "unborn child" in what seems to boil down to immediate self-defense of the kind where one is in imminent danger. So, to poke back at ectopic pregnancy, it would be more likely to be upheld if the ectopic pregnancy was allowed to progress until just before the woman actually dies and much less likely to be upheld if the ectopic pregnancy was dealt with immediately while the woman was not in immediate mortal peril. The unborn child is the one threatening the "not an unborn child" woman with potentially immediate death or great bodily harm in this case, in short.
 
Last edited:
I don't think that I can truly confirm or deny that. We can certainly agree that the legalese is confusing and I think that I offered my best interpretation of it after a whole bunch of rereadings. Still, by my reading, it changes the exception bit to allow a defendant to potentially defend themselves with the defense that they were justified in "murdering" an "unborn child" in what seems to boil down to immediate self-defense of the kind where one is in imminent danger. So, to poke back at ectopic pregnancy, it would be more likely to be upheld if the ectopic pregnancy was allowed to progress until just before the woman actually dies and much less likely to be upheld if the ectopic pregnancy was dealt with immediately while the woman was not in immediate mortal peril. The unborn child is the one threatening the "not an unborn child" woman with potentially immediate death or great bodily harm in this case, in short.

And if the charge is made, presumably then the person who comes within moments of dying from an unnecessarily prolonged pregnancy must still defend herself, since it's clear enough that a significant portion of the people making these laws are ignorant, woman-hating idiots.

And what hoops must one go through if a normal miscarriage occurs? If the moment of conception is presumed to be the moment beyond which all loss of pregnancy can be suspected murder, what perversions of justice and privacy can be guaranteed not to occur at the hands of misinformed religious bigots?

If the police have evidence that you might be pregnant, can they subpoena your computer or phone records? Demand periodic retesting? Stop you at the border? Many invasions of our normal lives are considered justifiable if there is reason to believe we are guilty of murder, after all.

I think we're looking at laws that are, from a practical standpoint, unenforceable in any reasonable and fair manner, but which can be frivolously and selectively enforced against those the authorities wish to harass, inconvenience, silence, and endanger.

And I think this is true even if you truly believe that all abortion is murder, and truly believe in the righteousness of the cause. A law that cannot be applied fairly is an abomination of simplistic utilitarianism. Whenever we see something we don't like we tend to think to ourselves, "there oughtta be a law," but in real life, there are often good reasons why there is not.
 
Last edited:
In Alito's brief there is a paragraph on the baby shortage in the US. Apparently we want American babies, full MAGA.

I don't know why this text is in a legal brief. Sounds more like mansplaining his decision.
 
In Alito's brief there is a paragraph on the baby shortage in the US. Apparently we want American babies, full MAGA.

I don't know why this text is in a legal brief. Sounds more like mansplaining his decision.

I wonder if Margaret Atwood thought she was writing fiction when she wrote The Handmaid's Tale?
 
In Alito's brief there is a paragraph on the baby shortage in the US. Apparently we want American babies, full MAGA.



I don't know why this text is in a legal brief. Sounds more like mansplaining his decision.
The Prop 8 case relied in no small part on exploding the idea the government has a "legitimate interest" in encouraging procreation.

The opinion in whole seems to be more of a statement of intent in future rulings than a decision on a case that has just been argued.
 
The Prop 8 case relied in no small part on exploding the idea the government has a "legitimate interest" in encouraging procreation.

The opinion in whole seems to be more of a statement of intent in future rulings than a decision on a case that has just been argued.
Maybe an announcement of what's to come which will take everyone by surprise.

We're assured again and again, just because there's a gate, we don't have to go through it. It's been there all along, but we're used to it. Pay no attention to the man in a robe, oiling the hinges. Is that Estelle Griswold's head on the post, just next to the newly inscribed motto "Fruchtbarkeit Macht Frei?" But don't worry. Nobody will go through it. They never do.
 
Last edited:
In Alito's brief there is a paragraph on the baby shortage in the US. Apparently we want American babies, full MAGA.

I don't know why this text is in a legal brief. Sounds more like mansplaining his decision.

Proper white babies anyway.
 
I wonder if Margaret Atwood thought she was writing fiction when she wrote The Handmaid's Tale?

Of course it was fiction, can you imagine conservative american christians ever giving all pregnant women housing and healthcare? Totally unrealistic that is.
 
By the way, I imagine some people think of my rants here as excessive, because they have grown up in a different world from some of us. I hereby claim the privilege of age to remind them that I was a child when Brown Vs. the Board of Education was decided. I was a young adult when Griswold vs. Connecticut and Loving Vs. Virginia were decided. It's history to some but not to all. I grew up in a world where the things some people consider now to be remote and unlikely were the norm. And the people who grew up in that era are, in great measure, the ones who are deciding our fate again. And many of them are the same people who have signs in their yard saying "I miss the world I grew up in."

The deterioration of our society is partly the fault of the boomers, but it's also partly the fault of sleeping sentries.
 
Legally, any miscarriage might be a potential murder. Sane standard of care will be (is already?) fraught with legal liability & may be denied/delayed for that reason.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1526917931766104071.html

This morning, in a FB group I’m in, a woman told us she is having a miscarriage. Her doctor prescribed misoprostol to help her complete the miscarriage. The doctor had to spend 30 minutes explaining to a Walgreens pharmacist that she wasn’t having an abortion. 🧵

The first round of misoprostol didn’t work. The doctor calls in another round, and she heads to the pharmacy to pick it up. After waiting 20 minutes, she is told by the pharmacist that they’ve talked to colleagues and the corporate office, and have decided not to fill it,

[...]

It's easy to armchair quarterback this and say that caring for a patient with miscarriage/miscarriage complications is not in any way something that the law impinges about (it's about abortion, after all). It probably does not feel the same way when, as a healthcare provider, you are the one in the legal liability hot seat.
 
Legally, any miscarriage might be a potential murder.

Well that can't be true. People who are (checks notes) known liars have assured me that's not the case and I sure such statements are... (pause for dramatic effect) STRAWMEN HYPERBOLIC DRAMATIC.
 
Well that can't be true. People who are (checks notes) known liars have assured me that's not the case and I sure such statements are... (pause for dramatic effect) STRAWMEN HYPERBOLIC DRAMATIC.
I'm also sure the apologists will be able to claim collateral damage. A rare instance of something which a law allows, is allowed any time every time, omygod, no no! A rare instance in which a law mandates a wrong is as good as never.
 
In a more optimistic (if somewhat long-term) way, I'm reminded of This.

Which, in turn, reminds me of this stanza from Steve Earle’s excellent song, “Ashes to Ashes”…

Now, nobody lives forever nothing stands the test of time
Oh, you heard 'em say, "Never say never"
But it's always best to keep it in mind - that every tower ever built tumbles
And no matter how strong, no matter how tall
Someday even great walls will crumble and every idol ever raised falls
Someday even man's best laid plans will lie twisted and covered in rust
We've done all that we can but it slipped through our hands
And it's ashes to ashes and dust to dust
 
Marlena Stell's fetus died in utero. Her ultrasound showed no fetal heartbeat. The second ultrasound showed no fetal heartbeat. But because this is TX and doctors are afraid of being accused of providing an abortion, her OB/GYN refused to do a D&C to remove the dead fetus...the same procedure used for an abortion. It took her yet a third ultrasound, still showing no fetal heartbeat, to get a doctor to do the procedure two weeks later. Two weeks during which she knew she was carrying a dead, decomposing fetus which could have caused her to develop life-threatening septicemia and/or damage preventing her from becoming pregnant again.

If someone had reported the doctor, he would have had to defend himself in court and prove the fetus had died. Even if he was able to successfully defend himself, he would still be responsible for paying his own defense fees.

Thanks, Texas! Stell and her husband are considering leaving TX before trying again for another child as they're afraid of the same thing happening.

TEXAS: Where you can live in the 1950's again!
 
The old saying, "You can run but you can't hide!" might tragically be apropos across the whole of the discombobulated country before long. Moving out of Texas might be followed by a move out of the following, unfortunate State to fall to the Christo-Fascists. Followed too soon by a departure from the dystopian hellscape entirely, to a sane country. If by then that's still permitted.
 

Back
Top Bottom