You can bury your head in the sand and keep voting GOP with your both sides and quick google search bullshit. But you are supporting some real heinous shit.
Same dance as junebug or jh playing dumb about CRT laws regarding the language of the laws vs. the outcomes.
History, the Supreme Court, and Dobbs v. Jackson: Joint Statement from the American Historical Association and the Organization of American Historians
In September 2021, the American Historical Association and the Organization of American Historians submitted an amicus curiae brief to the US Supreme Court presenting the relevant history to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case. We are dismayed that the court declined to take seriously the historical claims of our brief. Instead, the court adopted a flawed interpretation of abortion criminalization that has been pressed by anti-abortion advocates for more than 30 years. The opinion inadequately represents the history of the common law, the significance of quickening in state law and practice in the United States, and the 19th-century forces that turned early abortion into a crime.
Historians might note that the court’s majority opinion refers to “history” 67 times, claiming that “an unbroken tradition of prohibiting abortion on pain of criminal punishment persisted from the earliest days of the common law until 1973.” Our brief shows plentiful evidence, however, of the long legal tradition, extending from the common law to the mid-1800s (and far longer in some American states, including Mississippi), of tolerating termination of pregnancy before occurrence of “quickening,” the time when a woman first felt fetal movement. The majority of the court dismisses that reality because it was eventually—although quite gradually—superseded by criminalization. In so doing the court denies the strong presence in US “history and traditions” at least from the Revolution to the Civil War of women’s ability to terminate pregnancy before the third to fourth month without intervention by the state.
These misrepresentations are now enshrined in a text that becomes authoritative for legal reference and citation in the future. The court’s decision erodes fundamental rights and has the potential to exacerbate historic injustices and deepen inequalities in our country. We expect that historians will continue to correct the court’s misinterpretation about the history of legalized abortion in the US in their own research, teaching, and public speaking, while also addressing the multifaceted dilemmas presented by this decision.
The OAH and AHA consider it imperative that historical evidence and argument be presented according to high standards of historical scholarship. The court’s majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson does not meet those standards and has therefore established a flawed and troubling precedent.
I am not reading the discussion here since it is mostly just attacking me.
How long after some asshole grants personhood until the legislature tries to compel women to immediately register with authorities when they find out they are pregnant? Otherwise, it's human smuggling, right?
Who is responsible for determining if there is a heartbeat and what documentation would be acceptable to ensure doctors would not be worried about prosecution? (Because most doctors aren't going to perform a procedure if they're not pretty sure they won't be thrown in jail.)
That is addressed in the parts of the law I did not include. A Dr. is required to use commonly accepted medical practice for determining whether there is a fetal heartbeat and has to document the tests performed. This should be pretty straightforward.
And does it worry you at all that the fetus is referred to as an "unborn child" in the language?
Why would that be worrisome?
Not to mention the fact that "heartbeat" is pretty sketchy language when referring to a fetus that does not yet have a developed heart?
If the heart has not developed yet then there would not be a heartbeat.
Do you not see multiple angles a prosecutor could take in going after someone who had a miscarriage? Or a doctor who performed a D&C after a miscarriage?
No I do not. Do you? Your first question makes no sense in the context of this law. If the miscarriage has stopped the beating heart then I am not sure what basis there would be to go after a doctor under this statute.
It looks like this is going to be the case in most of the "heartbeat" laws - I looked at the Texas "heartbeat" law and it uses similar language.
Any laws that intend to make any abortion illegal, even before heartbeat detection, may be more problematic. I will try to find the text of one of those and take a look.
scooter84 said:That is addressed in the parts of the law I did not include. A Dr. is required to use commonly accepted medical practice for determining whether there is a fetal heartbeat and has to document the tests performed. This should be pretty straightforward.
scooter84 said:If the heart has not developed yet then there would not be a heartbeat.
scooter84 said:No I do not. Do you? Your first question makes no sense in the context of this law. If the miscarriage has stopped the beating heart then I am not sure what basis there would be to go after a doctor under this statute.
I’ve reviewed Utah’s trigger law language. The language of the law seems to say all the right things - and the popular photo being shared this week appears the same. There are exceptions for rape, incest, life of the mom and severe fetal abnormalities. But what do the exceptions really involve?
For rape and incest - a police report is required. Do you know how many rapes get reported to the police? Less than 1 out of 3. Many of those reports are made weeks or months after the crime. My daughter finally reported her rape almost a year afterward. It took her that long to feel like she could take action.
Doctors in Utah are required to get a copy of the police report and verify the rape before medical care can be provided. Think about those implications for someone you love.
Exceptions are offered for moms whose lives are in danger or babies with severe abnormalities. Again we find that the actual language is not that simple. Two separate doctors have to agree that the pregnancy is causing body systems to fail. My diagnosis of a failing liver came very late, in the last 24 hours of my third pregnancy with the problem, when it was almost too late. Add in the extenuating circumstances of being a military family with a move in between the pregnancies and a whole new set of doctors and I doubt my medical problems would have met the criteria in Utah.
And my first pregnancy with suspected baby abnormalities would have to pass a filter of being fatal or severe enough to warrant termination, unlikely in my view based on current language.
What good are exceptions if the hoops to jump through them makes them truly inaccessible to many or if the timeline involved makes them come too late?
In my heart of hearts I believe that most mothers making a decision to terminate a pregnancy do so under the very worst circumstances of their lives. It’s a decision none of us want to have to make and yet it happens every day to some one.
At the end of the day I believe I will be judged not only for the decisions I make but for how I treat people who make decisions I disagree with as well. I don’t believe I will be judged for the choices others make.
Even in a circumstance I can’t fathom for myself, I can recognize the extreme isolation, trauma and pain that would lead someone to choose abortion. I can empathize and love even when I don’t agree. I think that’s the whole point of our life on earth - to learn to love like the Savior. To honor his great, eternal sacrifice that gives each of us the ability to CHOOSE for ourselves.
That sounds vague. Anything that uses a term like "commonly accepted" leaves a lot of room for interpretation.
How would you suggest it be defined? All kinds of things in the medical field, like determining medical malpractice for instance, depend on commonly accepted practices, or, as it is often stated, the accepted "standard of care". You are not talking about rocket science here, you are simply determining whether there is a fetal heartbeat
Most "heartbeat" laws refer to a time before there is a developed heart. The "heartbeat" language is political, not medical.
I don't understand what you mean here? The heartbeat laws are defining the point in time when an abortion becomes illegal - and that is when the fetal heartbeat is detected - thus the heart has developed.
Yes. As I posted earlier, there are women in jail now for having a miscarriage. Prosecutors argued that the pregnant person caused the miscarriage.
My point was that has nothing to do with this law. I don't know the circumstances you are talking about but I assume those are cases where the mother is accused of causing the miscarriage by drug use or something? I don't know but I doubt they have been charged under an anti-abortion law - more like a child abuse or neglect law. I could see that in cases of a late term pregnancy where intentional or negligent behavior of the mother has caused the death of the baby.