Comments on: Under the Rug http://www.mahablog.com/2006/03/08/under-the-rug/ Making the World Safe for Liberalism Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:58:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: The Mahablog » Invisible Women http://www.mahablog.com/2006/03/08/under-the-rug/comment-page-1/#comment-219675 The Mahablog » Invisible Women Thu, 24 May 2007 16:11:59 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/?p=483#comment-219675 [...] Second, it’s simple fact that many nations that ban abortion today impose criminal penalties on women who obtain abortion; see old Mahablog posts “Under the Rug” and “Under the Rug II” and also Nicholas Kristof’s New York Times column of April 7, 2004. Kristof wrote, To understand what might happen in America if President Bush gets his way with the Supreme Court, consider recent events in Portugal. [...] [...] Second, it’s simple fact that many nations that ban abortion today impose criminal penalties on women who obtain abortion; see old Mahablog posts “Under the Rug” and “Under the Rug II” and also Nicholas Kristof’s New York Times column of April 7, 2004. Kristof wrote, To understand what might happen in America if President Bush gets his way with the Supreme Court, consider recent events in Portugal. [...]

]]> By: The Mahablog » Three Lessons http://www.mahablog.com/2006/03/08/under-the-rug/comment-page-1/#comment-5376 The Mahablog » Three Lessons Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:09:13 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/?p=483#comment-5376 [...] As discussed here, would-be abortion banners have a remarkable ability to not think real hard about how their abortion bans would actually be implemented. They claim that women seeking abortion wouldn’t be punished (as if forced pregnancy and childbirths weren’t punishment). But where the banners allow for exceptions, who judges? If there’s a rape allowance, how does a woman prove she was raped? Would the rapist have to be convicted first (in which case, the “product” would be potty trained by then). Would this cause women seeking abortion to make false rape charges? If there’s a “life of the mother” exception, who stands over the physician’s shoulder to make the call? Some conditions (preeclampsia comes to mind) may be manageable, or may be fatal. It’s hard to know for certain until the woman drops dead. Different physicians may make different judgments on whether the pregnancy should be terminated. Is the government going to snoop around and second-guess doctors who perform abortions to save women’s lives? [...] [...] As discussed here, would-be abortion banners have a remarkable ability to not think real hard about how their abortion bans would actually be implemented. They claim that women seeking abortion wouldn’t be punished (as if forced pregnancy and childbirths weren’t punishment). But where the banners allow for exceptions, who judges? If there’s a rape allowance, how does a woman prove she was raped? Would the rapist have to be convicted first (in which case, the “product” would be potty trained by then). Would this cause women seeking abortion to make false rape charges? If there’s a “life of the mother” exception, who stands over the physician’s shoulder to make the call? Some conditions (preeclampsia comes to mind) may be manageable, or may be fatal. It’s hard to know for certain until the woman drops dead. Different physicians may make different judgments on whether the pregnancy should be terminated. Is the government going to snoop around and second-guess doctors who perform abortions to save women’s lives? [...]

]]> By: Linda Jones http://www.mahablog.com/2006/03/08/under-the-rug/comment-page-1/#comment-4652 Linda Jones Wed, 08 Mar 2006 19:30:24 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/?p=483#comment-4652 Some people think some forms of regular birth control are abortion. I've heard of pharmacists refusing to provide birth control pills for that reason. Some people think some forms of regular birth control are abortion. I’ve heard of pharmacists refusing to provide birth
control pills for that reason.

]]> By: A Canadian Reader http://www.mahablog.com/2006/03/08/under-the-rug/comment-page-1/#comment-4650 A Canadian Reader Wed, 08 Mar 2006 19:21:38 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/?p=483#comment-4650 Thank you for posting the link to the video. The ignorance of these (supposedly) well-meaning dingbats is appalling. As I have said before, the right-wing and especially the religious right can only deal with issues by simplifying them to the point of stupdity. Unfortunately, abortion and euthanasia (to name just two issues) are much too complicated for the right to deal with intelligently (not that they can deal with anything intelligently anyway...but that's another debate). Those of us in the "reality biz", as Maha so charmingly calls it, have our work cut out for us. Thank you for posting the link to the video. The ignorance of these (supposedly) well-meaning dingbats is appalling.

As I have said before, the right-wing and especially the religious right can only deal with issues by simplifying them to the point of stupdity.

Unfortunately, abortion and euthanasia (to name just two issues) are much too complicated for the right to deal with intelligently (not that they can deal with anything intelligently anyway…but that’s another debate).

Those of us in the “reality biz”, as Maha so charmingly calls it, have our work cut out for us.

]]> By: maha http://www.mahablog.com/2006/03/08/under-the-rug/comment-page-1/#comment-4648 maha Wed, 08 Mar 2006 19:12:15 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/?p=483#comment-4648 <i>Clearly a woman who seeks an abortion and subjects herself to the doctor’s care is a party to the conspiracy. In fact, she is the party initiating the conspiracy.</i> I just posted an argument that under the South Dakota law a woman who aborts could be charged with homicide under other statutes. http://www.mahablog.com/2006/03/08/under-the-rug-ii/ Clearly a woman who seeks an abortion and subjects herself to the doctor’s care is a party to the conspiracy. In fact, she is the party initiating the conspiracy.

I just posted an argument that under the South Dakota law a woman who aborts could be charged with homicide under other statutes.

http://www.mahablog.com/2006/03/08/under-the-rug-ii/

]]> By: Steve Nichols http://www.mahablog.com/2006/03/08/under-the-rug/comment-page-1/#comment-4647 Steve Nichols Wed, 08 Mar 2006 19:05:24 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/?p=483#comment-4647 http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/abortion/sdabortionlaw06.html The new SD law states: [L]ife begins at the time of conception, a conclusion confirmed by scientific advances since the 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade, including the fact that each human being is totally unique immediately at fertilization. ... [T]he guarantee of due process of law under the Constitution of South Dakota applies equally to born and unborn human beings, and that under the Constitution of South Dakota, a pregnant mother and her unborn child, each possess a natural and inalienable right to life. .... Section 12. This Act shall be known, and may be cited, as the Women's Health and Human Life Protection Act. An Act to establish certain legislative findings, to reinstate the prohibition against certain acts causing the termination of an unborn human life, to prescribe a penalty therefor, and to provide for the implementation of such provisions under certain circumstances. --------------------------------------- Chock full of interesting notions. The doctor gets a felony for care requested by a patient. The patient gets nothing (but Section 12 allows for the development of penalties against women seeking abortion). The statute clearly implies that abortion is a criminal taking of life; does the felony murder rule apply? Clearly a woman who seeks an abortion and subjects herself to the doctor's care is a party to the conspiracy. In fact, she is the party initiating the conspiracy. It's absurd. http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/abortion/sdabortionlaw06.html

The new SD law states:

[L]ife begins at the time of conception, a conclusion confirmed by scientific advances since the 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade, including the fact that each human being is totally unique immediately at fertilization.
…
[T]he guarantee of due process of law under the Constitution of South Dakota applies equally to born and unborn human beings, and that under the Constitution of South Dakota, a pregnant mother and her unborn child, each possess a natural and inalienable right to life.
….
Section 12. This Act shall be known, and may be cited, as the Women’s Health and Human Life Protection Act. An Act to establish certain legislative findings, to reinstate the prohibition against certain acts causing the termination of an unborn human life, to prescribe a penalty therefor, and to provide for the implementation of such provisions under certain circumstances.

—————————————

Chock full of interesting notions.

The doctor gets a felony for care requested by a patient. The patient gets nothing (but Section 12 allows for the development of penalties against women seeking abortion).

The statute clearly implies that abortion is a criminal taking of life; does the felony murder rule apply?

Clearly a woman who seeks an abortion and subjects herself to the doctor’s care is a party to the conspiracy. In fact, she is the party initiating the conspiracy.

It’s absurd.

]]> By: The Mahablog » Under the Rug II http://www.mahablog.com/2006/03/08/under-the-rug/comment-page-1/#comment-4646 The Mahablog » Under the Rug II Wed, 08 Mar 2006 19:01:27 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/?p=483#comment-4646 [...] The story thus far — in the last post, we learned that Americans opposed to legal abortion have wildly unrealistic notions about what might happen if abortions became illegal. That means it’s up to us in the reality biz to face some facts. [...] [...] The story thus far — in the last post, we learned that Americans opposed to legal abortion have wildly unrealistic notions about what might happen if abortions became illegal. That means it’s up to us in the reality biz to face some facts. [...]

]]> By: Steve Nichols http://www.mahablog.com/2006/03/08/under-the-rug/comment-page-1/#comment-4645 Steve Nichols Wed, 08 Mar 2006 18:44:20 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/?p=483#comment-4645 MATTHEWS: In other words, if a woman had an abortion in Pennsylvania, what would you do to her? TOOMEY: Well, you know, Chris http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_03_05_atrios_archive.html#114183891789058381 Several thoughts (this is hardly my area of expertise): It seems unreasonable to charge a doctor for a crime for providing an abortion at a woman's request. The woman is part of a conspiracy. Are the cruel and unusual provisions of the 8th Amendment somehow violated? If abortion is murder, then the felony murder rule should apply. Even if the SD law does not claim that abortion is murder, then South Dakota law (never thought I'd be doing research on SD law) provides: (1) If the conspiracy was to commit a felony, each party is guilty of a classified felony which is one classification less severe than the felony to be committed, but in no case shall the punishment for conspiracy to commit a felony be less than a Class 6 felony. http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=22-3-8 Hence it appears that a woman COULD be charged for conspiracy. MATTHEWS: In other words, if a woman had an abortion in Pennsylvania, what would you do to her?

TOOMEY: Well, you know, Chris

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_03_05_atrios_archive.html#114183891789058381

Several thoughts (this is hardly my area of expertise):

It seems unreasonable to charge a doctor for a crime for providing an abortion at a woman’s request. The woman is part of a conspiracy. Are the cruel and unusual provisions of the 8th Amendment somehow violated?

If abortion is murder, then the felony murder rule should apply.

Even if the SD law does not claim that abortion is murder, then South Dakota law (never thought I’d be doing research on SD law) provides:

(1) If the conspiracy was to commit a felony, each party is guilty of a classified felony which is one classification less severe than the felony to be committed, but in no case shall the punishment for conspiracy to commit a felony be less than a Class 6 felony.

http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=22-3-8

Hence it appears that a woman COULD be charged for conspiracy.

]]> By: joanr16 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/03/08/under-the-rug/comment-page-1/#comment-4643 joanr16 Wed, 08 Mar 2006 18:13:14 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/?p=483#comment-4643 The 2004 movie "Vera Drake" should be required viewing for all state legislatures, every member of Congress, and all nine of the Supremes. The really recalcitrant ones, such as Sen. Santorum and Justice Scalia, should be strapped in their chairs with their eyes taped open, "Clockwork Orange"-style. Except, "Vera Drake" is far too gentle a movie, and doesn't show the bloody forms of death that are inflicted on women when abortion is illegal. And I don't think the brains of anti-abortionists are even connected to their eyeballs anymore. The 2004 movie “Vera Drake” should be required viewing for all state legislatures, every member of Congress, and all nine of the Supremes. The really recalcitrant ones, such as Sen. Santorum and Justice Scalia, should be strapped in their chairs with their eyes taped open, “Clockwork Orange”-style.

Except, “Vera Drake” is far too gentle a movie, and doesn’t show the bloody forms of death that are inflicted on women when abortion is illegal. And I don’t think the brains of anti-abortionists are even connected to their eyeballs anymore.

]]> By: Jeff R http://www.mahablog.com/2006/03/08/under-the-rug/comment-page-1/#comment-4640 Jeff R Wed, 08 Mar 2006 17:12:09 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/?p=483#comment-4640 Estimating the number of abortions has always been a tricky proposition. In regard to that "scholarly work" supported by Americans United for Life that insisted there were few illegal abortions before Roe v. Wade: the historian Thomas J. Schlereth quoted the results of a survey by the Michigan Board of Health which estimated that up to ONE-THIRD of ALL pregnancies were "artificially terminated." What is most interesting about that survey is the date: 1898, at a time when virtually every state had a set of laws restricting abortion. (The book from which Schlereth quoted is titled "The Light of the Home: an Intimate View of Women in Victorian America," by Harvey Green.) Estimating the number of abortions has always been a tricky proposition. In regard to that “scholarly work” supported by Americans United for Life that insisted there were few illegal abortions before Roe v. Wade: the historian Thomas J. Schlereth quoted the results of a survey by the Michigan Board of Health which estimated that up to ONE-THIRD of ALL pregnancies were “artificially terminated.”
What is most interesting about that survey is the date: 1898, at a time when virtually every state had a set of laws restricting abortion. (The book from which Schlereth quoted is titled “The Light of the Home: an Intimate View of Women in Victorian America,” by Harvey Green.)

]]>