Skip to comments.How Much Jail Time? (For women who get abortions)
Posted on 08/16/2007 11:23:43 AM PDT by mngran
Buried among prairie dogs and amateur animation shorts on YouTube is a curious little mini-documentary shot in front of an abortion clinic in Libertyville, Ill. The man behind the camera is asking demonstrators who want abortion criminalized what the penalty should be for a woman who has one nonetheless. You have rarely seen people look more gobsmacked. It's as though the guy has asked them to solve quadratic equations. Here are a range of responses: "I've never really thought about it." "I don't have an answer for that." "I don't know." "Just pray for them."
You have to hand it to the questioner; he struggles manfully. "Usually when things are illegal there's a penalty attached," he explains patiently. But he can't get a single person to be decisive about the crux of a matter they have been approaching with absolute certainty.
A new public-policy group called the National Institute for Reproductive Health wants to take this contradiction and make it the centerpiece of a national conversation, along with a slogan that stops people in their tracks: how much time should she do? If the Supreme Court decides abortion is not protected by a constitutional guarantee of privacy, the issue will revert to the states. If it goes to the states, some, perhaps many, will ban abortion. If abortion is made a crime, then surely the woman who has one is a criminal. But, boy, do the doctrinaire suddenly turn squirrelly at the prospect of throwing women in jail.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
And if the kid is, say, 18 months old and she similarly denies knowing that it was really alive?
Historically American orphanages produced individuals who often outperformed their peers.
Naturally this was intolerable to a Socialist State which seeks to maximize the production of incompetent, dependent and preferably sociopathic citizens.
What about the 15 year old “father” who beat his girlfriend in order to kill his unborn child, as described in Post 98. You could that he thought that it was a blob of cells, after all, he is no doctor. Should he be charged with the baby’s death, or just assault on the mother?
Okay. What about women who use an abortifacient like RU-486 or use an "at-home" method? Who's the butcher in that case? What should her penalty be?
What should her penalty be?
***Her penalty should be the same penalty as the guy who hits her car on the way over and kills that innocent life in an accident. If that preborn human has a right to live in the one case but not in the other case, then that simply doesn’t make sense. I believe in extending the right to live to that preborn human. <-— note the period.
With abortion, you must make sure that no break is EVER available to the abortionist and that, after appropriate testimony, the woman can always walk. The purpose is, after all, to stop abortion. Punishing the women individually will not work, will convict few women (who will have compelling excuses to play the emotion card with the jury as moneybags Jack the Slice will not have) and will let the actual abortionist off the hook as often as not for lack of credible or sufficient evidence.
Connecticut was one of the very first states to criminalize abortion. It did so in the 1820s when Congregationalist ministers (Connecticut's established religion until 1818) in four different communities were charged with aborting the offspring of their respective illegitimate relations with women not their wives. Connecticut remained staunchly pro-life until well after Roe vs. Wade. The Connecticut statutes on abortion (including those passed by 5-1 in each house of the General Assembly in 1972 or so) provided for a five-year jail term for the woman and a five-year jail term for the abortionist. Yet, the actual history of prosecution was that actual prosecution of the women beyond preliminary efforts was rare. The felony with five years penalty was hung over the women to force them to testify against the abortionists which they generally did. When the abortionist was convicted on the testimony of the woman, the charges against the woman were dropped.
The net result was to choke off the supply of abortionists. If you try to convict each woman, there will be an intolerable backlog that will frustrate justice. Let her testify against Dr. Death in exchange for dismissal of her charges. She can take the Fifth Amendment when brought to the witness stand, in which case she is prosecuted and the doctor MAY go free for the moment. More likely, she will testify and guarantee the abortionist's conviction. "Another one bites the dust! And another one down and another one down...." How many women will serve the abortionist's term for him????
That is how abortion was controlled and frustrated and punished in Connecticut and many other states for most of the history of the republic and how it can be again.
Our biggest problem is going to be stopping "jury nullification" by those pro-aborts willing to lie under oath in voir dire to become jurors who refuse to convict.
We are still going to have to fight the public relations war. Ultrasound will help immensely but we can take nothing for granted.
Treat the supplier of RU-486 as the killer. Arrest the mother and make her testify against the supplier or face trial and punishment herself. AFTER she has testified, her charges get dismissed.
Go after the pharmaceutical company. Next?
The number of U.S. abortions every year is close to a million. Do you really think there are that many instances of temporary insanity among women?
What about the woman who uses abortion as a means of birth control, or who opts for a late-term abortion because she decides she doesn't want to lose out on a potential promotion?
If abortion is prohibited, I do think leniency should be applied in most circumstances. However, I do not think it should be given automatically. For some women, probably a minority, abortion is chosen out of convenience, not duress. They should be accountable for the crime along with the abortionist.
As in the infamous "coat hanger". Answers still the same, go after the abortionist, whether it be the woman herself or a colleague.
Check out BlackElk's post 107 for some insight on how enforcement worked in the real world.
Thanks for the background.
Whatever the penalty is for murder. Of course, the 'doctor' who performs the abortion should get the same penalty.
If abortion is murder (which it is), and if the woman willingly goes to the doctor to get an abortion, then she paid someone to murder her child.
The penalty for paying to have your husband murdered is not 'nothing'. Why should a person who pays to have their child murdered get off scott free?
Huh? I’m not saying that at all. Sheesh. Just because I don’t believe in jailing a mom seeking an abortion means I support abortion. I have been pro-life for years now and even in cases of rape I believe the baby is totally innocent. In cases of rape, I believe in the morning after pill. Sorry, but I just do. A woman who can bring a baby to term after rape is very special; the baby is innocent but I could and would never force that woman to do so.
Yep, I think all pregnant women are temporarily insane and emotionally unstable. Been that way multiple times myself.
But I had a husband who housed, clothed, fed and nurtured me through my pregnancies. If I was alone, abandoned or worse pressured by the father and others to abort, I can see how in my hormonal and emotionally unstable state how I could have been seduced to the dark side by those who love death.
Our nation is committing suicide through infanticide.
Because they are duped. They don’t believe it is murder because the person doing the deed tells them it isn’t. There’s got to be some leniency granted, in my opinion.
Not really. Enforcement of abortion bans is nothing new, it has been going on for most of our nation's history.
See BlackElk's post 107 for some background on how the state of Connecticut handled it before the Roe vs Wade decision.
You make it sound like these abortion doctors are out trolling for women to abort. The woman is the initial actor here -- she seeks out the abortionist.
Besides, most women who have abortions are full-fledged adults capable of making moral (or immoral) decisions -- not children who don't know right from wrong.
I think the kind of women that are getting abortions are generally the kind that are VERY childish and I question their intelligence and their ability to discern right from wrong.
I see it similar to drugs — people who want them are going to get them, no matter what the risks or illegality. As such, policing it is going to be dicey and maybe not too successful.
We’re not having trouble charging or convicting third parties for killing children in Texas under the Prenatal Protection Act (our “Connor and Lacy” law) that we passed in ‘03. I believe that 2 or 3 cases have survived appeal to the Texas Supreme Court or are being considered at the TSC at this time.
This law also shows the distinctions that can be made under law.
Some District Attorney decided to use the law to prosecute women who used drugs while pregnant. The women took plea bargains and plead guilty. Then they fought the cases under appeal and won.
The law was never intended to prosecute a mother. In fact, realists and incrementalists that we had to be, the only way we could get it passed was to specifically exempt the mother of the child and a legal medical “provider” doing what she hired him to do.
One reason to *not* prosecute these women is that there are much fewer options for treatment for a woman, much less a pregnant woman. And while there’s no evidence that criminal prosecution for drug addiction does anyone any good - much less the family - as long as it’s legal to obtain an abortion, the threat of conviction encourages abortion. That’s contraindicated for us prolife people.
There is some question, however, as to whether or not we can use the law in combination with new parental consent law, in order to criminally prosecute abortionists - some say with a charge of capital murder - who intentionally kill the children of girls who are not able to consent under Texas law.
Very informative, as always.
I heard on the radio the other day that teens were polled about what charity or organization would they most like to volunteer for, the number one response was PETA! The red cross was a close second, but MAN! That’s just ridiculous. When I was a teen I would’ve said the Peace Corps(the toughest job you’ll ever love, was their slogan). I even thought about doing it. I found out the peace corps was doing work in Appalachia with illiteracy, sanitation, and housing and I wanted to do that. I’ve never understood charities that go over seas to help foreigners when there are people right here in america that need assistance. I suppose I couldn’t blame a youngster for being seduced by greenpeace and going on those adrenaline charged expeditions to save the whales from whaling ships. But PETA?? INSANE!
But anyway, my point is that people are sheep. These teens are responding with the organization they hear about most in the media. When’s the last time you heard about the salvation army or the gideons or the united catholic charities organization doing some outrageous PR stunt that caused an uproar and got nation wide MSM coverage?
“That will dry up the supply of people who will do abortions pretty quickly”
No. There have always been Drs or people with medical training (or no training at all) willing to perform abortions. They were doing it when it *was* illegal. My great grandmother’s sister-in-law died in 1919 from an illegal abortion after having (and losing) seven children, when she was close to 50.
Ask anyone who worked in an ER prior to Roe vs Wade. They’ll tell you about the supply. They treated the aftermath, the butchered uterus, the spiky fevers, the hemorrhaging, the infections, the deaths.
The abortive woman has to live with her decision, which is a heavy penalty - even for the ones who openly deny the abortion has any effect. There NO REASON, however, to contribute to their lie by suppressing facts about unborn babies and about the violence of the procedure itself.
Life in prison for the abortionist - he’s the one who did the killing for MONEY.
What the video proves is that the pro-abortionists are lying when they say that pro-lifers are anti-woman, are out to punish women, that they hate women, that they primarily want to control women’s lives, etc. If all those lies were true, then the pro-lifers would have all answered with proposals for jail terms, fines, etc.
The fact is that before Roe v. Wade, the number of women who were punished for abortion was minuscule. I would venture to say there were years that went by without a single woman’s facing any penalties. The abortion laws were enforced against the abortionists.
Any pro-abortion group that is going to make this the centerpiece of an advertising campaign is only going to be advertising the fact that all the smears against pro-life people as anti-woman, vindictive, etc., were just that—smears.
This video is nothing but an attempt to play “Gotcha.”
Being in favor of not killing babies does not impose on anybody the obligation to figure out the jail sentences for those who get abortions. And the fact that these pro-lifers couldn’t answer the question doesn’t in the least weaken the case against murdering babies.
“And the fact that these pro-lifers couldnt answer the question doesnt in the least weaken the case against murdering babies.”
Right you are!
These Catch 22 questions that antilifers like to pose are plain, old DEFLECTION.
Ewwwwww. Vick is in HEAP big trouble - no?
Woman - Murder one
Doctor - Murder one
Punisment..Simple... the time is determined by the laws of orgin.
In Jewish law (Moses time).. a life for a life.
In this case, it seems the murder charge is just to put as much weight behind an assault charge as possible. He assaulted his pregnant girlfriend with intent to abort a fetus, a girl whom presumably trusted him. This is more heinous than a fist-fight in a bar and more criminal weight should be applied - even though the physical crime may not differ much.
It’s the same strategy with hate crimes, which get a bad rap around here. Hates crimes are charged on top of other crimes to simply provide more weight to a charge - in that case, to punish the terrorizing of an already intimidated group. The heightened disruption of the public sphere by a terrorizing offense requires a weightier charge than one which does not terrorize others. Hate crime is, however, a poor moniker.
For example, a killer could kill redheads because he hated redheads. This would almost certainly not elicit a hate crime charge though because redheads are not typically threatened or intimidated. Of course, other minority groups already are threatened and intimidated for being who they are. A crime against them for being who they are can terrorize the community - and should carry a heavier charge.
You’re only incentivizing home abortions - coat hangers, pills, gut-shots - these are likely to be more dangerous than a doctor.
If abortion were to be made illegal, they can't claim to have been 'duped' unless they are retarded or mentally ill and not able to understand what it means for something to be against the law.
They dont believe it is murder because the person doing the deed tells them it isnt.
That won't be an excuse if abortion is made illegal.
Theres got to be some leniency granted, in my opinion.
I disagree. Either abortion is murder or it isn't. I most certainly believe it is. Therefore, it should be against the law, and the punishment should fit the crime.
Whoa, I didn’t notice this piece was written by Anna Quindlen. Now it makes more sense. A more vicious, cold-hearted, Moloch-worshiping ghoul has never existed on planet Earth. She’s a good disciple of Maggie Sanger.
What was the punishment before Roe?
She should have to work in an orphanage.
The medical realities 35 years ago are a world of difference from those today. For one thing our antibiotics and technology is better, so women and girls have more hope when injured.
But the biggest changes since 1973 are the development of the prenatal ultrasound and social climate that should have taken the stigma from pregnancy.
Women and men are much more knowledgeable about the development of unborn children. We know that the child is not just a clump of cells - if that was ever believed by anyone. There are also resources available for women who find themselves pregnant but unable to mother. Unwed motherhood is not the stigma it once was.
This nation adapted to the repeal of slavery, to female sufferage, and will adapt to the repeal of Roe v. Wade.