“Which raises a different question, do people have the RIGHT to have their rights vindicated by government?”
Much of the law is aimed at the vindication of individual rights. That’s why we have laws against murder, theft, fraud, etc. In fact, libertarians (I’m not one) would say that’s one of the few legitimate areas of action of government - protecting folks’ rights through the enforcement of laws against the violation of and interference with rights.
What conservatives, at least, don’t generally believe though is that the government is required to pay for folks to utilize their rights. So, the government will arrest the fella who burns down your printing press, but the government won’t buy you a printing press to express your First Amendment rights.
“The HLA would not make law.”
No, but it’s unlikely that a 2/3 majority of each House of Congress would pass such an amendment and then not pass enforcing legislation.
“Some suggest it would REQUIRE states to then make laws, but can any action really REQUIRE a body to pass a law?”
I think that all the states would pass laws implementing the Human Life Amendment.
“What if we eliminate all laws that say abortion is legal, but don’t pass any laws that define criminal penalties for it?”
Many states have no laws making abortion legal. In fact, in many states, the only laws on the books concerning abortion are those that make abortion ILLEGAL. But Roe vitiated these laws, making them unenforceable (or so goes the cant). Thus, in the absence of any positive law concerning abortion, abortion is legal.
“I know the constitution ALLOWS government to pass such laws, but does it REQUIRE it?”
Well, if a Human Life Amendment were passed essentially marking unborn human beings as persons whose rights are protected under the Fourteenth Amendment, and states didn’t pass laws to enforce it, I imagine that courts would interpret laws against killing persons as covering unborn persons. Thus, the intentional killing of such a person, with premeditation, would be prosecuted as first degree murder. Women who procured abortions could be prosecuted under laws concerning murder for hire. Husbands, fathers, mothers who assist a woman in procuring an abortion could be charged as accessories to murder.
This is why I think that all the states would pass separate laws to implement the Human Life Amendment. States have a significant amount of leeway in how to treat homicide.
As I posted previously, in some states, if someone breaks into your house and looks threatening, and you shoot that person dead, that’s justifiable homicide. Conversely, in my own state, if you don’t first attempt to flee if you have the opportunity to flee, you can be charged with murder.
Thus, I can see that states might consider a woman who procures or attempts to procure an abortion as someone who is suffering from diminished mental capacity, and might pass laws that specifically exclude these women from prosecution for murder for hire. As well, mothers, husbands, fathers who assist a woman in this crime could be treated differently by law, as well.
If a Human Life Amendment were passed recognizing the personhood of unborn human beings, statutes against murder and other forms of homicide would apply in the absence of special laws concerning homicide by abortion. It is likely that every state would then pass special statutes to deal with the question of homicide by abortion.
sitetest
So for example, a woman might have to show in court that her life was truly in danger, and thereby be covered under self-preservation statutes.
I agree with you that there would have to be implementing laws, and that those laws should be on a state-by-state basis,and will provide some degree of flexibility to handling the obvious dichotomy of the rights of the baby and it’s dependence on the mother.