Homicide charges for abortions...

[kadee79]

Yes, it CAN happen here!  It matters WHO you vote for....every time there is an election!    Bold is mine.

For decades, the mainstream anti-abortion movement promised that it did not believe women who have abortions should be criminally charged. But now, Republican lawmakers in several US states have introduced legislation proposing homicide and other criminal charges for those seeking abortion care.

The bills have been introduced in states such as Texas, Kentucky, South Carolina, Oklahoma and Arkansas. Some explicitly target medication abortion and self-managed abortion; some look to remove provisions in the law which previously protected pregnant people from criminalization; and others look to establish the fetus as a person from the point of conception.

It is highly unlikely that all of these bills will pass. But their proliferation marks a distinct departure from the language of existing bans and abortion restrictions, which typically exempt people seeking abortion care from criminalization.

“This exposes a fundamental lie of the anti-abortion movement, that they oppose the criminalization of the pregnant person,” said Dana Sussman, the acting executive director of Pregnancy Justice. “They are no longer hiding behind that rhetoric.”

www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/republicans-push-wave-of-bills-that-would-bring-homicide-charges-for-abortion/ar-AA18seZG?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=118afbd3a88b4f6790d1b8ec4131641d&ei=31

[thyme4change]

If they just wanted to end abortion they would be pushing birth control and education. This is something else. I hope this country can pull itself together. I love my kids, but sometimes question if sending them into US’s future is going to be disastrous.

[Cheesy FL-Vol]

Mar 10, 2023 15:47:03 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

If they just wanted to end abortion they would be pushing birth control and education. This is something else. I hope this country can pull itself together. I love my kids, but sometimes question if sending them into US’s future is going to be disastrous.

Phhht! Supposedly our purpose on earth is to procreate. Ya know, “go forth and multiply”. 

[swamp]

Nothing says pro life like killing people.

[happyhoix]

Next step - charge women who miscarried with murder - because how can we be sure it wasn’t really an abortion?

[djAdvocate]

Mar 10, 2023 15:47:03 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

If they just wanted to end abortion they would be pushing birth control and education. This is something else. I hope this country can pull itself together. I love my kids, but sometimes question if sending them into US’s future is going to be disastrous.

i strongly recommend that every intelligent person of means consider a "back door".

[billisonboard]

“[We] oppose penalties for mothers, who are a second victim of a predatory abortion industry,” said Kristi Hamrick, the chief media and policy strategist for Students for Life of America. (From link in the OP)

Are women inherently victims needing to be protected? If not, why should they be shielded from criminal prosecution? If providers are charged, why not those who seek an abortion?

This is an "if, then" argument. I do not think there should be the "if", thus eliminating the "then". However, I think the issue should be faced. happyhoix 's point that women who have a miscarriage would be at risk is a good one. If more people are at real risk of facing major consequences, the greater the motivation to protect reproductive rights.

[Tennesseer]

Mar 11, 2023 13:26:12 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

“[We] oppose penalties for mothers, who are a second victim of a predatory abortion industry,” said Kristi Hamrick, the chief media and policy strategist for Students for Life of America. (From link in the OP)

Are women inherently victims needing to be protected? If not, why should they be shielded from criminal prosecution? If providers are charged, why not those who seek an abortion?

This is an "if, then" argument. I do not think there should be the "if", thus eliminating the "then". However, I think the issue should be faced. happyhoix 's point that women who have a miscarriage would be at risk is a good one. If more people are at real risk of facing major consequences, the greater the motivation to protect reproductive rights.

I see no difference between people who hire someone to kill someone and women who seek out abortion providers and go have them end their pregnancy. As a country we prosecute the person who hires a killer and the killer.

So the the proposed law is hypocritical of its sponser(s).

[thyme4change]

I am trying to find the article I read last year, but not having luck. I will paraphrase and put a disclaimer on the accuracy of the information.

Abortion is illegal in Mexico, but apparently it is pretty well known that a combination of OTC medications that are legal for other reasons will cause a miscarriage. I was wondering if it is the same combo we use here (Mifepristone and misoprostol) - but I thought it said one was an antacid? And are those two really OTC in Mexico?

Anyway, if a woman has problems they go to the hospital and they call it a miscarriage. That will make the whole ‘prosecuting women who had abortions, how do miscarriages fit into that’ issue complicated.

[pulmonarymd]

Misoprostol is used to treat ulcers

[djAdvocate]

Mar 11, 2023 14:09:56 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Misoprostol is used to treat ulcers

the war on drugs won't work.

this drug can easily be transported through the mail.

there is no way they are going to stop it.  they are simply going to criminalize it's USE.

they made this mistake 100 years ago with pot and alcohol.

they will never learn.

ever.

[happyhoix]

Mar 11, 2023 13:26:12 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

“[We] oppose penalties for mothers, who are a second victim of a predatory abortion industry,” said Kristi Hamrick, the chief media and policy strategist for Students for Life of America. (From link in the OP)

Are women inherently victims needing to be protected? If not, why should they be shielded from criminal prosecution? If providers are charged, why not those who seek an abortion?

This is an "if, then" argument. I do not think there should be the "if", thus eliminating the "then". However, I think the issue should be faced. happyhoix 's point that women who have a miscarriage would be at risk is a good one. If more people are at real risk of facing major consequences, the greater the motivation to protect reproductive rights.

Even if the risk is just -‘hey, we know you and your wife have been trying to have kids for a while, and you claim she miscarried, but we need her to come by and submit to a pelvic exam, ultrasound and blood tests so we can see if we agree it was a miscarriage.’

Are the same people who freaked out at being forced to get a vaccine going to be ok with that kind of intrusion into their wives and daughters lives?

Or will they figure out a way to just pry into the personal lives of poor women?

It’s very much like the Handmaids Tale - they need to think through all the potential consequences of these kinds of laws - but they won’t.

[Opti]

Mar 11, 2023 13:38:45 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Mar 11, 2023 13:26:12 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

“[We] oppose penalties for mothers, who are a second victim of a predatory abortion industry,” said Kristi Hamrick, the chief media and policy strategist for Students for Life of America. (From link in the OP)

Are women inherently victims needing to be protected? If not, why should they be shielded from criminal prosecution? If providers are charged, why not those who seek an abortion?

This is an "if, then" argument. I do not think there should be the "if", thus eliminating the "then". However, I think the issue should be faced. happyhoix 's point that women who have a miscarriage would be at risk is a good one. If more people are at real risk of facing major consequences, the greater the motivation to protect reproductive rights.

I see no difference between people who hire someone to kill someone and women who seek out abortion providers and go have them end their pregnancy. As a country we prosecute the person who hires a killer and the killer.

So the the proposed law is hypocritical of its sponser(s).

People who hire people to kill their spouse, GF or whatever are not in danger of dying generally because the person they want to kill is alive. More than a few abortions involve dead or dying fetuses. Ectopic pregnancy does not improve on its own and puts the mother at risk. Likewise, some of the stories I remember reading here like when a woman's water breaks before the fetus is viable. Not sure what is humane about letting the fetus slowly die and potentially poison the mother. 

I do not see a fetus as a legal person, although I understand people leaning that way after the age of viability. I definitely disagree that a person exists when a human egg is fertilized.

[Opti]

Mar 11, 2023 14:22:01 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Mar 11, 2023 13:26:12 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

“[We] oppose penalties for mothers, who are a second victim of a predatory abortion industry,” said Kristi Hamrick, the chief media and policy strategist for Students for Life of America. (From link in the OP)

Are women inherently victims needing to be protected? If not, why should they be shielded from criminal prosecution? If providers are charged, why not those who seek an abortion?

This is an "if, then" argument. I do not think there should be the "if", thus eliminating the "then". However, I think the issue should be faced. happyhoix 's point that women who have a miscarriage would be at risk is a good one. If more people are at real risk of facing major consequences, the greater the motivation to protect reproductive rights.

Even if the risk is just -‘hey, we know you and your wife have been trying to have kids for a while, and you claim she miscarried, but we need her to come by and submit to a pelvic exam, ultrasound and blood tests so we can see if we agree it was a miscarriage.’

Are the same people who freaked out at being forced to get a vaccine going to be ok with that kind of intrusion into their wives and daughters lives?

Or will they figure out a way to just pry into the personal lives of poor women?

It’s very much like the Handmaids Tale - they need to think through all the potential consequences of these kinds of laws - but they won’t.

They don't think it will apply to them and yes, they are very OK with intruding in poor women's and non-conservative women's lives. 

[Tennesseer]

Mar 11, 2023 14:31:57 GMT -5 Opti said:

Mar 11, 2023 13:38:45 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

I see no difference between people who hire someone to kill someone and women who seek out abortion providers and go have them end their pregnancy. As a country we prosecute the person who hires a killer and the killer.

So the the proposed law is hypocritical of its sponser(s).

People who hire people to kill their spouse, GF or whatever are not in danger of dying generally because the person they want to kill is alive. More than a few abortions involve dead or dying fetuses. Ectopic pregnancy does not improve on its own and puts the mother at risk. Likewise, some of the stories I remember reading here like when a woman's water breaks before the fetus is viable. Not sure what is humane about letting the fetus slowly die and potentially poison the mother. 

I do not see a fetus as a legal person, although I understand people leaning that way after the age of viability. I definitely disagree that a person exists when a human egg is fertilized.

Please make no mistake on my position regarding abortion. It should be safe and legal. My point was it takes two willing participants to complete an abortion: the doctor and the willing patient. Neither of them should be innocent if only the doctor should be punished by the law.

[pulmonarymd]

Mar 11, 2023 14:13:44 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Mar 11, 2023 14:09:56 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Misoprostol is used to treat ulcers

the war on drugs won't work.

this drug can easily be transported through the mail.

there is no way they are going to stop it.  they are simply going to criminalize it's USE.

they made this mistake 100 years ago with pot and alcohol.

they will never learn.

ever.

Misoprostol has legitimate other uses. I doubt they would outlaw that one, although, if they do it will set a nasty precedent as many drugs have multiple uses. Thalidomide is used to treat myeloma. If abortion is outlawed, do we prevent its use because of its potential adverse affects? Restrict it to men and post-menopausal women, given its problems? How about accutane? Their teenage daughters might not like that. I wonder how many of them are taking oral contraceptives, as using 2 forms of contraception is a requirement for using the drug.

Abortions can be done using Misoprostol only, although the 2 drug combination is more effective. You can also use methotrexate. Let’s see them outlaw that drug, as it is a key part of treatment for childhood leukemia

[Cheesy FL-Vol]

Mar 11, 2023 17:44:02 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Mar 11, 2023 14:13:44 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

the war on drugs won't work.

this drug can easily be transported through the mail.

there is no way they are going to stop it.  they are simply going to criminalize it's USE.

they made this mistake 100 years ago with pot and alcohol.

they will never learn.

ever.

Misoprostol has legitimate other uses. I doubt they would outlaw that one, although, if they do it will set a nasty precedent as many drugs have multiple uses. Thalidomide is used to treat myeloma. If abortion is outlawed, do we prevent its use because of its potential adverse affects? Restrict it to men and post-menopausal women, given its problems? How about accutane? Their teenage daughters might not like that. I wonder how many of them are taking oral contraceptives, as using 2 forms of contraception is a requirement for using the drug.

Abortions can be done using Misoprostol only, although the 2 drug combination is more effective. You can also use methotrexate. Let’s see them outlaw that drug, as it is a key part of treatment for childhood leukemia

DH is being treated with Methotrexate for sarcoidosis, so that is another purpose for that drug.

[djAdvocate]

they are not going to stop this.  illegal sale can go under the name weekendatbettys, and people can use their VPN to purchase weekendatbettys through the mail or UPS or FedEX, coming from a blind address, and with the label reading weekendatbettys.

it is an exercise in futility.  which means it is probably more for PR than anything else.

[pulmonarymd]

Mar 11, 2023 17:58:40 GMT -5 Cheesy FL-Vol said:

Mar 11, 2023 17:44:02 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Misoprostol has legitimate other uses. I doubt they would outlaw that one, although, if they do it will set a nasty precedent as many drugs have multiple uses. Thalidomide is used to treat myeloma. If abortion is outlawed, do we prevent its use because of its potential adverse affects? Restrict it to men and post-menopausal women, given its problems? How about accutane? Their teenage daughters might not like that. I wonder how many of them are taking oral contraceptives, as using 2 forms of contraception is a requirement for using the drug.

Abortions can be done using Misoprostol only, although the 2 drug combination is more effective. You can also use methotrexate. Let’s see them outlaw that drug, as it is a key part of treatment for childhood leukemia

DH is being treated with Methotrexate for sarcoidosis, so that is another purpose for that drug.

It’s used for a myriad of diseases- rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, lupus, mixed connective tissue disease, and on and on. No way they can ban it.

It is a dangerous precedent for courts to overrule the FDA. Lots of people, most who aren’t pregnant, will be hurt if they start that precedent