It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Annee
They're trying to find a legal way to sneak around Roe vs Wade.
I doubt making the doctors the scapegoat will ever stand up to challenges in court.
Understanding the Different Roles of Legal and Constitutional Personhood in the Life Debate
It has been demonstrated that one need not be a constitutional person to be a legal person; in other words, “personhood” does not need to be defined in the Constitution for a human being to have legal protection. Evidence supporting this conclusion can be drawn directly from the life debates. For example, state and federal protections for unborn victims of violence (also known as “fetal homicide laws”) treat the unborn as legal persons by treating the killing of an unborn human as a form of homicide. Hence, the unborn are protected in law in certain instances, even without constitutional personhood.
It is also important to note that, even if an unborn person is given constitutional personhood by means of an [human life amendment], that unborn person is not necessarily a legal person protected by criminal homicide laws. This is because the Constitution only applies to actions of the U.S. Government, and not actions by individual persons. The creation of constitutional personhood for the unborn will not stop abortion providers from killing unborn children by abortion. Only a criminal homicide law that establishes legal personhood for the unborn could stop abortion providers from killing the unborn through abortion.
No person shall perform or induce an abortion upon a pregnant woman
unless that person is a physician licensed to practice medicine in the State of Oklahoma.Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not less than one (1) year nor more than three (3) years in the State Penitentiary.
In the United States According to a study published in 2011— In 2006, 49% of pregnancies were unintended—a slight increase from 48% in 2001. Among women aged 19 years and younger, more than 4 out of 5 pregnancies were unintended. The proportion of pregnancies that were unintended was highest among teens younger than age 15 years, at 98%. Between 2001 and 2006, the proportion of pregnancies that were unintended— Declined from 89% to 79% among teens aged 15–17 years. Increased from 79% to 83% among women aged 18 and 19 years and from 59% to 64% among women aged 20–24 years. Large increases in unintended pregnancy rates were found among women with lower education, low income, and cohabiting women.
Be honest--where in my comment does it say that I did not read the bill?
Here's the problem with stories like the one to which you linked--they don't link to the actual bill so that we can read the verbiage and see for ourselves what it says. And given that a few democrats in each chamber voted for the bill, I'm quite certain that it can't be as draconian as it implies.
Anyhoo, as for your 14th-Amendment quote, you forgot to bold the part immediately after, which says that states shall not deprive any person of life...
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Like I mentioned before, but it seems to have been ignored or glossed over: Just because something is legal at the federal level doesn't mean that states MUST make it legal in their jurisdictions.
I used fireworks and alcohol as examples, but the list is limitless (car exhausts systems, plastic bags at stores, concealed-carry permits for deadly weapons [as well as many things having to do with firearms], etc., etc.).
Secondly, now you're adding in the modifier "elective" before "abortions," whereas with me before you just mentioned "abortion(s)." That makes a difference.
I realize that this is what this law does, and I am perfectly fine with that. But you and I differ on our approach as to exactly what a fetus is, apparently: I see it as a tiny human being--a person--who has a right to life, and is protected when the 14th Amendment says, "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."I realize that this is what this law does, and I am perfectly fine with that. But you and I differ on our approach as to exactly what a fetus is, apparently: I see it as a tiny human being--a person--who has a right to life, and is protected when the 14th Amendment says, "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Atsbhct
That's not what I'm looking for, as this does NOT indicate that these unintended pregnancies happened while all of these women were on birth control.
That was the claim to which I'm seeking confirmation, as it seems absolutely ridiculous.
All you did was show me that many women of a young age tend to be careless in their decisions to have intercourse, resulting in unintended pregnancies. I do, however, appreciate your efforts in trying to find proof of the claim, though.
The amendment only strikes the clause about doctors being allowed to perform or induce abortions, now making it also a felony for doctors to do so. A doctor cannot give a woman RU-486.
Well, I'm quite certain that these approved amendments only concern doctors, not the general public, but honestly, I don't feel like re-reading the bill to ensure that's accurate.
Yes. So what? The Supreme Court has decided that abortions are legal. That a state cannot deny a woman an abortion. This bill effectively prevents women in Oklahoma from obtaining abortions because it turns the act of performing an abortion into a felony. Can you provide a single example of another form of felonious "misconduct" which is any manner similar?
There are many forms of misconduct that a doctor can do that are felonies, or could get them life in prison.
What? How does an abortion protect the life of a fetus? You are not making any sense.
Seems to make sense, really, as there are already allowances for abortions done to protect the life of the mother and/or the unborn child.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: dawnstar
I wasn't saying that sterilization is a necessary method of birth control, I was just pointing out that it's a perfectly good option once you know that you're done having kids.
Performance of an abortion as defined by Section 1-730 of
Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes, except that an abortion necessary
to preserve the life of the mother shall not be grounds for denial
or revocation of a medical license. No such condition may be
determined to exist if it is based on a claim or diagnosis that the
woman may engage in conduct which she intends to result in her