When Roe v Wade is overturned, what will punishment be for the crime of abortion?

Never say never. Social attitudes do change over time and it really could be overturned.

Of course, if abortion is murder, then it is a crime punishable by life sentences in prison. And some states have the death penalty.

This means that the prison population will increase by over forty million women not to mention putting the doctors away.

And billions of dollars more being spent on the prison system.

reply to post by desert


Overturning Roe V Wade will be very messy for the GOP, it would not be worth in the end and I trust many of the higher ups realize this. At this point it's just lip service and it will stay like that even into the next Republican administration. I'd be really curious to see what would happen if they tried to overturn it and I don't think it will be pretty on their end.

That being said, punishment?

Each state may then have their own versions of abortion law. I trust that most of these states that will outlaw will do so just establish "symbolic" bans on abortions because of the fact they would not be able to outlaw it in the same way as outlawing many other crimes. You can't grant the same protections and rights (personhood) to fertilized eggs as you do human beings considering their vastly different circumstances. For one thing 30-60% of fertilized eggs naturally abort, and while humans naturally die as well, there are often investigations carried out to confirm this, in contrast it will take alot of resources and it will cost alot to investigate these circumstances, this is just a single example of how complex and costly these state laws will have to be.

Then you have women crossing state and national lines, I trust the cycle of abortions will not change all that much. You'll also have these state laws crossing into privacy and bodily rights, for example, one can accuse a woman of "murder", and more than often the only proof that could be provided would be a bodily examination. This will then infringe on property rights and so forth. Unless these State force these woman to go through this, which would cross on so many right, they can't prove anything. (unless they have laws of guilt for refusing to have their bodies examined).

As I said, abortion laws in the scenario of a post-Roe V Wade world will for the most part be symbolic, they would not significantly change the rate of abortions or the cycle, regardless. Ironically many of these same state governments will also continue cutting down on social programmes that single mothers and children would depend on, and this would add to the povery level. Countries that have completely outlawed abortions are mostly 3rd world, that is African countries exluding South Africa and Zambia, South American nations excluding venezuala and Chile, southeast asian countries.

Most of the pro-lifers I've come across admit that these laws would be symbolic, but to them it's about establishing that their states cherish "human rights for the unborn". The fact remains that these laws will not do so much change to the cycle of abortions, they'll just cost more and restrict more rights. I'll also trust that most states will eventually make exceptions of abortion in certain circumstances, which will then contradict the entire purpose of personhood.

This is where so many groups lose ground with me, it seems many liberals and Ron Paul supporters want things like "states rights" but then they only want it to go in their favor. I really don't care about abortion but I don't see how both groups can say things like "every life is precious" in supporting abortion but then turn around and support the death penalty and that goes the other way too.
If made illegal plenty of doctors would lose their licenses but I doubt there would be any serious jail time. But if the abortion debate ever ends they need to address the issue of child support. If a man has no right to say what a woman does once she is pregnant she should also have no right to a man's wallet should she choose to have a child against his wishes.

It's hard to say what the punishment would be for each individual state. If the federal personhood movement is successful, abortion would be first degree murder in most states. Women who selected to receive this medical treatment would become first degree murderers, and their doctors would probably face the same charge. I assume they would receive the same punishment as any other first degree murderer. Why not?

In most states, first-degree murder is defined as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated, meaning that it was committed after planning or "lying in wait" for the victim.

FindLaw

reply to post by olaru12


olaru, I wish I were not so cynical and could hold the same opinion as yours. Up until recently, I would have written the same reasons for status quo, but having witnessed the increasingly extremist views taking increasing hold along with politicians who hold these views increasingly being elected (to the point of being on the the ticket for the highest elected office), I see RvW as a realistic probability of being overturned.

Who, in that political party, will go beyond lip service of speaking against and instead act as a bulwark against the decades long movement to overturn RvW? Who is left to do so?

The power of the collective action to overturn RvW is not that they help finance politicians. Their power of collective action has been to turn out voters. And we see the current result of that.

The assumption of this thread is that RvW will be overturned sooner than later, and this nation needs to prepare for it. I also posit that we will not return to pre-RvW ways of dealing with girls and women who commit the crime of abortion, because our society has changed.

Remember the Georgia legislator who wanted to criminalize miscarriages? If someone had told me in 1980, that this thinking would even be expressed in 2011, I would have laughed in their face.

Public emergency preparation advice to survivalist forums speak of how to prepare for a major change. The consequences of overturning RvW need to be addressed and understood by all citizens. When my state required passengers to wear seatbelts, I was informed off the consequences.

Thanks to OutKast Searcher, I am now aware of some laws on the books. These are post RvW laws. What would these laws change to when either all/most abortions are illegal?

When Roe v Wade is overturned ...

Hold it. Stop there. It won't be overturned. It doesn't matter what the personal thoughts of any POTUS are .... it doesn't matter if they are pro or anti abortion ... the law of the land is that abortion is legal. It won't be changed. It's been ruled on. The end.

reply to post by FlyersFan


I wish I could believe that. There are 3 Ways Roe v Wade Could be Overturned

There are three ways Roe v. Wade, (1973) can be overturned:

Since Roe vs. Wade was a Supreme Court decision, the Supreme Court can effectively overturn the decision by ruling against abortion in a future case.

Congress can pass legislation protecting the fetus from the moment of conception (There are usually several bills addressing this issue in committee during each Congressional term. The 111th Congress (current) includes three House Resolutions and one Senate bill.).

Congress and the states can amend the Constitution to include the definition of "person" to include the unborn (this is the least likely scenario).

With the Congress we have now and voting being limited in some states, it's possible some TP advocates will be voted in, shifting the mindset of Congress farther to the right. The right already has a majority on the SC and Congress keeps pounding "Personhood" legislation. I hope you're right, but I think it's wise to look at the possible outcomes of them getting what they want.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


While those are ways that Roe v Wade could be overturned, I'm still going to have to agree with Flyers Fan that Roe v Wade still will not be overturned. Regardless of who gets elected, regardless of political or religious affiliation, regardless of their stance, politicians - all politicians - only care about one thing...and that is getting re-elected. If any real attempt to overturn Roe v Wade is made - not lip service, a real attempt - they will never get re-elected.

And for the person (Iforget who) who made the comment about some people being against abortion but for the death penalty - there actually are some of us out there who are opposed to both abortion on demand as well as the death penalty. But I am only in charge of my life. Both my wife and I agree that if (God forbid) she were ever raped and became pregnant, we would raise the child as our own. But we do not believe we have the right to tell another person what to do in their situations. If their conscience allows it, then it is their decision. I don't protest, I don't judge, I won't vote for restrictive laws. I practice my beliefs in my home. I know people who have had abortions and, while I do not personally agree, I still love them and respect their decision and I refuse to make them feel guilty about it.

Edited to add: The second comment was directed toward Superhans. And to add more regarding your comment about "access to a man's wallet" - a man also has the responsibility to use protection in the sack if he wants to protect his wallet. If you roll the dice without protection, sometimes you lose and you will have to pay for not thinking. That's not the woman's fault. If you don't want to get someone pregnant, it's your responsibility to use protection.

reply to post by desert

Who, in that political party, will go beyond lip service of speaking against and instead act as a bulwark against the decades long movement to overturn RvW? Who is left to do so?

The power of the collective action to overturn RvW is not that they help finance politicians. Their power of collective action has been to turn out voters. And we see the current result of that.

I want to be optimistic about all this desert - I want to have faith that rational thinking will rise like cream to the surface of American politics - but...

There is a definite topsy-turvy, fun-house feel in the air these days - and I have a sense that we should prepare for the worst. It doesn't pay to become complacent

It's about making inroads - shifts by degree - speech and actions unopposed...

Who knows what the punishment will be - but certain states are already preparing to move on this:

What’s more, a provision of the law that has received almost no media attention would ensure that a certification by the doctor that the patient either did or didn’t “avail herself of the opportunity” to view the ultrasound or listen to the fetal heartbeat will go into the woman’s medical record. Whether she wants it there or not. I guess they were all out of scarlet letters in Richmond.

www.slate.com... eason.html

Groups - organized and effective

Indeed, AUL's greatest success may be its push to take down America's largest abortion provider. In July 2011, AUL released "The Case for Investigating Planned Parenthood," a 174-page report detailing dozens of alleged abuses, ranging from poor patient care to the misuse of federal funds. Two months later, the House Energy and Commerce Committee started looking into Planned Parenthood's "compliance with federal restrictions on the funding of abortion." A spokesman for Rep. Cliff Stearns, the Florida Republican heading the investigation, confirmed that the AUL report was a contributing factor in the decision to launch the probe. (AUL's legislative arm gives Stearns a 100 percent pro-life vote rating.) Stearns' investigation, in turn, inspired Susan G. Komen for the Cure to cut funding for breast cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood clinics.

Komen reversed its decision amid public outcry, but the cumulative impact of AUL's efforts has abortion rights advocates worried. In 2000, the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive-health research nonprofit, rated 13 states as "hostile" to reproductive rights; in 2011, it gave 26 states that designation. "We're seeing states that go in and make their laws worse, and we're seeing states that are adopting more extreme, more onerous, and more creative laws," says Elizabeth Nash, Guttmacher's state issues manager. By putting up more hurdles for women who want abortions and the doctors who provide them, "at some point, someone will cry uncle."

www.motherjones.com...

Young women don't see or care how this affects them - other women have come to accept that things can't or won't change - but nothing is ever set in stone

This is as much about women's rights as it is about the nitty-gritty of abortion. What else will be or not be allowed by the states if we lose the rights to our own bodies?

Again, I'd like to think we won't move backwards - but since the evidence of a dedicated, serious and effective campaign to change or create real laws is all around us - it's hard to dismiss it as just another mess of election year rhetoric





apparently that link is un-fixable - so here's a link to the link: www.slate.com...

Keep dreaming because Roe Vs Wade is not going to get overturned.

You can throw as many emotional fits as you like, argue morals and "gods POV" but you wont ever succeed in getting abortion de-legalized.

Wake up, smell the coffee, welcome to the the 21st century.

reply to post by SearchLightsInc


Well, Romney is calling for it now. If he gets elected and does nothing about it, in four years, the Overturn proponents are going to be calling for his head (What have you done for me lately?) and threatening not to vote for him again. That's when I see the greatest possibility of it happening. So he'll get a second term.

Much like Obama has now repealed Don't Ask, Don't tell and spoken for marriage equality, I can see Romney taking steps to secure his far-right base.

I REALLY hope you're right and I think you probably are, but I've been wrong before.

Originally posted by Monger
I'm sure there are many crazies who'd like to see them fried for the terrible crime of having a clump of cells scraped from their insides. And I'm sure those same crazies would have the nerve to proudly declare themselves 'pro-life'.

And yet, if scientists found one single-cell organism on Mars, everyone would declare they have found life on another planet.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by SearchLightsInc

 

Well, Romney is calling for it now. If he gets elected and does nothing about it, in four years, the Overturn proponents are going to be calling for his head (What have you done for me lately?) and threatening not to vote for him again. That's when I see the greatest possibility of it happening. So he'll get a second term.

Much like Obama has now repealed Don't Ask, Don't tell and spoken for marriage equality, I can see Romney taking steps to secure his far-right base.

I REALLY hope you're right and I think you probably are, but I've been wrong before.

I dont think Romney stands a chance, but i guess that's a different thread.

Funny how america likes to call itself a "free country" and yet they want to overturn pro-choice laws

Originally posted by iforget
The punishment will be death in back alley practices.

edit on 8/27/2012 by iforget because: (no reason given)

correct...the wealthy women will go to another country and have the abortion safely preformed and no one will know here or be punished, while women of the lower classes will die from back alley and kitchen table abortions with imprisonment of those that do. this is what the religous right wants, control over women. these are the right-wing taliban of america

reply to post by olaru12

but....in theory if R v W was overturned the punishment for women guilty of murder of a child [as they put it] would be life in prison or death by lethal injection.

This is the one thing that makes me feel as sure about this as you do - the absurdity of the reality they would be forced to deal with once they won their battle

If they want to call it murder - they'll be forced to treat it as such - and the idea of a bunch of 18 year old girls on trial for murder - then in prison...

Won't happen -

But - I agree - they'll find other more devious, round about ways to punish women. By the time they get done with us you'll have to have a note from your husband to get a PAP smear

Originally posted by jeramie

Originally posted by Monger
I'm sure there are many crazies who'd like to see them fried for the terrible crime of having a clump of cells scraped from their insides. And I'm sure those same crazies would have the nerve to proudly declare themselves 'pro-life'.

And yet, if scientists found one single-cell organism on Mars, everyone would declare they have found life on another planet.

yes, because it WOULD be life...but not a human being...are you unable to tell the difference?

reply to post by olaru12


No they didn't want to overturn it. However now the once minority of the party has taken control and will overturn it at the first opportunity. It took about a generation to do but the Paul Ryan's of the party are the product of Regan's use of the Religious Right to bolster the party ranks. They aren't just using the theocrats they are the theocrats themselves.

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
Keep dreaming because Roe Vs Wade is not going to get overturned.

You can throw as many emotional fits as you like, argue morals and "gods POV" but you wont ever succeed in getting abortion de-legalized.

Wake up, smell the coffee, welcome to the the 21st century.

edit on 28-8-2012 by SearchLightsInc because: (no reason given)

the agenda of this right-wing supreme court might prove you wrong...i hope not...but, look at the ruling giving "bill of rights" individual human protections, to profit-making business entites. plus, the ruling to allow any and all secret money, from any foriegn, or domestic, person or organization, to monetarily influence any local, state, or federal american election.
i have no respect whatsoever for the republican traitors who sit on the supreme court and call themselves "judges"...a 10th grade civics student has more judgement then they do. i even think they should be impeached for aiding and abetting foreign enemies who want to run our government.

If the manly politicians would actually take a moment to think this over ... they would stop immediately with their push of such propaganda.

IF you want to reduce or eliminate elective abortions, there is a sure-fire way to do that ... but, good luck inflicting such brutality on the man --> since it takes two to make a baby, all men who father un-wanted/aborted children, should be forced to undergo castration, simple as that.
less seed = less fruit.

why should any woman be the only one to suffer punishment for such acts ??
they certainly didn't get there on their own.

since men want or believe they have a say in IF a woman can abort, perhaps their manlihood should be "on the line" and then maybe their decisions to implant their seed would adapt to the prevailing 'pro-life' positions.

Is this because the birth rate has declined and these rich old white dudes are afraid their slave labour force is diminishing? www.forbes.com...