Trump.....

Zaf

Gearbox Frother
Of the mother yes, but who decides the viability of the foetus/baby/human? What if they pop it out premature and it doesn't make it? Is it an innocent bystander?
You know how pregnancy works right? If the mother dies, the baby is likely to go with her. I can't think of many situations outside a hospital in which that is not the case.

Essentially the rights to an abortion through the Roe vs Wade case come through a side angle of a person's constitutional right to privacy. In order to try and balance the rights of the woman, and the rights of the potential life, they put an outset of the women having the most rights within the first trimester and these would diminish as the pregnancy continued.

Roe vs Wade makes several key rulings; a state cannot regulate abortion in the first trimester at all, that they could regulate within the second trimester, but only to protect a woman's health, and that they could outright prohibit within the third, except if the life of the mother is at risk. They also set the standard of strict scrutiny for any review of the law, which is the highest level of judicial review. It's the highest burden that exists within constitutional law.

You also have the Abortion Control Act which stipulates things like the 24hr wait period, parental consent in the case of a minor, spousal notification and mandatory disclosure. This is where Planned Parenthood vs Casey enters the fray. Now under the stare decisis doctrine of respecting precedent of previous rulings, the only thing not upheld in this dispute was the spousal notification, and they also re-worked the trimester guidelines put into play from Roe vs Wade, into ones based on viability of the fetus being the new benchmark for the increased state interest, and dimishing rights of the mother.

There were medical advances in that time period and where previously viability of the fetus was usually around 28 weeks, these days we're closer to the 24-25 weeks for viability. Because of the more open phrasing and less constrained trimester guidelines, and the 28 week underpinning of the original Roe vs Wade decision; there can now be increased state interest once a fetus reaches viability. Before viability they can have some interest in fetal health, as long as it doesn't cause an undue burden on the woman's right to seek an abortion. After viability, they can regulate and even outlaw it, except in the preservation of the mother's life. This is why the spousal notification was dropped, as this was the only part of the act considered to actually cause an undue burden on the process.

So after Casey what should be taken away is that states cannot ban abortion before 24 weeks, and any evaluation moved to an undue burden standard of judicial review, which is far more lenient than the strict scrutiny standard previously in play.

The Alabama laws don't criminalise the mothers, but takes aim at the doctors, and contains wording like "Abortion isn't a medical procedure. It's a genocide on par with crimes against humanity" (Alabama House Bill 314, 2019). This bill also sets strict rules on the type of endangerment the mother must be in to justify the abortion.

There's more to go into...but you get the idea. Go check out Georgia's new laws which actually target the mother for prosecution if anything happens after they detect cardiac activity. They also have some seriously draconian stuff, if the mother leaves the state to have an abortion she can be charged with conspiracy to murder and the like; if someone drives her, they too can get conspiracy to commit murder.


Also, sorry for the wall of text. A long way to answer the viability stuff. It's complicated, because some of these new laws have been written for the exact purpose of challenging the Supreme Court Precedent, and they outright conflict with it for the express purpose of having them pulled into Supreme Court Review. The Heart-beat viability is in direct contradiction to the 24-week standard from Casey as well as the trimester standard of Roe.
 
Last edited:

Zaf

Gearbox Frother
Wow, just wow. thanks for that. How do you find time to ride bikes.
The riding isn't so much of an issue; it's sleep that is the victim in all of this.

I feel the need to correct that, as it's a bit of a horse behind the cart. I have had over a decade of sleeping issues; my average of a night is significantly lower than most others (and with no detectable cause on sleep lab or MRI). So it's more, I don't sleep and have found myself reading all sorts of things of a night to pass the time a little, rather than "I'm committed to intellectual rigors so much I don't sleep".

Natural disclaimer that all the reading happens in the moments spent ignoring the whispers of my firearms urging me to kill children.
And when I'm not throat punching kittens and juvenile delinquents with equal vigor and posting on 4Chan, or whatever the latest heinous thing I'm supposed to be doing is.
 
Last edited:

moorey

Pagophagic
A white woman with expensive lawyers don't generally get into physical altercations that necessitate the use of one. I thought, you being a doctor and all, you'd would know all about prevention being a lot better than a solution.


Fuck me dead...let me re-phrase it so as to make it a little clearer for you.
Compared to a long arm, pistols have poor lethality. The bullet grain is big, and it only has a short barrel to accelerate out of, which limits the wound vector to a great degree. You will find most personal carry weapons fall back to 9mm for this exact reason; you can get a double stack magazine in a small form factor so that you can make up with volume what you lack in hitting power. Also snaps a lot less than a 10mm or a .40, and doesn't have the form factor issues of a .45; it is more easily controlled and concealed.

Almost every army in the world fires a .22 calibre bullet out of their main battle rifle. We're all acutely aware that ANY bullet can be lethal with the right placement, which I said the first time. Usually goes, center mass, fire until threat is eliminated. You don't brandish or fire warning shots, if you had to draw the weapon you are within reasonable fear of your life and you should be using it to shrewd effect.


You're kidding me?! You mean this isn't an anonymous anime imageboard!? I never make that mistake, so you can see how this would be mighty embarrassing for me.
You need some new content with your insults though. This whole "he doesn't agree with me, he must be from 4chan" is getting a little overused.



The point was more to make out that there is a significant difference in movies (the only exposure most people have to firearms) and reality. It's not as simple as putting a bullet in someone and they go down.

Well done to everyone though! You've all managed to turn a discussion about draconian abortion laws and the case that might very well have a huge impact on them, into a circle-jerk about how you all hate guns...a detail you've already represented super clearly, at almost every opportunity and in large volume all over the forum already.
TLDR.
I just don’t believe for a second you aren’t trolling. ;)
 

Lazmo

Old and hopeless
TLDR.
I just don’t believe for a second you aren’t trolling. ;)
Well, I did read the wall of blah blah blah, I'm gonna bombard you with a wall of blah blah blah, so because there is so much blah blah blah information there... it must be right. Blah fvcking blah.

And I still think that...

Regardless... bible belt law, whether it is to do with guns or abortion... is hardly the precedent for us, or any other sane nation for that matter, to base our own laws on.
 

Haakon

Not happy, Jan.
The riding isn't so much of an issue; it's sleep that is the victim in all of this.

I feel the need to correct that, as it's a bit of a horse behind the cart. I have had over a decade of sleeping issues; my average of a night is significantly lower than most others (and with no detectable cause on sleep lab or MRI). So it's more, I don't sleep and have found myself reading all sorts of things of a night to pass the time a little, rather than "I'm committed to intellectual rigors so much I don't sleep".

Natural disclaimer that all the reading happens in the moments spent ignoring the whispers of my firearms urging me to kill children.
And when I'm not throat punching kittens and juvenile delinquents with equal vigor and posting on 4Chan, or whatever the latest heinous thing I'm supposed to be doing is.
Damn kittens... they had it coming anyway.
 

Zaf

Gearbox Frother
But the law was so clear...
You know that it really is super unambiguous on that point right?
The Grand Jury was well within their rights to issue the indictment, and likewise, the DA is well within her rights to choose which cases they will try.

Alabama Code Title 13A - Criminal Code said:
(a) As used in Article 1 and Article 2, the following terms shall have the meanings ascribed to them by this section:
(1) CRIMINAL HOMICIDE.  Murder, manslaughter, or criminally negligent homicide.
(2) HOMICIDE.  A person commits criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or with criminal negligence causes the death of another person.

(3) PERSON.  The term, when referring to the victim of a criminal homicide or assault, means a human being, including an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability.
(b) Article 1 or Article 2 shall not apply to the death or injury to an unborn child alleged to be caused by medication or medical care or treatment provided to a pregnant woman when performed by a physician or other licensed health care provider.
Mistake, or unintentional error on the part of a licensed physician or other licensed health care provider or his or her employee or agent or any person acting on behalf of the patient shall not subject the licensed physician or other licensed health care provider or person acting on behalf of the patient to any criminal liability under this section.
Medical care or treatment includes, but is not limited to, ordering, dispensation or administration of prescribed medications and medical procedures.
(c) A victim of domestic violence or sexual assault may not be charged under Article 1 or Article 2 for the injury or death of an unborn child caused by a crime of domestic violence or rape perpetrated upon her.
(d) Nothing in Article 1 or Article 2 shall permit the prosecution of (1) any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf has been obtained or for which consent is implied by law or (2) any woman with respect to her unborn child.
(e) Nothing in this section shall make it a crime to perform or obtain an abortion that is otherwise legal.  Nothing in this section shall be construed to make an abortion legal which is not otherwise authorized by law.
 

Zaf

Gearbox Frother
But you were so certain @Zaf, never ambiguous.
The indictment existed as a matter of due process. Jemison was charged with manslaughter and exonerated by a Grand Jury; in the absence of her blame, and in light of Jones being the aggressor in a violent crime that resulted in the death of her unborn child, Jones was seen by a that same Grand Jury to be criminally negligent and an charges filed accordingly.

The District Attorney has prosecutorial discretion on which cases they will take to trial, and it's worth noting that these decisions are still subject to Judicial Review. In this case they have chosen not to pursue the charges.
There are a multitude of different reasons for doing something like this, in a criminal case, where the standard is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict (rather than a Civil case where it is simply the preponderance of evidence), if discovery isn't sufficient to make that case they may not go to trial for that alone.

I hope that clears up any ambiguity you seem to be having on the matter.
 

safreek

Vealcake
Well, at least there is some sort of sense in the usa. Edward Gallagher found not guilty of all the serious charges. Victory for the good side
 

pink poodle

Clinically Inane
The indictment existed as a matter of due process. Jemison was charged with manslaughter and exonerated by a Grand Jury; in the absence of her blame, and in light of Jones being the aggressor in a violent crime that resulted in the death of her unborn child, Jones was seen by a that same Grand Jury to be criminally negligent and an charges filed accordingly.

The District Attorney has prosecutorial discretion on which cases they will take to trial, and it's worth noting that these decisions are still subject to Judicial Review. In this case they have chosen not to pursue the charges.
There are a multitude of different reasons for doing something like this, in a criminal case, where the standard is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict (rather than a Civil case where it is simply the preponderance of evidence), if discovery isn't sufficient to make that case they may not go to trial for that alone.

I hope that clears up any ambiguity you seem to be having on the matter.
So you are still very certain.
 

pink poodle

Clinically Inane
I believe I have answered in as clear and concise a manner as possible.
I fear your confusion on the matter may be beyond my abilities to clarify.
Yesterday ypu were very certain of guilt, not the possibility of guilt at trial. Now you have danced a little side step and Realigned yourself and continue with the same level of authoritative not quite tjere as before. This is a common practice of yours.
 
Top