Does a pregnant woman have the right to shoot her fetus on its due date?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Interesting does that statue restrict the crime to males? If taken literally it does.

I expect the argument is based on the wording seems to apply that "any person" is not the mother.

No, it's just poor terminology. It says at the top "any person". The judge even said it wasn't an issue of sex, just the fact that it was the mother that got her off.

[Thorgrim]

Section 18.2-71.1 was held unconstitutional by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Richmond Medical Center for Women v. Hicks, 301 F.Supp.2d 499 (E.D. Va. 2004).

Richmond Medical Center v. Hicks 2004
Eastern District of VA
Holdings: On plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, the District Court, Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge, held that:
(1) inconsistent and incoherent expert testimony proffered by defendants was inadmissible;
(2) statute violated Constitution by omitting health exception;
(3) statute placed undue burden on woman's right to choose abortion, and thus violated Constitution;
(4) life-of-mother exception was constitutionally inadequate;
(5) statute violated Due Process Clause by criminalizing intact dilation and evacuation (intact D & E) abortion procedure without compelling state interest; and
(6) statute was unconstitutionally vague.

Motion granted; injunction issued.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Law isn't always all inclusive, and is subject to clarifying intent. It is something to do with how law is applied is sometime ambigious.

It seems pretty conclusive here though. Maybe Thorgrim will find something I'm not seeing.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by JaJae

No, it's just poor terminology. It says at the top "any person". The judge even said it wasn't an issue of sex, just the fact that it was the mother that got her off.

I agree in terms of intent, and that it would be a poor argument. I was pointing out that laws have some leeway in meaning.

How much and what other factors were involved?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Section 18.2-71.1 was held unconstitutional by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Richmond Medical Center for Women v. Hicks, 301 F.Supp.2d 499 (E.D. Va. 2004).

Richmond Medical Center v. Hicks 2004
Eastern District of VA
Holdings: On plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, the District Court, Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge, held that:
(1) inconsistent and incoherent expert testimony proffered by defendants was inadmissible;
(2) statute violated Constitution by omitting health exception;
(3) statute placed undue burden on woman's right to choose abortion, and thus violated Constitution;
(4) life-of-mother exception was constitutionally inadequate;
(5) statute violated Due Process Clause by criminalizing intact dilation and evacuation (intact D & E) abortion procedure without compelling state interest; and
(6) statute was unconstitutionally vague.

Motion granted; injunction issued.

Wrong law. That's 71.1 or this law:
LIS > Code of Virginia > 18.2-71.1

Anything about the law cited in the article?
This one...
LIS > Code of Virginia > 18.2-71

[Thorgrim]

bleh, my bad, re-checking

[6SpeedTA95]

It's abhorrent and this is exactly why the nubmers against abortion are growing and those against abortion actually out number those in favor of abortion now. Because abortion folks have taken it to the extreme accepting dispicable acts like this.

Just like the far righters saying God sicked Katrina on the US for allowing gay marriage.

Not trying to derail the thread but its this type of extreme shit that basically loses the argument for the party in question. This decision if it gets any press time at all will ultimately have a huge negative impact on the pro abortion folks.

[Thorgrim]

ok, after looking around, there are several things apparent:

The law cited by JaJae is good standing law in VA:

The last case where a woman was brought before a court on this statute for self abortion was 58 years ago prior to RvW or affirming cases:
Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
IVA RODEFFER DAVIS COFFMAN
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.
November 22, 1948.

So the judge had one pre-RvW precedent, and ofcourse federal precedent, and the law, which was:

Except as provided in other sections of this article, if any person administer to, or cause to be taken by a woman, any drug or other thing, or use means, with intent to destroy her unborn child, or to produce abortion or miscarriage, and thereby destroy such child, or produce such abortion or miscarriage, he shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony.


Reviewing this, the legislators could have easily made put in "person or the pregnant woman herself"

The judge was in a tricky spot, as the legislative intent was to provide clean hospitals for women...not to prevent self-pregnancies (atleast not in the latest 1975 version)

If she were to rule that it was a crime, she would be interpreting statute, if she ruled no, she would be interpreting statute

In this case, it was a trial and the judge had to assume the role of the jury as requested by the defendant, so the judge had to act like she was a regular juror, and view the defendants arguements at such, in the end, she came down in favor of the defendant

Is this me justifying the decision? No, I have no access to the case so I have NO IDEA what the defendants cited in their case, for all we know they cited several federal and state cases that were very overwhelming

at the very least, this will make the legislators go back and rewrite the law

for all those who are VERY OUTRAGED
take note to this, if she had been found guilty, the maximum sentence she would have recieved would have been about 4 years, probably paroled out after 6 months

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

for all those who are VERY OUTRAGED
take note to this, if she had been found guilty, the maximum sentence she would have recieved would have been about 4 years, probably paroled out after 6 months

I believe the law states 2-10 years. But your estimates seem correct.

And RvW doesn't hold claim over final trimester abortions.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

at the very least, this will make the legislators go back and rewrite the law

The law should say if you do it, you go to jail for murder and your ovaries are ripped out with a rusty spoon. She still had to give birth to the deceased child. She should have given it up for adoption. Her actions were assinine.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I believe the law states 2-10 years. But your estimates seem correct.

And RvW doesn't hold claim over final trimester abortions.

You know what I am talking about...a dramatic shift in federal position, and third trimester abortions are allowed, held up in other cases...big difference since 1948 which all the judge had to go to from the prosecution's side

Again, people 'outraged' here I am pretty sure think she should get life in prison, or 20 hard years, or whatever

Fact is, she'd be out in a couple of months if she was found guilty, thats how Virginia wrote the law and sentencing guidelines, thats how it is

BTW in 1948 the woman was sentenced to 4 years I believe, in 2006? I am sure it'd be something like 2, and with our parole system...

I'm just saying lets cool the outrage, we've found out a lot, but WE STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FULL DEFENSE WAS, all we have is a soundbyte

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

. She still had to give birth to the deceased child. She should have given it up for adoption. Her actions were assinine.

which points to mitigating factors that weren't mentioned in the article...the woman is probably crazy, and will be in an institution very soon...probably the exact same one if she had been found guilty

her actions don't make any sense, thats exactly why I think the defense probably had a good case

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

You know what I am talking about...a dramatic shift in federal position, and third trimester abortions are allowed, held up in other cases...big difference since 1948 which all the judge had to go to from the prosecution's side

Again, people 'outraged' here I am pretty sure think she should get life in prison, or 20 hard years, or whatever

Fact is, she'd be out in a couple of months if she was found guilty, thats how Virginia wrote the law and sentencing guidelines, thats how it is

BTW in 1948 the woman was sentenced to 4 years I believe, in 2006? I am sure it'd be something like 2, and with our parole system...

I'm just saying lets cool the outrage, we've found out a lot, but WE STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FULL DEFENSE WAS, all we have is a soundbyte

Personally I don't care what the defense was or what precident was. She belongs in jail. And if our laws don't allow it we should be outraged to get it changed.

And if this judge is making activist abortion decisions they should be made into a public mockery.

[Donkey®]

Well, the baby wouldn't have been better off either way.

[Thorgrim]

well ive given all i can to this thread, enjoy whatever outrage you guys want to have

[7960]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Reviewing this, the legislators could have easily made put in "person or the pregnant woman herself"

This is beyond stupid........the statement "any person" clearly includes the pregnant woman, so why state "any person or the pregnant woman"? Any person already covers the pregnant woman.

[IminWonderland]

I read the entire article. And I think the best question we should be asking is on the fourth page.

"The question we shouldn't be asking is, 'What crime did she commit?' But, 'Why didn't she have access to abortion services? Why didn't she have access to mental health services?'" Paltrow said.
"When Medicaid does not fund abortion. … It is totally inappropriate to turn to the criminal justice system to respond to these problems," she said.

This girl who did this. She's broken. She's sick. And she's already got two kids (I bet you $10 by two different men), and because of where she comes from, she doesn't have the access that some people have. Whether it's because of funds, or because of locale, for some reason, she felt like this was her way out. It's not like she knew the law would be on her side, she didn't know that, but this is how desperate she was. Why didn't she put the baby up for adoption? Why didn't she seek some help in her first trimester? I have alot of questions of WHY she didn't do the right thing, but, none of that even matters because she felt like this was the ONLY thing.

Her lawyer made a really good point in this article.

"What if she falls under the stairs under suspicious circumstances?" Martingayle asked. "What if she gains weight? Or not enough weight? What if she didn't follow the right diet or her doctor's recommendations? Was she trying to kill the baby?"
"It turns every expectant mother into a potential criminal," Martingayle said. "If they can convince a jury that she did it on purpose, than the expectant mother becomes a target."

He's got a point with this one. When you are pregnant, everyone makes it their business. People make it their business if you eat sushi, drink coffee, or wear pantyhose. If we take the process of being pregnant away from the mother, then believe me, you will have law suits alleging that a preggo is trying to kill her baby by eating Halibut.

So as much as I want babies who are about to be born to have protection, I don't think that a law is going to fix this. This woman would have done it even if she would have gone to jail.

[7960]

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

He's got a point with this one.

No, he doesn't. She didn't eat too many triglicerides. She didn't have a diet low in protein. She didn't eat sushi. She DID put a gun to her baby and kill it.

How about we stick to the issue.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by 7960

No, he doesn't. She didn't eat too many triglicerides. She didn't have a diet low in protein. She didn't eat sushi. She DID put a gun to her baby and kill it.

How about we stick to the issue.

404 baby not found. This matters for one reason. If it were a baby it would have be (legal) murder