(08-02-2022 02:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 10:31 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-01-2022 09:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I read that statute for 'includes' as twofold:

1) it absolutely keeps available the possibility of an abortive act to be defined as a criminal act -- note that homicide and other crimes against persons are: crimes against 'persons';

Yes... and such laws (the 'double homicide' law I referred to) are already on the books in many states... and the courts through Roe specifically recognized the right of the state to 'regulate abortion' which would certainly include assigning criminal penalties as in Gosnell and I'm sure others. I know Roe is dead, but the point is that such penalties have not been 'banned' for the past 50 years, so this is not new. Abortion performed by a doctor... even an illegal one is not currently defined as murder. Some causes of death of an fetus ARE ALREADY considered murder... so although that can certainly happen, we clearly don't need statutes like you mentioned in Arizona to get to that point.... because few states, even those with 'double homicide' laws have such a statute. I'm not saying its meaningless... I'm just saying that the Arizona statute doesn't make it any more or less likely.

My issue is one of taking arguments against abortion laws that have existed for 50+ years, and applying them to these 'new' laws as if this is a departure from what was previously the practice. For most of these arguments, they are not related to these new laws. You can still be against them, but they aren't issues that have been caused by the court's decision to overturn Roe. I've also spoken about how 'what Cali is doing' if it is to be spread more broadly to the nation ALSO needed Roe to be overturned, as it recognizes a state's right to restrict abortion... and this creates a potential conundrum that I mentioned.

Hence my constant, 'if you want to argue against abortion restrictions, that's fine... but that's a different argument. We're currently discussing these NEW laws and the NEW burdens being placed'.

I've also repeatedly said (to both sides I might add) that I am not a big believer in confusing weight with volume... and I think lots of the arguments against overturning Roe are just that. Even with Roe in place, your concerns about 'personhood' existed... so that concern is not related to the overturning of the statute... which is the way many people use these arguments. I think you're just expanding on a topic which these conversations tend to do... but I've heard others use it as an attempt to bolster their (misplaced) 'anger' at the court.

I am LIVID that we have a sitting member of congress getting arrested (or stirring up a campaign issue) protesting the SCOTUS for (imo correctly) returning an issue to the legislature (HER) that they've had 50 years to address otherwise and have punted each time. My son has said repeatedly that 'they didn't pass anything because they couldn't', but that isn't true. Even today I think you could easily pass a federal bill that allows states to limit abortions after say, heart beat or 12 weeks or whatever... and many states like Cali would decline to do so... and some states like Texas might do precisely what the law allows.

I don't see it a slam dunk that the court would declare such a law unconstitutional... because they haven't declared any such state laws to be so... The liberals would certainly not do so... and I'm betting Roberts and maybe one other would accept congress' authority to do essentially what the ruling in Dobbs told them to do.

FYI, this post quotes me as having posted something when it was Tanq who did. Just thought you could edit that to reflect it.