Is this theoretical discussion (still a valid concern) or is there anybody who seriously wants to actively investigate women who were pregnant and did not deliver a baby? I probably should not be surprised by the amount of misogyny in the world, but that would be really disgusting.
Roe vs Wade overturned
- Thread starter Samson
- Start date
Like... she could have had a late period but not actually been pregnant, or had a miscarriage? Maybe she's been trying and failing to get pregnant and bought the tests to see if she was successful? What the hell do these lawmakers want her to do, save negative pregnancy tests forever?
The worry would be that it could be part of a case, and if brought as a civil suit it would only be decided on balance of probabilities. If someone bought a pregnancy test, searched for providers, downloaded TOR and got a suspicious package in the mail then would that be enough if the judge was christofascist?
Had a miscarriage? Better send the inquisition after her!
Lexicus
Deity
Absolutely, it will be at some point in the future if it is not now.
Lexicus
Deity
I don't see any other possible conclusion if a "human life" begins at fertilization.
There are other possible conclusions, like "illegal, but not punishable".
The philosophical viewpoint is one thing (not that I share it), the zeal and misogyny with which it is enforced is another thing.
It seems to me there is a lot more zeal and misogyny than philosophy.
Cloud_Strife
Deity
The whole point is to essentially remind women that their own bodies are effectively owned by the state, misogynistic intent is baked into it and you cannot separate it
The misogyny is a significant part of the point. These people have been warned for years that they're essentially trying to criminalise miscarriage in defiance of basic biology. They don't care.
EnglishEdward
Deity
I think that there is also an issue in places with a legal profession that
draft laws so that lawyers can make money suing the vulnerable.
draft laws so that lawyers can make money suing the vulnerable.
As supposed to this ironclad freight train of solid thought? Sure.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
If that's your point, I'm guessing the derailed train knows what it's looking at.
Or are you not of the same opinion as that quote and the quote it quoted? That criminalizing miscarriages is not a particularly compelling train of thought, and for the most part, laws will slowly be generated even in Redsville states to deal with that. The polling suggests its inexorability. Won't happen without stupid cases popping up though. So coverage is good. The news is never scarier than when it is all good.
Or are you not of the same opinion as that quote and the quote it quoted? That criminalizing miscarriages is not a particularly compelling train of thought, and for the most part, laws will slowly be generated even in Redsville states to deal with that. The polling suggests its inexorability. Won't happen without stupid cases popping up though. So coverage is good. The news is never scarier than when it is all good.
This is not a philosophical exercise, real people are doing real porridge for having a miscarriage:
Brittney Poolaw was just about four months pregnant when she lost her baby in the hospital in January 2020.
This October, she was convicted and sentenced to four years in prison for the first-degree manslaughter of her unborn son.
From 1973-2020, National Advocates of Pregnant Women (NAPW) has recorded 1,600 such cases, with about 1,200 occurring in the last 15 years alone.
Other stuff:
The group National Advocates for Pregnant Women reported on a client who wanted a vaginal birth and was taken into police custody, had her legs strapped together, and was forced to undergo a C-section—because doctors believed that would be safer for the fetus and a federal court ruled that her rights were secondary to the state’s interest in preserving the life of the fetus.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
I know. I keep suggesting we should have a federal law covering things like fetal fatal drug abuse in late term pregnancies. I support those sorts of laws. Like ~70% of Americans. But yes, without coverage, unusual cases that are terrible will keep popping up. With coverage, we might have some laws that will address a few of the unusual cases that are terrible that will keep popping up.
If you support federal coverage of at least specific instances, then your position is separate to those the original quote is characterising. Who are generally opposed to any federal coverage or protection in these matters, and insist on wholly devolving all required work to the states.
That said:
I find this optimism arguable, even if "slowly" means quite a long time. But I'm sure it's very reassuring to everyone that'll suffer in the meantime.
(as supposed to, say, Roe vs. Wade not being repealed in the first place)
There is the question of drug use, but there are lots of other reasons. From the paper above:
Other factors explicitly described in arrest warrants and other legal documents justifying state intervention in cases that also involved an allegation of drug use included the fact that the pregnant woman had a sexually transmitted infection, was HIV positive, or gave birth at home or in another setting outside a hospital. In one case the state indicated that it would use the fact that the woman had refused offers of voluntary sterilization in support of its prosecution.
Sixteen percent of the cases (n = 65) involved no allegation that the woman had used an illegal, criminalized drug. These include cases in which women were deprived of their liberty based on claims that they had not obtained prenatal care, had mental illness, or had gestational diabetes, or because they had suffered a pregnancy loss. In fifteen of these cases alcohol was the only drug mentioned. Thirty of these cases involved efforts to force women to submit without consent to medical interventions. These forced interventions included pregnant women who had diabetes or sought to have a vaginal birth and refused to undergo cesarean surgery or other surgical intervention, those who refused to submit to a blood transfusion, and one who refused to allow a public health nurse who had been appointed as a guardian ad litem for the fetus to monitor the pregnancy, “check on the welfare of the unborn child,” and provide any medical services that the nurse deemed necessary
As noted earlier, in two out of three cases no adverse pregnancy outcome was reported. In many cases criminal charges rested on the claim that there was a risk of harm or a positive drug test but no actual evidence of harm. Similarly, in numerous cases where court orders were sought to force medical interventions, a risk of harm was identified that did not materialize.
Similar threads
