The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
cite

Does that answer the question? If the mother is charged with conspiracy or aiding and abetting, she's being charged with a crime under other provisions, not under that act.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by baltassoc
It also creates a plaintiff problem: who's going to sue to overturn? A woman wanting an abortion is going to have to fight through a standing argument first (and I've been out of law school long enough not to pretend I know whether she'd prevail). And how many doctors in SD are going to sue? It's a small, small state. Hell, they have to import a doctor just to perform abortions, I understand.

Is beeg, beeg state. More than 77,000 square miles. Very beeg.



Lame flag, though.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Is beeg, beeg state. More than 77,000 square miles. Very beeg.



Lame flag, though.

He's from Texas. All states are small to him.

Fuck Alaska.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Well, is allows her to go to another state.

Yes, I'm sure that's just what the AG will argue.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by baltassoc
It also creates a plaintiff problem: who's going to sue to overturn? A woman wanting an abortion is going to have to fight through a standing argument first (and I've been out of law school long enough not to pretend I know whether she'd prevail). And how many doctors in SD are going to sue? It's a small, small state. Hell, they have to import a doctor just to perform abortions, I understand.

Where's Red? We have have him do the research.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Where's Red? We have have him do the research.

Be sure to tell him it will improve his chances of making partner.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
He's from Texas. All states are small to him.

Fuck Alaska.

And fuck South Dakota with that lameass flag.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Does that answer the question? If the mother is charged with conspiracy or aiding and abetting, she's being charged with a crime under other provisions, not under that act.

But they'd have to reference that Act to say what she was aiding and abetting or conspiring about, and that Act says that nothing in it can be used to get the preggo/formerly preggo woman. Without referencing the abortion Act thingy, she's not conspiring or aiding or abetting anything.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Interesting. We're not infringing on a woman's right to choose; we're just jailing any doctor who helps her exercise it.

So you can do it yourself... Like those at-home hair coloring kits, or one of those diabetic self-testing kits.

I could see Wilford Brimley pitching it:

"As a man, I understand that sometimes birth control might not work. Or maybe you were drunk and forgot. But as a law-abiding citizen, I also respect laws. Now, in South Dakota, you can't see a doc for an abortion. But luckily, the folks at American Health Devices have it all figured out for you..."

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
So you can do it yourself... Like those at-home hair coloring kits, or one of those diabetic self-testing kits.

I could see Wilford Brimley pitching it:

"As a man, I understand that sometimes birth control might not work. Or maybe you were drunk and forgot. But as a law-abiding citizen, I also respect laws. Now, in South Dakota, you can't see a doc for an abortion. But luckily, the folks at American Health Devices have it all figured out for you..."

There are a lot of websites popping up telling women how to do it to themselves. I'm not seeing how that's preferable to in a physician's office under medical supervision where counseling may be available.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
There are a lot of websites popping up telling women how to do it to themselves. I'm not seeing how that's preferable to in a physician's office under medical supervision where counseling may be available.

It's a culture of life thing. You wouldn't understand.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
It's a culture of life thing. You wouldn't understand.

Yeah, having sinners, who everybody knows are mostly the poor and minorities, die of infections and self-inflicted wounds helps achieve the long-sought goal of racial purity.

I would have thought an aristocratic Mexican such as yourself would understand these things, dear.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Maybe some of you have been paying attention and can answer this question. A newspaper out today says: "Under the South Dakota bill, abortion will become a felony, but only the doctor who performs the procedure is subject to prosecution. The woman who seeks and pays for the operation is not."

My question: Does the bill (or law, right?) not permit prosecution of the woman, or does it provide for a safe harbor? If the former, couldn't a prosecutor go after women in these circumstances for conspiring with the doctor, or for aiding and abetting a felony for paying for it? If South Dakota law is anything like the jurisdictions I'm familiar with, such charges could carry penalties comparable to whatever the doctor is getting whacked with.

Sigh. This is the subject of the LAT article I quoted a few days back. The answer is the former: The woman is precluded from criminal prosecution under this law, period.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Yeah, having sinners, who everybody knows are mostly the poor and minorities, die of infections and self-inflicted wounds helps achieve the long-sought goal of racial purity.

I would have thought an aristocratic Mexican such as yourself would understand these things, dear.

These are the sinners.

So the women affected are mostly in their twenties. Most of them have at least one kid already. Almost all of them have never had an abortion before. Most of them aren't married. Most of them got their abortions before the tenth week of their pregnancy. South Dakota didn't report on race or ethnicity of these women.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Sigh. This is the subject of the LAT article I quoted a few days back. The answer is the former: The woman is precluded from criminal prosecution under this law, period.

I apologize for hurting your feelings by forgetting what was surely a lucid, timely, and informative post. But your "under this law" caveat is exactly what I'm talking about. Thanks to Burger, we know that the law says:

• Nothing in this Act may be construed to subject the pregnant mother upon whom any abortion is performed or attempted to any criminal conviction and penalty.

A prosecutor would argue that a woman charged with conspiracy or aiding and abetting is not being "subjected" to criminal conviction or penalty under "this Act" -- she's being charged with conspiracy or aiding and abetting, which are distinct crimes.