Digby at Hullabaloo has raised the question of why, if abortion is murder, anti-abortion crusaders aren’t calling for women who undergo the procedure to be treated as murderers. She links to a video in which the question is posed to a group of anti-choice demonstrators, who respond with, “Uh …”
The question arose in a slightly different context with the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. The law made it a federal crime to injure a foetus in the course of committing another crime.
Any person subject to this chapter who engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section and shall, upon conviction, be punished by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct, which shall be consistent with the punishments prescribed by the President for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child’s mother.
Subsection (b) includes drive-by shootings related to drug dealing, acts of violence at international airports in the US, “animal enterprise terrorism,” and other offenses.
As noted above, the death penalty is off the table, and there are a few other exemptions as well.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution–
`(1) of 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 such consent is implied by law;
`(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
`(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
`(d) As used in this section, the term `unborn child’ means a child in utero, and the term `child in utero’ or `child, who is in utero’ means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.’.
So under federal law, there are two classes of persons with respect to foetuses: those who can go to jail for harming one, and those — pregnant women — who can’t. As is the case with South Dakota’s law banning termination of all but physically life-threatening pregnancies, pregnant women who violate the law are off the hook.
Digby’s conclusion is that even anti-choice zealots don’t regard abortion as murder. But there’s another possibility as well.
In general, state and federal law recognize two groups of people — George Bush would say three, with him being the third — who may not be responsible for their crimes: very young children and people suffering from serious mental defect. But now, the South Dakota abortion ban, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and the anti-choice movement in general have added a third class, pregnant women. The clear implication is that pregnant women aren’t responsible for their actions.
And of course if one accepts that premise, one has to look at how the limitations of pregnant women might affect their participation in other arenas from which young children and the mentally infirm are barred. Should the poor dears be allowed to drive? vote? Should women of child-bearing age be prohibited from activities off limits to pregnant women? It is, after all, pretty much impossible to know if someone is in the very early stages of pregnancy, even for the woman in question, without a medical exam, and we wouldn’t want to see anyone inadvertently breaking the law. Maybe we should institute a pee test at the voting booth: present your voters registration card and Clearblue Easy results.
The reality is that Digby is right. Given the punitive and often contemptuous attitude of anti-choice advocates toward women who choose abortions for whatever reason, there’s no reason to think they’d hesitate to treat those women as, at a minimum, co-conspirators with doctors in the murder of an unborn child if they really thought it was murder. And Digby’s right that this should be a prominent aspect of any discussion on the issue.
Is it time to reconsider women’s suffrage?
Digby at Hullabaloo has raised the question of why, if abortion is murder, anti-abortion crusaders aren’t calling for women who undergo the procedure to be treated as murderers. She links to a video in which the question is posed to a group of anti-choice demonstrators, who respond with, “Uh …”
The question arose in a slightly different context with the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. The law made it a federal crime to injure a foetus in the course of committing another crime.
Subsection (b) includes drive-by shootings related to drug dealing, acts of violence at international airports in the US, “animal enterprise terrorism,” and other offenses.
As noted above, the death penalty is off the table, and there are a few other exemptions as well.
So under federal law, there are two classes of persons with respect to foetuses: those who can go to jail for harming one, and those — pregnant women — who can’t. As is the case with South Dakota’s law banning termination of all but physically life-threatening pregnancies, pregnant women who violate the law are off the hook.
Digby’s conclusion is that even anti-choice zealots don’t regard abortion as murder. But there’s another possibility as well.
In general, state and federal law recognize two groups of people — George Bush would say three, with him being the third — who may not be responsible for their crimes: very young children and people suffering from serious mental defect. But now, the South Dakota abortion ban, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and the anti-choice movement in general have added a third class, pregnant women. The clear implication is that pregnant women aren’t responsible for their actions.
And of course if one accepts that premise, one has to look at how the limitations of pregnant women might affect their participation in other arenas from which young children and the mentally infirm are barred. Should the poor dears be allowed to drive? vote? Should women of child-bearing age be prohibited from activities off limits to pregnant women? It is, after all, pretty much impossible to know if someone is in the very early stages of pregnancy, even for the woman in question, without a medical exam, and we wouldn’t want to see anyone inadvertently breaking the law. Maybe we should institute a pee test at the voting booth: present your voters registration card and Clearblue Easy results.
The reality is that Digby is right. Given the punitive and often contemptuous attitude of anti-choice advocates toward women who choose abortions for whatever reason, there’s no reason to think they’d hesitate to treat those women as, at a minimum, co-conspirators with doctors in the murder of an unborn child if they really thought it was murder. And Digby’s right that this should be a prominent aspect of any discussion on the issue.