HomeHome  CalendarCalendar  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlist  UsergroupsUsergroups  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 

 I will LOVE to see this challenged in court

Go down 


Posts : 13214
Join date : 2013-01-16
Age : 64
Location : Seattle

PostSubject: I will LOVE to see this challenged in court   Fri Nov 09, 2018 7:51 am

Quote :
Voters in Alabama approved a sweeping anti-abortion measure that grants constitutional rights to fetuses, embryos and fertilized eggs.
Quote :
The politics of anti-abortion legislation are already irresistible to Republican legislators in many conservative states, not just Alabama, because they are wildly popular with base voters but also don’t tax state budgets. If Roe were overturned and abortion policy returned to the states under their traditional power to regulate public health, safety, welfare and morals, it is virtually certain that fetal personhood statutes would be adopted in many states.

A fetal personhood statute would create a veritable hornet’s nest of intractable legal issues revolving around two people sharing a common body (the woman’s). If the conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court find enforcing Roe troublesome, they should consider carefully what lies ahead if they overturn it. Do they wish to start hearing cases involving injunctions that order pregnant women literally imprisoned during their pregnancies?

This is not merely the stuff of overactive legal imaginations or dystopian television programs. In some localities, prosecutors already have tried to use existing state laws to secure the involuntary confinement of pregnant women. Alabama, in fact, is one of a small number of jurisdictions that permit a prosecutor to bring drug charges against a woman in order to seek her imprisonment for the duration of her pregnancy.

Alabama law prohibits the “chemical endangerment” of a child. Since 2006, more than 500 women in Alabama have been charged with violating this law. In 2016, an Alabama state trial judge, David Hobdy, ordered Alexandra Laird, a pregnant 21-year-old woman suffering from heroin addiction, to be jailed while she was facing pending criminal charges under the child chemical endangerment statute. The judge revoked Laird’s bond and ordered her jailed for the balance of her pregnancy. “This court is very concerned about the welfare of the unborn child,” he explained.

Doctors refused to discharge Laird from the University of Alabama at Birmingham hospital where she was receiving treatment for her addiction. As a result, she was never actually jailed — but she remained in the involuntary custody of medical care professionals until she gave birth. Had Laird left the hospital, she would have been incarcerated under Hobdy’s order.

It goes much farther than this, of course.

Every miscarriage is prosecutable as manslaughter.  Every act of intercourse that does not result in pregnancy is prosecutable as manslaughter.  Every woman who had had intercourse could be prohibited from riding a bicycle, exercising, participating in sports or even washing her private parts. Fucking lunacy. Hopefully some lawyer will take it up the flagpole.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
I will LOVE to see this challenged in court
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
» Impossible to explain Love!!
» True love will live forever
» Duke of York finds love again
» Dear Cindy ~ How Do I Love Thee?

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
 :: Topics :: Government & Finance-
Jump to: