It's the 21st Century, and now we have to restart the Underground Railroad... :(

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/03/south-carolina-woman-arrested-abortion-pills


A woman in South Carolina has been arrested and charged for allegedly trying to induce her own abortion using medication.

The woman was reported by staff at a hospital in Greenville, South Carolina, after visiting a hospital in October 2021 with labor pains. Ultimately, she delivered a stillborn fetus at about 25 weeks and four days of pregnancy. In an incident report, staff claimed the woman had admitted to having taken abortion pills in an attempt to end her pregnancy.

The incident took place in 2021, before the constitutional right to abortion was overturned in June 2022. But a warrant was subsequently issued for the woman’s arrest in 2022, and she was arrested in February 2023, Sgt Jonathan Bragg, of the Greenville police department confirmed.

South Carolina is one of just three states, alongside Nevada and Oklahoma, that explicitly criminalizes self-managed abortion. The state was also the first to bring charges on behalf of a fetus successfully against a pregnant person. In 1997, Cornelia Whitner was found guilty for criminal child neglect, after taking crack cocaine during the third trimester of her pregnancy.

“It’s one of the states that really leads the country in pregnancy-related criminalization,” said Dana Sussman, of the non-profit Pregnancy Justice.

Broadly speaking, anti-abortion laws are written to exempt pregnant people from prosecution for seeking abortion care, though there are signs this is beginning to change, with some lawmakers recently introducing bills to bring charges against people who seek abortions.

“The rights and humanity of pregnant people have been at risk for some time, even before Dobbs – and now it’s just even more critical for us to be vigilant in defending the rights of pregnant people in a country that has decided that fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses deserve more protection than the pregnant people who have full constitutional rights,” said Sussman. “These types of [arrests], while quite rare, create a culture of fear and uncertainty that can have drastic ripple effects.”



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 03/03/2023 07:50PM by anybody.

There's probably more to the story...


Okay, but how about this?  A week to ten days ago I saw a story out of Florida... Some months ago a woman was arrested for a very serious crime when she shot a friend/acquaintance while the two, and others, were riding in a 'party limo.'  As seen on the limo's video, the two began arguing, and it escalated into the inmate pulling a gun, shooting and killing the other girl.

Months passed with her apparently unable to make bail. The prisoner was a few weeks pregnant at the time of the incident and gestation continued.

An attorney representing her fetus filed a writ for habeas corpus, i.e., why are you detaining the fetus?!

The court of original jurisdiction denied the writ, and the attorney appealed it.  His argument was that the innocent fetus wasn't getting the proper care and that the surroundings were dangerous, and that facing the prospect of being born in a jail cell, in the company of hardened criminalettes, was both inhumane and dangerous.  And that's where the story ended.

I looked it up just now and the appellate court heard the case and refused to order a release because it was just a naked attempt to twist the law to get the mother released, for free.

"In response, the Corrections and Rehabilitation Department ... argued that the petition should be dismissed, claiming that (the mom's) and the fetus’s care are a priority ... and pointing to the fact that she had gained more than 30 pounds while in custody due to (more than) adequate nutrition.

"(The C&RD) also claimed that Harrell (the inmate) 'has been taken to at least four obstetrician appointments outside of the jail and, notably, refused to attend a fifth,' and that she refused to take prenatal vitamins several times."

So pretty much a slam dunk, but given the growing fervor to protect fetii (damn! Spell check accepts fetii!!  Oh, it's a van ride share program...  But an acceptable plural of fetus is feti), the theory behind the request is sound: why are you punishing a living human being, doted, ab initio, with all the rights, powers and privileges a just and living ghawd extends to ALL his children! (Except anybody not part of ghawd's chosen herd, which most holy people can tell just by looking...)

Con fetii?

Personally, I'm pro fetii.

How can you be arrested for an action that was not illegal at the time you took it?

Makes no sense.

But aside from that, yes, scary. There is obviously no right to medical privacy with the advent of this law. Patients will be afraid to confide in their medical practitioner/s or to be honest with them for fear of potential arrest. If you can't tell the MD what's ailing you, they can't easily or quickly help you out, right when you may need it most.

As others have also mentioned, here and in the outside world people will be reluctant to seek help or treatment and some will die as a result. Medical personnel, whose first duty, by definition, has been to their patients, may find themselves in jeopardy if they try to help someone who needs medical assistance, not jail.

Too, if a woman suffers a spontaneous abortion (i.e. 'natural'), which are common, she may find herself being reported to police as a suspected wrongdoer rather than being comforted at the unwanted loss of her pregnancy.

Slippery slope, people. When did individuals start thinking they should be judge, jury and executioner?

Some people should walk a mile in another's else's shoes for a while. It may bring them back to earth.

because of the nationwide Fugitive Slave Law.

Now we're going to have to smuggle people to blue states for gender and reproductive care, and if the fundies have their way, they'll try and get a national ban...so you might be seeing a lot more Americans have to outrun the law to come up your way for medical treatment.


Then there's the crazy bounty situation -- crazies staking out airports, truck stops...this is going to get bad. Really bad.

"We"?

at least those of us who still believe in freedom and democracy for all, and not just for some.

anybody Wrote:
--------------------------
> at least those of us who
> still believe in freedom
> and democracy for all,
> and not just for some.


Freedom and democracy for all?

You're advocating zero restrictions; every American empowered to do and think as he or she pleases?

No, I know you're not that far 'round the bend; you just want groups that don't reach the status of the majority, to do, or refrain from doing, things you personally approve of or frown upon.  

All that's needed is your stamp of approval?

What's your view on Einstein?

This is one of the areas in which I agree fully with you. It was astonishing when the supremes let the private-enforcement provisions of that law stand pending the Dobbs decision.

What that meant was that a state government could violate a constitutional right if it was not the state but private actors who enforced it. Meanwhile California's decision to use the same mechanism to regulate firearms was rejected in short order. We thus see that the private-enforcement rule only works to the advantage of the right.

And lest we decide to give SCOTUS a mulligan (see EOD, Esq., for the precise definition), last year the kangaroos unveiled another jurisprudential innovation: the "major question" doctrine.

The old rule was that the courts must not impose its own judgement over decisions by the legislature or the executive because that would transform the judicial branch into a star chamber that could overrule the other constitutional branches. In 2022, however, the supremes announced that anything they decided (by majority vote!) was a "major question" was now fair game.

In short, SCOTUS has announced that it can review and reject laws that it thinks are poorly conceived or disagreements between the executive and the legislature over the interpretation of ambiguous laws. This is convenient in a sense, for it obviates the need for Congress to clarify its intent through new legislation. But liberals the country over are predictably in high dudgeon over the way the kangaroos are using this handy new tool to eviscerate established law.

But caveat emptor. If the libs ever gain a majority on the court and are willing to continue in the current vein (I hope they are not), they too can use their new extra-constitutional power to rewrite the existing corpus of law however they like.

This stuff is more than foolish: it is insane.

Back in the 1850s, pro-Southern postmasters voluntarily confiscated anti-slavery or abolition publications, now TX wants to block the internet.

https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/3/23622346/texas-bill-block-isp-access-abortion

Inside Texas, the bill would require internet service providers to “make every reasonable and technologically feasible effort” to block internet access to information “intended to assist or facilitate efforts to obtain an elective abortion or an abortion-inducing drug.” It specifically requires ISPs to block the websites of Aid Access, Hey Jane, Plan C, Choix, Just The Pill, and Carafem, all of which help direct visitors to places they can access abortion pills. But it also requires blocking any site or app “operated by or on behalf of an abortion provider or abortion fund,” a category that could include organizations like Planned Parenthood as well as numerous grassroots fundraising sites. And it provides legal immunity for “denial of service” to people who aid or abet abortion, apparently encouraging ISPs to kick users offline, too.


Former Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis, a Democrat who memorably stood for an 11-hour filibuster against a 2013 abortion restriction that banned all abortions after 20 weeks and required doctors providing abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, sued three Texas residents who publicly expressed plans to sue abortion funds under the 2021 law known as “S.B. 8.” That law creates a private cause of action for private citizens to sue any person who “aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion” after fetal cardiac activity is detected, usually about six weeks into pregnancy, before many women know they’re pregnant.


This means you can sue the pilot, the airline, a friend that gave you a ride out of state, the clinic, anybody...

https://lawandcrime.com/abortion/former-texas-state-legislator-who-stood-for-11-hour-filibuster-against-restrictive-abortion-law-in-2013-loses-lawsuit-over-bounty-hunter-bill/

The law, which opponents have called a “bounty hunter law,” allows anyone to sue regardless of whether they have any connection to the abortion, patient, or provider, and provides for an award of at least $10,000 for each successful claim, effectively enabling private enforcement of the restrictive provision.

“S.B. 8 is a blatantly unconstitutional law that bans abortion beginning at approximately six weeks of pregnancy, as measured from the first day of a patient’s last menstrual period (‘LMP’), and incentivizes vigilante harassment of anyone who assists abortion patients,” the lawsuit said. Davis, along with plaintiffs Marva Sadler and Sean Mehl, are all affiliated with the Stigma Relief Fund, a nonprofit that provides financial and other support to women seeking abortions in Texas.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/03/2023 08:41PM by anybody.

Yes, I do see. That's why I made the point.

Nightingale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How can you be arrested for an action that was not
> illegal at the time you took it?

There you go again, presuming the US constitution remains operative in a burgeoning theocracy.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There you go again, presuming the US constitution
> remains operative in a burgeoning theocracy.

Yow.

What the h-e-double-elle is happening?

I haven't a clue.

We are so far beyond traditional constitutional law at this point.

It should be noted that this occurred at 24 1/2 weeks of pregnancy. The law in 2021 in SC prohibited abortions after 20 weeks (in fact, the original Roe decision allowed states to prohibit abortion after 24 weeks)

https://www.wltx.com/article/news/local/sc-abortion-laws-could-be-changing-very-soon/101-9852b511-297b-4fe0-9f2f-bb860f41225e

I doubt the prohibition on ex post facto laws will apply in this case

It's also worth noting, [|], that the 2021 SC law was unconstitutional. It violated Roe while Roe was the controlling precedent, affirmed twice in subsquent SCOTUS rulings.

You may be right that a 24.5 week pregnancy put the issue in state hands under Roe, but that would depend on the law in place in SC before the 2021 legislation. For the latter should have been ruled unconstitutional.

What is strange is that the supremes are acting as if actions are retroactively constitutional if a subsequent reinterpretation of the relevant provision might render them permissible. But if you can't take the established constitutional rules for granted, what's the purpose in having a constitution at all?

The 20 week abortion ban in SC was enacted in 2016. In 2021 SC passed a "Fetal heartbeat" law outlawing abortion at 5 weeks. That law was stayed by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, but the 2016 law was still in effect.

https://apnews.com/article/92e11f5eac12499a814b661457921c10

I do agree with your last sentence.

Stepping back a bit, on further reflection I have a question regarding your 24 weeks statement. Isn't that a misstatement of Roe?

My understanding was that under Roe all abortions in the third trimester were (with a few small exceptions) prohibited, states could regulate abortion during the second trimester, and the pregnant woman alone could decide in the first three months. In which case, the 2016 and 2021 laws would have been constitutional under that and Casey and that other precedent whose name I've lost in the crumbling detritus of my mind.

Am I incorrect?

As I understand it, Roe allowed aborton in the first trimester, but allowed restrictions in the second trimester after the point of fetal viability - defined as 24 weeks.

It should also be noted that since then, SCOTUS has upheld more restrictions - even before Dobbs.

The woman in question had just entered her third trimester, which to my mind muddies the issue. Even given that, IMO arresting a woman for self-inducing an abortion is overly intrusive. It's funny how so many of the people who want to restrict abortion rights want a smaller government, except when it comes to policing women's wombs.

> It's funny how so many of the people who want to
> restrict abortion rights want a smaller
> government, except when it comes to policing
> women's wombs.

And they oppose "cancellation" except when they are the ones cancelling and they want the judiciary to leave matters to the political branches except when they want to overrule Biden on student loans.

The hypocrisy is impressive!

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> What is strange is that the supremes are acting as
> if actions are retroactively constitutional if a
> subsequent reinterpretation of the relevant
> provision might render them permissible. But if
> you can't take the established constitutional
> rules for granted, what's the purpose in having a
> constitution at all?


I suppose if you believe the Constitution was "divinely inspired" and "God" gave America to you and your progeny to rule and exploit as you see fit, you can make the Constitution mean whatever you want.

I frankly don't thing a lot of those people think God is behind the constitution or care one way or another. That's largely a Mormon belief.

If you think God is telling you what to do, you do it. There's no reason for any hesitation.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I frankly don't thing a lot of those people think
> God is behind the constitution or care one way or
> another. That's largely a Mormon belief.

Also a white nationalist / big "E" Evangelical belief also -- and it predates Mormonism.

It also lies at the root of all of our current troubles, and makes them think "America" is being "stolen" from them since they can't mentally accept living a multicultural, multifaith, multiethnic, multiracial America in which they do not predominate and control.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/04/2023 12:31PM by anybody.