How much jail time for women who have abortions?

[anitram]

Article is from MSNBC.

Buried among prairie dogs and amateur animation shorts on YouTube is a curious little mini-documentary shot in front of an abortion clinic in Libertyville, Ill. The man behind the camera is asking demonstrators who want abortion criminalized what the penalty should be for a woman who has one nonetheless. You have rarely seen people look more gobsmacked. It's as though the guy has asked them to solve quadratic equations. Here are a range of responses: "I've never really thought about it." "I don't have an answer for that." "I don't know." "Just pray for them."

You have to hand it to the questioner; he struggles manfully. "Usually when things are illegal there's a penalty attached," he explains patiently. But he can't get a single person to be decisive about the crux of a matter they have been approaching with absolute certainty.

A new public-policy group called the National Institute for Reproductive Health wants to take this contradiction and make it the centerpiece of a national conversation, along with a slogan that stops people in their tracks: how much time should she do? If the Supreme Court decides abortion is not protected by a constitutional guarantee of privacy, the issue will revert to the states. If it goes to the states, some, perhaps many, will ban abortion. If abortion is made a crime, then surely the woman who has one is a criminal. But, boy, do the doctrinaire suddenly turn squirrelly at the prospect of throwing women in jail.

...

Nearly 20 years ago, in a presidential debate, George Bush the elder was asked this very question, whether in making abortion illegal he would punish the woman who had one. "I haven't sorted out the penalties," he said lamely. Neither, it turns out, has anyone else. But there are only two logical choices: hold women accountable for a criminal act by sending them to prison, or refuse to criminalize the act in the first place. If you can't countenance the first, you have to accept the second. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Irvine511]

they've killed a fetus.

the death penalty!

 

[redhotswami]

thank you. i've been saying that for years. and would only the women be criminalized? what about the men involved in conception?

 

[Vincent Vega]

"Just pray for them."

Can I have that for my, not yet comitted, crime as well?

 

[BVS]

thank you. i've been saying that for years. and would only the women be criminalized? what about the men involved in conception?

Or the doctor, or the parents that failed to teach them sex ed, or the school that taught an abstince only instead, or the condom company for breaking, god for putting a woman's like at stake for having this child. We could jail a lot for this one...

 

[joyfulgirl]

We could jail a lot for this one...

Especially since our US jails aren't overcrowded or anything. Just about everyone could have a sister, mother, daughter, cousin, wife, girlfriend or friend in jail.

 

[CTU2fan]

Great concept. Yep, mocking the other side is a wonderful debate strategy.

The arrogance on both sides of the abortion debate is discouraging...and I'm not talking about the extremists (clinic bombers etc). "How much time she should do?" is so simplistic, just meant to dig at the pro-lifers & make them squirm...but it smacks of the old "Just say no" anti-drug strategy - and we know how well that did.

 

[redhotswami]

no i think it is an honest question. i think we've learned our lesson with this administration, and that policy strategy/planning should always be discussed prior to making any sort of big decision.

i understand that the divide is essentially between a very simple belief, and there are people who agree and people who disagree.

therefore, i'm curious, if people do want abortion illegal, what is going to happen?

in most debates people discuss the implications of either side of the issue. i don't see what the mocking is. i'm not mocking, i'm seriously trying to see how people want to enforce it.

 

[anitram]

"How much time she should do?" is so simplistic, just meant to dig at the pro-lifers & make them squirm...but it smacks of the old "Just say no" anti-drug strategy - and we know how well that did.

No, it isn't.

Crimes are punishable by law (set or sentencing guidelines). If you advocate criminalizing abortion then it is a necessary aspect of debate to consider the penalties which would be involved.

 

[joyfulgirl]

Great concept. Yep, mocking the other side is a wonderful debate strategy.

The arrogance on both sides of the abortion debate is discouraging...and I'm not talking about the extremists (clinic bombers etc). "How much time she should do?" is so simplistic, just meant to dig at the pro-lifers & make them squirm...but it smacks of the old "Just say no" anti-drug strategy - and we know how well that did.

You can call it mocking if you want, but the reality is that 1/2 of American women will have an abortion in their lifetime based on current stats. Therefore, it's a fair question...how would you like 1/2 of American women punished if abortion is criminalized?*

*edited to add, I assumed from your post that you might be against abortion but realized later I could have been mistaken ... ?

 

[indra]

Great concept. Yep, mocking the other side is a wonderful debate strategy.

The arrogance on both sides of the abortion debate is discouraging...and I'm not talking about the extremists (clinic bombers etc). "How much time she should do?" is so simplistic, just meant to dig at the pro-lifers & make them squirm...but it smacks of the old "Just say no" anti-drug strategy - and we know how well that did.

So what is your answer? How much time in jail should a woman convicted of having an abortion get?

And the "Just say no" drug policy was thought up by the same types who are pushing the anti abortion crusade. So....

 

[maycocksean]

I'm guessing your average pro-life advocate hasn't thought about punishment. I think they are looking more at the concept of "censure." They want society to frown upon abortion and to signify it's disapproval by making it illegal. Their thinking is that if abortion were illegal fewer women would have them and more lives would be saved. The issue of actually prosecuting women who have abortions hasn't really been central to their planning. . .after all, how many women were prosecuted for abortion when it was illegal? I'm guessing not many, though I admittedly haven't done the research so I could be wrong. The fact that many women may have died from botched back room abortions may not be such a big deal to them because. . .well, "they shouldn't be doing that in the first place so that's what they get" and besides it's hush hush and behind closed doors away from polite society so the "official societal standards" are preserved.

I'm willing to bet it's the sime mentality behind opposing gay marriage. You won't find too many opponents of gay marriage advocating legal action against gay couples. They just want the "official societal censure" in place.

I'm just hazarding a guess though, as I don't hold either one of the above views.

 

[Irvine511]

in all seriousness, i think that punishing someone for having an abortion misses the point. i would think that the illegality of the procedure would prevent it from happening, or preventing it from happening as frequenly as it does now. it would be like Physician Assisted Suicide. except for Oregon, it's illegal. the person punished would most likely be the physician.

so, inevitably, we return to coat hangers.

 

[anitram]

Does the illegality of the act prevent people from running prostitution rings, drug dealing, and so on?

I don't think we'd be back to coat hangers. Most likely you'd see dozens of clinics popping up in Canadian border towns (this has been widely suggested) which would charge $, and my guess is some doctors would perform the procedure defiantly. This is how abortion was legalized in Canada - Morgentaler persisted in performing them and opening up clinics around the country. He kept being criminally prosecuted, and separate cases went to the Supreme Court twice, which eventually tossed the abortion laws out. My feeling is that in this day and age, that's closer to what you'd see than the old coat hanger strategy.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Coat hanger? Sorry, I'm not familiar with that term.

 

[redhotswami]

Coat hanger? Sorry, I'm not familiar with that term.

back in the day, some women used this to abort the fetuses themselves.

 

[joyfulgirl]

Coat hanger? Sorry, I'm not familiar with that term.

It's what you hang clothes on in the closet. When abortion was illegal, desperate women often used wire coat hangers to abort, usually with tragic consequences.

 

[joyfulgirl]

I knew someone would explain it better than me.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Hm, I found out it was the piece to hang your clothes on, but hoped for another answer.

Thank you.

 

[redhotswami]

I knew someone would explain it better than me.

i don't think my explanation was better. but with both our posts i think we conveyed the message together.

 

[Vincent Vega]

It was teamwork at its best.

 

[phillyfan26]

the person punished would most likely be the physician.

I think that's the idea.

I'm much more conservative with my viewpoints on abortion. I'm totally against it.

That said, my personal viewpoints don't mean that legislation should be made of it. I'm pro-life and pro-choice, I guess.

 

[deep]

right now abortion is tolerated,
and legal


what would be the penalty if one beat his employee to death in 2007?

what would be the penalty if one beat his slave to death in 1850?



what would be the penalty in one killed someone in a dual in 2007 vs 1780?


What would be the penalty for throwing a person off of public transportation because of skin color in 2007 vs 1907 vs 1960?



If someone asked what should the penalty be for severely beating a slave in 1850 even abolitionist might have been perplexed?

If abortion is made illegal in 2010
within a year or two plenty of people will not have any problems with severe penalties for breaking the abortion laws that they consider murder.


Is there any tolerance of people accused of holding and treating servants as slaves?

Jesus, just look at how much different smokers are treated within a very short time span.

 

[Irvine511]

I don't think we'd be back to coat hangers. Most likely you'd see dozens of clinics popping up in Canadian border towns (this has been widely suggested) which would charge $, and my guess is some doctors would perform the procedure defiantly.

women in Flordia want abortions, too.

 

[maycocksean]

right now abortion is tolerated,
and legal


what would be the penalty if one beat his employee to death in 2007?

what would be the penalty if one beat his slave to death in 1850?



what would be the penalty in one killed someone in a dual in 2007 vs 1780?


What would be the penalty for throwing a person off of public transportation because of skin color in 2007 vs 1907 vs 1960?



If someone asked what should the penalty be for severely beating a slave in 1850 even abolitionist might have been perplexed?

If abortion is made illegal in 2010
within a year or two plenty of people will not have any problems with severe penalties for breaking the abortion laws that they consider murder.

So in other words you're saying that banning of abortion would signify such a dramatic shift in societal mores that most people would demand murder-level punishment for women who have abortions? I see the sense in your argument, but I personally doubt it would pan out that way. I can't see such a dramatic shift in that direction considering the penalties in place pre-Roe v. Wade.

Furthermore, where I live, abortion IS illegal. You can be sure it happens, however, though how it does is not common knowledge (at least not to me). I can tell you that there are no recorded cases that I'm aware of a woman or a doctor being prosecuted for abortion.

So in light of that, I'm sticking with my original theory. Pro-lifers want the "Official Societal Censure", which they believe will severely reduce the number of abortions, and they aren't giving much thought to prosecution of the crime.

Maybe the pro-life proponents on this forum could weigh in. Where are they anyway?

[B
Jesus, just look at how much different smokers are treated within a very short time span. [/B]

Yeah, me and my non-smoking pals like to run down a smoker if we see one by himself and teach him a little lesson. . .

 

[financeguy]

Maybe the pro-life proponents on this forum could weigh in. Where are they anyway?

The answer isn't really very complex. No jail time for women who have abortions, but professional misconduct charges, consfication by the State of income derived from performing abortions and possible jail time for repeat offenders for doctors that perform abortions.

Incidentally haven't some states in the US already acceded to the wishes of the majority of the electorate in those states by effectively banning abortion?

Some members of this forum, perhaps, aren't necessarily fans of democracy.

 

[deep]

So in other words you're saying that banning of abortion would signify such a dramatic shift in societal mores

I am not making light of slavery, segregation, dueling or smoking.

What I am trying to do
is speculate how something once legal, and believed to be acceptable behavior by law abiding citizens can and does get treated differently when it is not only frowned upon, but something that is universally condemned.


When slavery was illegal in some states
it was acceptable because it was still legal.


Once abortion becomes universally condemned
and the goal is for it to be illegal in all states, the penalties will come

because all abortions will be indefensible then


I have not watched the video

But, I do believe most pro lifers would want a universal ban with severe punishments

especially for providers, they would be considered the al-Quedas in the battle.

 

[phillyfan26]

But abortion has moved in the opposite direction. It's become legal. The progress got it here. It's not going to be reversed.

 

[deep]

Maybe the pro-life proponents on this forum could weigh in. Where are they anyway?

OK,

We really don't want to abolish slavery, (honest).

We just want all the new states added to the union
to be slave free.

We are reasonable, nothing radical like abolition.

 

[financeguy]

Incidentally, to offer an Irish perspective, although thousands of women DO travel to the UK for abortions each year, the pro-choice lobby have recently discovered to their chagrin that the numbers have actually DECLINED in recent years (probably the result of better sex education, and more easily available and cheaper (relative to average incomes) contraceptives, both of which are of course good things).

One would think that both the pro-life and pro-choice lobbies would welcome this development but one gets the impression, oddly, that the pro-choice lobby here don't actually like this trend, they would much rather the numbers were higher as it would be grist to their mill.