Yet……doesn’t the old law the AZ Supreme Court harken back to hold the key?: “Provided, that no physician shall be affected by the last clause of this section, who in the discharge of his professional duties deems it necessary to produce the miscarriage of any woman in order to save her life.” I repeat: “In order to SAVE HER LIFE”. Okay,…
Yet……doesn’t the old law the AZ Supreme Court harken back to hold the key?: “Provided, that no physician shall be affected by the last clause of this section, who in the discharge of his professional duties deems it necessary to produce the miscarriage of any woman in order to save her life.” I repeat: “In order to SAVE HER LIFE”. Okay, that could encompass a lot of interpretation. Do not doctors performing abortions believe they are “Saving” the Woman’s Life? I could see that as YES. If a woman is forced to have an unwanted child it will indeed “kill her life”, mostly because it kills her choice to decide absolutely what happens to HER OWN body. It makes her NOT a free and equal member of society. Time for the ERA Amendment to pass.
What of the woman who looks in her doctor’s eyes and states “I will kill myself if I can’t have an abortion.” Is the doctor then to make the determination that this abortion will be done to save her life? What would the court have to say in this scenario? There are still no clear guidelines. and . . .
What/who in the world designates a woman as a second class citizen such that an amendment needs to be passed to make her “equal” to men?!?! (envision me shouting this question). I agree that this amendment needs to be passed ASAP, should have been passed eons ago, but its passage never should be necessary to make women “equal”. Indeed, IMHO women are actually superior to men in most ways.
And a forced pregnancy, in a situation where a woman knows she does not have the necessary resources to raise that child, results in a child growing up without their basic physical and emotional needs met. That child is at risk for dropping out of school and becoming involved in antisocial behaviors. That child becomes our future.
As we are hearing from physicians and patients across the country. The courts and legislatures have not provided any legal guidance or definition for identifying exactly when a woman is on the verge of death and so when an abortion becomes legal. Of course they can't, which is why it is very bad law.
I think I understand your point and there is no end of evidence to support it. And the hypocrisy. ie Jim Crow voter registration literacy tests. Registration is supposed to facilitate voting but White Supremacists used it to deny Black persons their constitutional right to equal representation.
But laws cannot be written so as to effectively legislate and adjudicate all existing circumstances, let alone potential circumstances. I think The Founders translated The Scientific Method into an agreed legal framework for good governance. The laws as hypotheses to be tested, observed, and revised. I think they were sincere in their aspirations.
I think the Republican Party has become entirely insincere. Since at least Newt Gingrich's emphasis on rhetoric unmoored from reality. And with the advent of such as Rand Paul and Taylor Greene, the party has become dangerously frivolous. Using the protocols of government, only to obstruct government.
Leonard Leo's Becket Law speech and William Barr's Notre Dame speech exemplify the fallacious rhetoric of American religious extremism. And the extremists working to repurpose a democratic republic as a clerical fascist state.
Lin, this is a good point, and I appreciate you making it. It is easy to fall into cynicism about the vagueness of rule making. A component of rule making is that the parties are intended to act in good faith. Yet humans fall into goalpost-moving behavior when they are not acting in good faith, but righteously insist they are. We, again, are in such a moment.
Yet……doesn’t the old law the AZ Supreme Court harken back to hold the key?: “Provided, that no physician shall be affected by the last clause of this section, who in the discharge of his professional duties deems it necessary to produce the miscarriage of any woman in order to save her life.” I repeat: “In order to SAVE HER LIFE”. Okay, that could encompass a lot of interpretation. Do not doctors performing abortions believe they are “Saving” the Woman’s Life? I could see that as YES. If a woman is forced to have an unwanted child it will indeed “kill her life”, mostly because it kills her choice to decide absolutely what happens to HER OWN body. It makes her NOT a free and equal member of society. Time for the ERA Amendment to pass.
Two thoughts:
What of the woman who looks in her doctor’s eyes and states “I will kill myself if I can’t have an abortion.” Is the doctor then to make the determination that this abortion will be done to save her life? What would the court have to say in this scenario? There are still no clear guidelines. and . . .
What/who in the world designates a woman as a second class citizen such that an amendment needs to be passed to make her “equal” to men?!?! (envision me shouting this question). I agree that this amendment needs to be passed ASAP, should have been passed eons ago, but its passage never should be necessary to make women “equal”. Indeed, IMHO women are actually superior to men in most ways.
And a forced pregnancy, in a situation where a woman knows she does not have the necessary resources to raise that child, results in a child growing up without their basic physical and emotional needs met. That child is at risk for dropping out of school and becoming involved in antisocial behaviors. That child becomes our future.
As we are hearing from physicians and patients across the country. The courts and legislatures have not provided any legal guidance or definition for identifying exactly when a woman is on the verge of death and so when an abortion becomes legal. Of course they can't, which is why it is very bad law.
Lin…same for any of the other “exceptions” such as rape and incest…..too many barriers to “prove” the offense was committed.
Intentional vagueness to allow the goalpost to keep moving.
I think I understand your point and there is no end of evidence to support it. And the hypocrisy. ie Jim Crow voter registration literacy tests. Registration is supposed to facilitate voting but White Supremacists used it to deny Black persons their constitutional right to equal representation.
But laws cannot be written so as to effectively legislate and adjudicate all existing circumstances, let alone potential circumstances. I think The Founders translated The Scientific Method into an agreed legal framework for good governance. The laws as hypotheses to be tested, observed, and revised. I think they were sincere in their aspirations.
I think the Republican Party has become entirely insincere. Since at least Newt Gingrich's emphasis on rhetoric unmoored from reality. And with the advent of such as Rand Paul and Taylor Greene, the party has become dangerously frivolous. Using the protocols of government, only to obstruct government.
Leonard Leo's Becket Law speech and William Barr's Notre Dame speech exemplify the fallacious rhetoric of American religious extremism. And the extremists working to repurpose a democratic republic as a clerical fascist state.
https://www.becketlaw.org/leonard-leo-speech-2017-canterbury-medal-gala/
https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-william-p-barr-delivers-remarks-law-school-and-de-nicola-center-ethics
Lin, this is a good point, and I appreciate you making it. It is easy to fall into cynicism about the vagueness of rule making. A component of rule making is that the parties are intended to act in good faith. Yet humans fall into goalpost-moving behavior when they are not acting in good faith, but righteously insist they are. We, again, are in such a moment.