Question on the abortion bill, SB 1(ss)

[Bill of Rights]

This may be being discussed elsewhere, and if so, I ask that someone show me where. I know this is not a "gun" topic, but I don't know where else to ask.

In the bill, as published right now (8/6/22) I found this:

12 SECTION 24. IC 35-41-3-12 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA
13 CODE AS A NEW SECTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS
14 [EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 2022]: Sec. 12. (a) It is a defense to
15 any crime involving the death of or injury to a fetus that the
16 defendant was a pregnant woman who committed the unlawful act
17 with the intent to terminate her pregnancy.
18 (b) Except as provided in subsection (c), it is a defense to any
19 crime involving the death of or injury to a fetus that the mother of
20 the fetus requested that the defendant terminate her pregnancy,
21 and that the death or injury to the fetus was the result of the
22 defendant's termination or attempted termination of her
23 pregnancy.

It seems to be saying that harm to the fetus is OK if her intent was to terminate the pregnancy, whether the defendant is the doc or the mom. To me, that sounds like it runs counter to the intent of the bill.

Anyone able to shed light on what I'm missing?

Thanks!
Blessings,
Bill

 

[amjindiana]

I'm wondering if this pertains to the few instances of legal abortions that will still be allowed. AKA, if the abortion is being performed to save the life of the mother but fails and results in a severely injured baby, the physician performing the abortion cannot be charged with anything because the abortion was deemed legal in the first place. Does that make sense?

 

[Bill of Rights]

I'm wondering if this pertains to the few instances of legal abortions that will still be allowed. AKA, if the abortion is being performed to save the life of the mother but fails and results in a severely injured baby, the physician performing the abortion cannot be charged with anything because the abortion was deemed legal in the first place. Does that make sense?

In part, I guess that might fit, but that doesn't address "mom as a defendant". Unless she acts alone, I don't like the idea of charging mom.

 

[JEBland]

http://iga.in.gov/legislative/2022ss1/bills/senate/1#document-ea18ee28

My reading of the sections is that

1. section (a) says that the mother won't be charged
2. section (b) says that no one will be charged except as provided in section (c)
3. section (c) says that unlawful abortions are not defensible under (b).

So, they can still charge e.g. a man who attacks a woman with the intent of killing the fetus.

The next bit has me a little confused.

Indiana Code IC 35-42-1-6:

IC 35-42-1-6Feticide

Sec. 6. Except as provided in section 6.5 of this chapter, a person who knowingly or intentionally terminates a human pregnancy with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus commits feticide, a Level 3 felony.

As added by Acts 1979, P.L.153, SEC.3. Amended by P.L.2-1995, SEC.126; P.L.40-2009, SEC.1; P.L.158-2013, SEC.416; P.L.203-2018, SEC.4.

The next section of the bill is:

SECTION 49. IC 35-42-1-6, AS AMENDED BY P.L.203-2018, SECTION 4, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 15, 2022]: Sec. 6. (a) This section does not apply to:
(1) the pregnant mother whose pregnancy is terminated;
(2) a person who in good faith provides medical treatment to a pregnant woman that results in the accidental or unintentional termination of the pregnancy; or
(3) a physician licensed under IC 25-22.5 who, upon the request of a pregnant woman, performs a medical procedure
to terminate her pregnancy, even if the procedure is not authorized under IC 16-34-2-1.

So... They won't charge the mother (that was the norm even pre-Roe, as far as I know), but they also won't charge the Doc if done at the request of the mother? Wouldn't that nullify this whole thing?

 

[Cameramonkey]

I wonder if the "or to remove a dead fetus commits feticide" is to keep murder charges in the case of a drunk driver or homicidal maniac that kills a pregnant woman so he can still be charged with 2 counts?

Which to me has always seemed ridiculous. If I drive drunk and kill a pregnant woman, I get a 2nd charge. If she terminates the same life, its ok. Either its ok or its not. You cant have it both ways IMHO.

 

[Dean C.]

In part, I guess that might fit, but that doesn't address "mom as a defendant". Unless she acts alone, I don't like the idea of charging mom.

Why not charge mom in this case, just as murdery as the doctors apparently. If you are going to commit to a total ban have the stones to go all the way. I also want fetuses counted as dependants for tax purposes now.

 

[gregr]

In part, I guess that might fit, but that doesn't address "mom as a defendant". Unless she acts alone, I don't like the idea of charging mom.

If "mom" is trying to butcher the baby, I LOVE the idea of charging mom.

 

[gregr]

Why not charge mom in this case, just as murdery as the doctors apparently. If you are going to commit to a total ban have the stones to go all the way. I also want fetuses counted as dependants for tax purposes now.

I`ve read online that in some states "fetuses" are being allowed as tax dependents. This absolutely makes them "human", because pets and other "non-human" entities aren`t counted as tax exemptions. So then, "fetuses" MUST be granted "human" status, making them absolutely qualified for the RIGHT to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

 

[ljk]

If "mom" is trying to butcher the baby, I LOVE the idea of charging mom.

If the "mom" is a minor, do you charge her as an adult?

 

[Dean C.]

I`ve read online that in some states "fetuses" are being allowed as tax dependents. This absolutely makes them "human", because pets and other "non-human" entities aren`t counted as tax exemptions. So then, "fetuses" MUST be granted "human" status, making them absolutely qualified for the RIGHT to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Exactly my point , I want those sweet sweet tax deductions. It would have been great if there were some provisions to make access to contraceptives and adoption easier but minor details.

 

[Dean C.]

If the "mom" is a minor, do you charge her as an adult?

Why would you not want a child murderer brought up on charges as an adult?

 

[ljk]

Why would you not want a child murderer brought up on charges as an adult?

so yes?

 

[Twangbanger]

I`ve read online that in some states "fetuses" are being allowed as tax dependents. This absolutely makes them "human", because pets and other "non-human" entities aren`t counted as tax exemptions. So then, "fetuses" MUST be granted "human" status, making them absolutely qualified for the RIGHT to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Too bad somebody didn't try this one on John Roberts. Would've loved to hear his "Obamacare Tax" spin on that.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Why not charge mom in this case, just as murdery as the doctors apparently. If you are going to commit to a total ban have the stones to go all the way. I also want fetuses counted as dependants for tax purposes now.

If "mom" is trying to butcher the baby, I LOVE the idea of charging mom.

And you guys are absolutely entitled to your belief and wishes. I am as well, to mine.

Politically, that’s a non starter. It’s a fast way to turn our own base to the libs side, with all the emotional arguments we’ve all heard.

I don’t want to lose this fight because some Dem writes the ballot question to induce a particular answer and the media gins up support on that basis, as happened in Kansas.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[gregr]

And you guys are absolutely entitled to your belief and wishes. I am as well, to mine.

Politically, that’s a non starter. It’s a fast way to turn our own base to the libs side, with all the emotional arguments we’ve all heard.

I don’t want to lose this fight because some Dem writes the ballot question to induce a particular answer and the media gins up support on that basis, as happened in Kansas.

Blessings,
Bill

It`s an emotional issue, and emotions make an issue even tougher.

I just saw a news clip on channel 4 of todd young, talking about Indiana's abortion measure. Good grief, what a squirrel he is, I just don`t like him. But then they interviewed his democratic challenger, who proudly confirmed that he will be a champion for the "right" of women to kill their babies. Personally, I cannot and will not vote for that regardless of what a squirrel young is.

 

[Shadow01]

so yes?

If she’s old enough to do the deed, she’s old enough to be charged as an adult

 

[Timjoebillybob]

In part, I guess that might fit, but that doesn't address "mom as a defendant". Unless she acts alone, I don't like the idea of charging mom.

From my reading "mom" can't be charged even if acting alone. Other people can if it's not one of the few legal abortions. Subsection c.

c) Subsection (b) is not a defense to:
(1) performing an unlawful abortion under IC 16-34-2-7; or
(2) feticide (IC 35-42-1-6).

I'm guessing the section that "mom' can't be charged is due in part to a case from a few years ago. The woman attempted suicide and lived, but the fetus did not. She was charged but the charges were eventually dismissed but she was required to get mental health care.

 

[Twangbanger]

Why not charge mom in this case, just as murdery as the doctors apparently. If you are going to commit to a total ban have the stones to go all the way. I also want fetuses counted as dependants for tax purposes now.

Because it shows how the Pro-Life position can also be "reduced to absurdity," if you take it far enough. If abortion is murder, and the mom walks into the clinic and says "do it," there is no logical way to absolve her from responsibility. But, the Pro-Life movement knows this is a political loser for them. So just as the Pro-Abortion movement's "reductio absurdum" is killing children 60 seconds before or after birth, this is one of those logically-deducible arguments the true believers don't want to make. Removing criminality for the mother via statutory language is sorta like the State of New York repealing their gun law when it became apparent it was going to sink them.

I see it as similar to Vegans attacking the supply chain for meat production. Their ideology requires them to want to ban it, but they know that's a loser, politically. So they take a combination of lesser measures designed to alter the supply chain to make meat more expensive, hoping to reduce consumption in a way that doesn't bring down the political house on the full implications of their ideology.

 

[ljk]

If she’s old enough to do the deed, she’s old enough to be charged as an adult

attaboy

 

[Creedmoor]

It`s an emotional issue, and emotions make an issue even tougher.

Do we get good laws when emotions are involved to write those laws?