Question on the abortion bill, SB 1(ss)

[chipbennett]

It`s not the same thing, "wanting" to send women to prison, as, women going to prison for breaking the law and committing murder. There`s a difference, and a law minus Justice System enforcement isn`t a law, it`s just a recommendation.

Most of those women have been raised in a culture in which, for 50 years, it was ingrained that abortion was simply a "medical procedure" to remove a "clump of cells". Elective abortion is a wholly evil act. I wanted it ended, and am glad that it has been ended.

At the same time, I'm not going to become pharisaic toward the women who were taught that abortion was perfectly fine, some of whom who used abortion as de facto birth control, surely - but many of whom were manipulated while in a vulnerable state to believe that abortion was their only option.

Those women deserve grace (as the rest of us hope that we also need). Reserve your scorn for those who intentionally ingrained abortion into our culture.

 

[gregr]

Most of those women have been raised in a culture in which, for 50 years, it was ingrained that abortion was simply a "medical procedure" to remove a "clump of cells". Elective abortion is a wholly evil act. I wanted it ended, and am glad that it has been ended.

At the same time, I'm not going to become pharisaic toward the women who were taught that abortion was perfectly fine, some of whom who used abortion as de facto birth control, surely - but many of whom were manipulated while in a vulnerable state to believe that abortion was their only option.

Those women deserve grace (as the rest of us hope that we also need). Reserve your scorn for those who intentionally ingrained abortion into our culture.

Everyone deserves grace to be sure. Just as all who violate the law deserve jail or prison.

 

[chipbennett]

Everyone deserves grace to be sure. Just as all who violate the law deserve jail or prison.

As another INGOer has said, views about abortion are a matter of the heart. To change our culture, we have to effect changes of heart. Throwing young women into prison isn't going to accomplish that.

 

[gregr]

As another INGOer has said, views about abortion are a matter of the heart. To change our culture, we have to effect changes of heart. Throwing young women into prison isn't going to accomplish that.

And to be sure, if they don`t break the law, they shouldn`t go to jail. If they break the law, they must. Why would breaking this law be any different than breaking any other law?

 

[chipbennett]

And to be sure, if they don`t break the law, they shouldn`t go to jail. If they break the law, they must. Why would breaking this law be any different than breaking any other law?

...I've stated my position, and think it's clear?

Not a single state in the country has a law currently in place that criminally penalizes the mother due to abortion. There is a reason for that. Most people view criminally penalizing the mother as extreme zealotry.

 

[gregr]

...I've stated my position, and think it's clear?

Not a single state in the country has a law currently in place that criminally penalizes the mother due to abortion. There is a reason for that. Most people view criminally penalizing the mother as extreme zealotry.

We just disagree, strongly.

 

[chipbennett]

We just disagree, strongly.

Understood.

And while I do not believe in basing action on polls, your position is in the extreme minority. I doubt you would get more than a hint of public support for criminally penalizing mothers, even in Indiana.

• Want to drive the culture war against the pro-life position and toward supporting abortion? Criminalize mothers.
• Want to harden hearts against the pro-life position? Criminalize mothers.
• Want to give activist judges cause to strike down anti-abortion laws? Criminalize mothers.

This battle, for me, has always been about protecting the innocent life of the unborn, not about punishing women who have chosen to get abortions.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

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:



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

Late to the party, but haven't seen the correct answer spelled out clearly yet, so:

As passed the bill provides that:

1) The mother will NEVER be charged with any sort of crime for getting an abortion (section 12 a below.)
2) The abortionist will NOT be charged with feticide if he performed an abortion at the request of the mother (section 12 b below)
3) The abortionist WILL lose his medical license and be charged with a class A misdemeanor if the abortion did not meet the criteria for one of the exceptions spelled out in the law (the charge can vary based on different factors, too, such as failing to meet requirements that it be done in a hospital, reporting requirements, etc.)

Note that section 12 b is the confusing part. I simplified it above by saying that it exempts the abortionist from being charged with feticide, as that is its main intent, but what it actually spells out is that the abortionist cannot be charged with ANY crime for committing an abortion (assuming he did so at the request of the mother) EXCEPT he CAN be charged for committing the abortion illegally, as provided for in section 12 c of the bill, if the abortion was not covered under one of the exceptions spelled out in the law.

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.

 

[Twangbanger]

So, basically, you're painting the pro-life position into a completely untenable, damned-if-they-do-damned-if-they-don't box. Make elective abortion illegal and include criminal charges for the mother? The pro-life position just wants to punish vulnerable women. Make elective abortion illegal but exclude criminal charges for the mother? The pro-life position is just playing politics.

I don't want women thrown into prison. I do want elective abortions ended. The end game is saving the life of the unborn, not swelling prison roles with women who choose to seek elective abortion.

I'm not painting the Pro-Life position into a box. That was done by the "Abortion Is Murder" position of some in the movement. I'm simply pointing out the logical pickle they've placed themselves in. If a woman hired someone to murder her husband, because she was for whatever reason unable to do the job herself, she'd be charged and held morally culpable for that.

People who want to force their minority opinions onto the majority via political processes, often find themselves forced into scenarios where they need to make concessions against logic in their positions, if they want to make political progress. This is necessarily what happens when you allow "The People" to decide, rather than having issues ruled upon and decided by Philosopher-Kings in black robes.

You seem to grasp that the Pro-Life Movement has a Zealotry Optics problem, but not all do.

 

[chipbennett]

I'm not painting the Pro-Life position into a box. That was done by the "Abortion Is Murder" position of some in the movement. I'm simply pointing out the logical pickle they've placed themselves in. If a woman hired someone to murder her husband, because she was for whatever reason unable to do the job herself, she'd be charged and held morally culpable for that.

People who want to force their minority opinions onto the majority via political processes, often find themselves forced into scenarios where they need to make concessions against logic in their positions, if they want to make political progress. This is necessarily what happens when you allow "The People" to decide, rather than having issues ruled upon and decided by Philosopher-Kings in black robes.

You seem to grasp that the Pro-Life Movement has a Zealotry Optics problem, but not all do.

I see two extremes here: one, the pro-life "zealots" who argue for imprisoning women who have had abortions, and the abortion proponents who attempt to force the "zealot" view on the entirety of the pro-life position. The vast majority of the pro-life movement neither holds the "zealot" position, nor agrees that the "zealot" position is required for some sort of intellectual/logical consistency - as evidenced by the complete lack of even a single state having implemented, or trying to implement, laws that would criminalize and imprison women who have had abortions.

 

[HoughMade]

I assume that this section means:

1. Elective abortions are illegal
2. Committing the illegal act of elective abortion intentionally incurs no criminal liability
3. Otherwise killing an unborn human remains illegal, with any related criminal liability, as it did before.

As for the woman, correct.

However, it is a criminal act for anyone else to perform an abortion or otherwise commit "feticide" unless the abortion fits within the statutory exceptions (rape, incest, etc. within the time limits).

Long story short- the woman causing her own abortion- not a crime. The licensed physician performing an illegal abortion- Class A misdemeanor "Illegal Abortion", but not "Feticide". Anyone else intentionally causing an illegal abortion, either a Level 5 felony, or "Feticide", a Level 3 felony.

So why the "defense" in I.C. 35-41-3-12(b)? If a court eventually finds the preborn to be humans, it is a defense to a murder or other homicide, leaving the "Illegal Abortion" or "Feticide" charges as the only possible charges.

 

[JEBland]

As for the woman, correct.

However, it is a criminal act for anyone else to perform an abortion or otherwise commit "feticide" unless the abortion fits within the statutory exceptions (rape, incest, etc. within the time limits).

So, does this mean I misread the bill in post 4? The bill seems to suggest that licensed physicians won't be charged if the mother requests it. If the lose their licensing (as suggested in some posts in this thread), then that is perhaps enough of a stick to discourage a doctor from carrying out disallowed abortions. Taking away the licensing from a doctor (that is, a practicing MD), or a lawyer is a big punishment, no?

Obligatory link to the bill: http://iga.in.gov/legislative/2022ss1/bills/senate/1

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I see two extremes here: one, the pro-life "zealots" who argue for imprisoning women who have had abortions, and the abortion proponents who attempt to force the "zealot" view on the entirety of the pro-life position. The vast majority of the pro-life movement neither holds the "zealot" position, nor agrees that the "zealot" position is required for some sort of intellectual/logical consistency - as evidenced by the complete lack of even a single state having implemented, or trying to implement, laws that would criminalize and imprison women who have had abortions.

I think you already conceded the point in post #47. NOT punishing women who have abortions, for the pro-life side, is about optics, and about it being the only viable way to advance our position. Like you said, we have to think about saving lives first, and if we decide to torpedo our cause by pushing for something the vast majority of the public would find abhorrent, that would be just plain silly.

But this has nothing to do with whether or not it's a logically consistent position. The fact that the public finds outlawing abortion without punishing women more palatable has nothing to do with them thinking it's a logically/intellectually consistent position, and everything to do with the fact that the vast majority simply don't give a care whether their morals are logically or intellectually consistent.

But if we are to discuss logical consistency, I have to agree with twangbanger that I find it very difficult to logically justify a position that states abortion is murder, but a woman seeking one should never be punished. The case you made earlier that women should not be punished, because they have been manipulated for decades into believing that unborn children are not human beings with rights, simply doesn't hold water. If you apply that logic consistently to other historical situations where the public was lied to on a massive scale over a long period of time to convince them that a certain category of human beings were not really people, you will find yourself arriving at some rather disturbing conclusions.

 

[gregr]

I see two extremes here: one, the pro-life "zealots" who argue for imprisoning women who have had abortions, and the abortion proponents who attempt to force the "zealot" view on the entirety of the pro-life position. The vast majority of the pro-life movement neither holds the "zealot" position, nor agrees that the "zealot" position is required for some sort of intellectual/logical consistency - as evidenced by the complete lack of even a single state having implemented, or trying to implement, laws that would criminalize and imprison women who have had abortions.

I suppose if holding someone liable for a criminal act, makes me a "zealot", then ok, I`m a "zealot". I know you and I have discussed this in this thread, but I`m still just left wondering which crimes we will make non-punishable by law? If there`s no criminal prosecution, then what`s the point? And yes, I`ve read your explanations, but I just could not disagree more passionately that a criminal act ought not have any criminal consequences.

 

[HoughMade]

So, does this mean I misread the bill in post 4? The bill seems to suggest that licensed physicians won't be charged if the mother requests it. If the lose their licensing (as suggested in some posts in this thread), then that is perhaps enough of a stick to discourage a doctor from carrying out disallowed abortions. Taking away the licensing from a doctor (that is, a practicing MD), or a lawyer is a big punishment, no?

Obligatory link to the bill: http://iga.in.gov/legislative/2022ss1/bills/senate/1

Post #4 omits the "(c)" as in "except as provided in subsection (c)..."

Subsection "c) states:

"(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).

But then, licensed physicians are excepted from "Feticide", leaving "Unlawful Abortion" as the only charge for them.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

(Edit: The actual lawyer beat me to it. Oh well, I'll leave this here in case anyone wants the long, rambling explanation instead of the clear and concise one above. )

So, does this mean I misread the bill in post 4? The bill seems to suggest that licensed physicians won't be charged if the mother requests it. If the lose their licensing (as suggested in some posts in this thread), then that is perhaps enough of a stick to discourage a doctor from carrying out disallowed abortions. Taking away the licensing from a doctor (that is, a practicing MD), or a lawyer is a big punishment, no?

Obligatory link to the bill: http://iga.in.gov/legislative/2022ss1/bills/senate/1

I don't think anything you said in your post (#4) was incorrect, there was just a little more to it.

Let me see if I can break it down.

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).

All correct, but 3 is the important part here; unlawful abortions will still be charged as crimes, which can range from Class A misdemeanors to Level 5 felonies, depending on circumstances. You can find the relevant sections in SB1 by searching for "misdemeanor" and "felony" (you'll also have some hits in there for charges that can be brought for violating reporting requirements, falsifying information, etc) 2 and 3 together don't mean that the abortionist won't be charged, just that he'll be charged with an unlawful abortion, but nothing else (eg, feticide.)

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:


The next section of the bill is:


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?

Yes, someone who kills the fetus WITHOUT the request of the mother will be charged with feticide, under IC 35-42-1-6.

WITH the request of the mother, again, the person doing the abortion won't be charged (assuming they're a licensed physician), except as provided in section c of the above reference, meaning they WON'T be charged with feticide (or any other punishment from any other law) but still CAN be charged with an unlawful abortion.

 

[HoughMade]

Someone other than a licensed physician who intentionally causes an abortion, even with consent, can be charged with Feticide.

BTW, people talk about "boyfriends" and such, but completely skip over midwives, nurses, nurse practitioners, and any other healthcare providers other than a physician. All of those persons can be charged with the Level 5 felony "Unlawful Abortion" and/or "Feticide" as well, even with consent.

 

[HoosierLife]

I'm not painting the Pro-Life position into a box. That was done by the "Abortion Is Murder" position of some in the movement. I'm simply pointing out the logical pickle they've placed themselves in. If a woman hired someone to murder her husband, because she was for whatever reason unable to do the job herself, she'd be charged and held morally culpable for that.

People who want to force their minority opinions onto the majority via political processes, often find themselves forced into scenarios where they need to make concessions against logic in their positions, if they want to make political progress. This is necessarily what happens when you allow "The People" to decide, rather than having issues ruled upon and decided by Philosopher-Kings in black robes.

You seem to grasp that the Pro-Life Movement has a Zealotry Optics problem, but not all do.

Women that murder their children should definitely bear the punishment as much as the abortionist.

Maybe more so.

How’s that for zealotry?

 

[HoughMade]

I'm impressed that non-lawyer INGOers have figured this statute out pretty well. As much as I want to protect my income stream, laws should be written so you don't need 7 years of education and 20 years of experience to know what they say.

 

[JEBland]

Post #4 omits the "(c)" as in "except as provided in subsection (c)..."

Subsection "c) states:

"(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).

But then, licensed physicians are excepted from "Feticide", leaving "Unlawful Abortion" as the only charge for them.

(Edit: The actual lawyer beat me to it. Oh well, I'll leave this here in case anyone wants the long, rambling explanation instead of the clear and concise one above. )

I don't think anything you said in your post (#4) was incorrect, there was just a little more to it.

Let me see if I can break it down.

All correct, but 3 is the important part here; unlawful abortions will still be charged as crimes, which can range from Class A misdemeanors to Level 5 felonies, depending on circumstances. You can find the relevant sections in SB1 by searching for "misdemeanor" and "felony" (you'll also have some hits in there for charges that can be brought for violating reporting requirements, falsifying information, etc) 2 and 3 together don't mean that the abortionist won't be charged, just that he'll be charged with an unlawful abortion, but nothing else (eg, feticide.)

Yes, someone who kills the fetus WITHOUT the request of the mother will be charged with feticide, under IC 35-42-1-6.

WITH the request of the mother, again, the person doing the abortion won't be charged (assuming they're a licensed physician), except as provided in section c of the above reference, meaning they WON'T be charged with feticide (or any other punishment from any other law) but still CAN be charged with an unlawful abortion.

Thank you both!