Please stop the separation of church and state, as if there is an impenetrable barrier between the two. First of all, the first amendment of the US Constitution states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
First of all, this applies to the Federal government. Second, it states the Federal government cannot impose its will on any religion. It says nothing about a religious institution speaking to the affairs of government. There is a tax law, called the Johnson rule, that says a religious institution endorsing a political candidate may lose its tax status, but it does not prohibit the institution from endorsement, it just says there could be consequences.
Article one, section three of the Alabama Constitution states:
There shall be no establishment of religion by law; no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; and no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state.
In some ways, the Alabama Constitution is more specific in what is prohibited by law. However, we know Alabama is in the middle of the Bible belt which means it is religiously conservative. There is no prohibition of a individual using his religious reasoning in discussing a political issue.
That does not mean I agree with that reasoning,
Nor do I think it should be included in an official judgement since that does have the affect of law. And, if that judgement stands, it would mean a woman who naturally miscarries could be charged with murder.
Yes, there should be a separation of the state from the church, but there is no partition of religion from the state.
There is no prohibition of a individual using his religious reasoning in discussing a political issue.
I think the concern is that of an elected official using her/his personal religious beliefs as basis for or justification of a legal matter, which could be shown as a preference of a kind re: the law.
Please stop the separation of church and state, as if there is an impenetrable barrier between the two. First of all, the first amendment of the US Constitution states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
First of all, this applies to the Federal government.
Second, it states the Federal government cannot impose its will on any religion. It says nothing about a religious institution speaking to the affairs of government.
Sure it does. Let's say a sect lobbies the government to suppress all sects other than the Western Branch of American Reform Presbylutheranism. I'm pretty sure the First Amendment would prohibit such laws going into effect. I'm not sure there's as much of a bright line as you claim between "speaking to the affairs of government" and "using the levers of government power to enact a sectarian agenda on non-adherents".
Nor do I think it should be included in an official judgement since that does have the affect of law. And, if that judgement stands, it would mean a woman who naturally miscarries could be charged with murder.
No, I don't think so - not murder. All classes of murder require some level of intention to commit harm. But prosecution under this law? You might reasonably worry about prosecutors going after women who miscarry having made non-ideal life choices, however (significant drug or alcohol use, for example).
There is an Alabama Supreme Court case from 2014 that upheld the conviction of a woman for child endangerment when she was prosecuted after her baby was born addicted to cocaine, caused by the mother's drug use in pregnancy. I think the same logic would apply to this "wrongful death of a minor" law, and a mother who miscarries in a situation where that miscarriage could be reasonably attributed to her actions would be in legal jeopardy. It's not clear to me how far a court might go in judging a mother's choices - drug use has precedent, as I mentioned, but what about something like a mother who fails to take the recommended vitamin supplements or something? Would that be sufficient to bring charges? I'd think it unlikely, but I'm not confident enough in that statement to want to be a woman pregnant in Alabama.
Second, it states the Federal government cannot impose its will on any religion. It says nothing about a religious institution speaking to the affairs of government.
Sure it does. Let's say a sect lobbies the government to suppress all sects other than the Western Branch of American Reform Presbylutheranism. I'm pretty sure the First Amendment would prohibit such laws going into effect. I'm not sure there's as much of a bright line as you claim between "speaking to the affairs of government" and "using the levers of government power to enact a sectarian agenda on non-adherents".
I think there’s a brighter line than you seem to acknowledge. A religious body issuing statements advocating for an end to slavery, or an end to the death penalty or for civil rights, or whatever side of whatever topic, is not the same thing as using levers of power, beyond the power of speech, to get their preferences enacted into law. There may well be some gray area in the middle, but that doesn’t mean there’s nothing but gray.
There is no prohibition of a individual using his religious reasoning in discussing a political issue.
No. But here, that “individual” is a government official using his religious reasoning to decide, not discuss, a political issue.
Nor do I think it should be included in an official judgement since that does have the affect of law. And, if that judgement stands, it would mean a woman who naturally miscarries could be charged with murder.
No, it doesn’t. Murder, @Leorning Cniht says, requires intent, and a natural miscarriage wouldn’t have the necessary intent.
Second, it states the Federal government cannot impose its will on any religion. It says nothing about a religious institution speaking to the affairs of government.
Sure it does. Let's say a sect lobbies the government to suppress all sects other than the Western Branch of American Reform Presbylutheranism. I'm pretty sure the First Amendment would prohibit such laws going into effect. I'm not sure there's as much of a bright line as you claim between "speaking to the affairs of government" and "using the levers of government power to enact a sectarian agenda on non-adherents".
I think there’s a brighter line than you seem to acknowledge. A religious body issuing statements advocating for an end to slavery, or an end to the death penalty or for civil rights, or whatever side of whatever topic, is not the same thing as using levers of power, beyond the power of speech, to get their preferences enacted into law. There may well be some gray area in the middle, but that doesn’t mean there’s nothing but gray.
There is no prohibition of a individual using his religious reasoning in discussing a political issue.
No. But here, that “individual” is a government official using his religious reasoning to decide, not discuss, a political issue.
Nor do I think it should be included in an official judgement since that does have the affect of law. And, if that judgement stands, it would mean a woman who naturally miscarries could be charged with murder.
No, it doesn’t. Murder, @Leorning Cniht says, requires intent, and a natural miscarriage wouldn’t have the necessary intent.
You might want to read this article.. While the subject of the article has to deal with a pending GOP bill, the judgement of the Alabama Supreme court has the same affect.
Several years ago, Mississippi Conservatives tried to impose the same GOP bill in their State Constitution, but when it was pointed out women who miscarry could be considered criminal it was soundly voted down by the voters.
Sorry for the double post. The editing feature timed out.
The good news is the Alabama legislature has realized the judgement went too far. They are now looking at changing the law so that IV embryos would not be considered human until after they are implanted in the uterus of a woman. But, heaven forbid if that embryo miscarries or there is a stillbirth.
Please stop the separation of church and state, as if there is an impenetrable barrier between the two. First of all, the first amendment of the US Constitution states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
First of all, this applies to the Federal government.
Second, it states the Federal government cannot impose its will on any religion. It says nothing about a religious institution speaking to the affairs of government.
Sure it does. Let's say a sect lobbies the government to suppress all sects other than the Western Branch of American Reform Presbylutheranism. I'm pretty sure the First Amendment would prohibit such laws going into effect. I'm not sure there's as much of a bright line as you claim between "speaking to the affairs of government" and "using the levers of government power to enact a sectarian agenda on non-adherents".
You are putting words in my mouth. I said nothing about a religious sect trying to impose its sectarian agenda on non adherents, However, if Trump does win, he has indicated he would be open to make the country bend to more of a (white) Christian Nationalism.
But any religious sect does have the right to speak to capital punishment, the housing of the poor, better medical care and other cradle to grave issues. They have the right to speak to the countries military stance such as giving aid to a certain country that seems bent on genocide (I am only giving a hypothetical here, understand)
It cannot use the government to impose its doctrine and practices on everyone else, though.
Second, it states the Federal government cannot impose its will on any religion. It says nothing about a religious institution speaking to the affairs of government.
Sure it does. Let's say a sect lobbies the government to suppress all sects other than the Western Branch of American Reform Presbylutheranism. I'm pretty sure the First Amendment would prohibit such laws going into effect. I'm not sure there's as much of a bright line as you claim between "speaking to the affairs of government" and "using the levers of government power to enact a sectarian agenda on non-adherents".
I think there’s a brighter line than you seem to acknowledge. A religious body issuing statements advocating for an end to slavery, or an end to the death penalty or for civil rights, or whatever side of whatever topic, is not the same thing as using levers of power, beyond the power of speech, to get their preferences enacted into law. There may well be some gray area in the middle, but that doesn’t mean there’s nothing but gray.
There is no prohibition of a individual using his religious reasoning in discussing a political issue.
No. But here, that “individual” is a government official using his religious reasoning to decide, not discuss, a political issue.
Nor do I think it should be included in an official judgement since that does have the affect of law. And, if that judgement stands, it would mean a woman who naturally miscarries could be charged with murder.
No, it doesn’t. Murder, @Leorning Cniht says, requires intent, and a natural miscarriage wouldn’t have the necessary intent.
That article says: “The Alabama House is preparing to vote on a bill that would potentially turn every miscarriage or stillbirth into a homicide investigation.” (Emphasis mine.) Not all homicides are murder.
The article also says: “Bill HB454 redefines the words ‘murder’ and ‘person’ under Alabama law to make the loss of any fetus during pregnancy the exact equivalent of murdering a child . . . .” (Emphasis mine.) Such redefinition would certainly be the case if the Alabama legislature includes a killing with no intent in the definition of “murder.”
Meanwhile, the part of the proposed legislation that is quoted says “[e]nforcement shall be subject to the same legal principles as would apply if the victim were a person who had been born alive.” Unless there’s something really odd going—which is, of course, possible—the legal principle that would apply if the victim had been born alive is a homicide isn’t murder without intent.
But actually reading the bill the article is reporting on, it would appear to be designed to allow a prosecution for murder of a woman who procures an abortion. The words “miscarriage” and “miscarry” do not appear in the bill, and I’m not seeing where in the bill a woman who naturally miscarries could be charged with murder. In other words, I don’t see what in the bill supports the article’s claim that “Bill HB454 redefines the words ‘murder’ and ‘person’ under Alabama law to make the loss of any fetus during pregnancy the exact equivalent of murdering a child . . . .” (Perhaps I should read it again the morning.)
I’m afraid this article comports with my general experience that the majority of reporters don’t really understand the legal concepts and issues they’re reporting on, or, if they do, don’t allow those concepts and issues to get in the way of the point they want to make.
When will I ever to never argue the law with a lawyer?
They do things like actually read the bill. It's irritating.
So I'm going to stick to the politics -- interesting that Republican lawmakers in Alabama are leaping to appear to care about IVF and families using IVF. They know the public supports IVF, they know they're supposed to act like they care about families, and it's a presidential election year. It's really hard to actually care about families without caring about women, but you can fake it.
Second, it states the Federal government cannot impose its will on any religion. It says nothing about a religious institution speaking to the affairs of government.
Sure it does. Let's say a sect lobbies the government to suppress all sects other than the Western Branch of American Reform Presbylutheranism. I'm pretty sure the First Amendment would prohibit such laws going into effect. I'm not sure there's as much of a bright line as you claim between "speaking to the affairs of government" and "using the levers of government power to enact a sectarian agenda on non-adherents".
I think there’s a brighter line than you seem to acknowledge. A religious body issuing statements advocating for an end to slavery, or an end to the death penalty or for civil rights, or whatever side of whatever topic, is not the same thing as using levers of power, beyond the power of speech, to get their preferences enacted into law. There may well be some gray area in the middle, but that doesn’t mean there’s nothing but gray.
There is no prohibition of a individual using his religious reasoning in discussing a political issue.
No. But here, that “individual” is a government official using his religious reasoning to decide, not discuss, a political issue.
Nor do I think it should be included in an official judgement since that does have the affect of law. And, if that judgement stands, it would mean a woman who naturally miscarries could be charged with murder.
No, it doesn’t. Murder, @Leorning Cniht says, requires intent, and a natural miscarriage wouldn’t have the necessary intent.
That article says: “The Alabama House is preparing to vote on a bill that would potentially turn every miscarriage or stillbirth into a homicide investigation.” (Emphasis mine.) Not all homicides are murder.
The article also says: “Bill HB454 redefines the words ‘murder’ and ‘person’ under Alabama law to make the loss of any fetus during pregnancy the exact equivalent of murdering a child . . . .” (Emphasis mine.) Such redefinition would certainly be the case if the Alabama legislature includes a killing with no intent in the definition of “murder.”
Meanwhile, the part of the proposed legislation that is quoted says “[e]nforcement shall be subject to the same legal principles as would apply if the victim were a person who had been born alive.” Unless there’s something really odd going—which is, of course, possible—the legal principle that would apply if the victim had been born alive is a homicide isn’t murder without intent.
But actually reading the bill the article is reporting on, it would appear to be designed to allow a prosecution for murder of a woman who procures an abortion. The words “miscarriage” and “miscarry” do not appear in the bill, and I’m not seeing where in the bill a woman who naturally miscarries could be charged with murder. In other words, I don’t see what in the bill supports the article’s claim that “Bill HB454 redefines the words ‘murder’ and ‘person’ under Alabama law to make the loss of any fetus during pregnancy the exact equivalent of murdering a child . . . .” (Perhaps I should read it again the morning.)
I’m afraid this article comports with my general experience that the majority of reporters don’t really understand the legal concepts and issues they’re reporting on, or, if they do, don’t allow those concepts and issues to get in the way of the point they want to make.
Does "miscarry" have a legal definition? Medically they are called "spontaneous abortions." If there is no legal definition in the jurisdiction in question, and the word isn't mentioned in the laws, what's to stop the law being used successfully against a woman who suffered, through no fault of her own, a spontaneous abortion?
I think there is a huge difficulty in policing pregnant women's conduct. For example, I went into hospital for a check-up when 11 weeks pregnant because I was spotting blood. A scan confirmed the baby was well, but I had to avoid heavy lifting, sex etc and rest as much as possible for the next couple of weeks. Picking up my three-year-old would have counted as "heavy lifting" as would have carrying a bag of shopping home. I had a supportive husband, good friends and some family help which made following these instructions feasible. Not all women are in that fortunate position.
In Alabama, if I ignored doctor's advice, lifted something heavy, such as an older child, and miscarried, what would happen?
Second, it states the Federal government cannot impose its will on any religion. It says nothing about a religious institution speaking to the affairs of government.
Sure it does. Let's say a sect lobbies the government to suppress all sects other than the Western Branch of American Reform Presbylutheranism. I'm pretty sure the First Amendment would prohibit such laws going into effect. I'm not sure there's as much of a bright line as you claim between "speaking to the affairs of government" and "using the levers of government power to enact a sectarian agenda on non-adherents".
I think there’s a brighter line than you seem to acknowledge. A religious body issuing statements advocating for an end to slavery, or an end to the death penalty or for civil rights, or whatever side of whatever topic, is not the same thing as using levers of power, beyond the power of speech, to get their preferences enacted into law. There may well be some gray area in the middle, but that doesn’t mean there’s nothing but gray.
There is no prohibition of a individual using his religious reasoning in discussing a political issue.
No. But here, that “individual” is a government official using his religious reasoning to decide, not discuss, a political issue.
Nor do I think it should be included in an official judgement since that does have the affect of law. And, if that judgement stands, it would mean a woman who naturally miscarries could be charged with murder.
No, it doesn’t. Murder, @Leorning Cniht says, requires intent, and a natural miscarriage wouldn’t have the necessary intent.
That article says: “The Alabama House is preparing to vote on a bill that would potentially turn every miscarriage or stillbirth into a homicide investigation.” (Emphasis mine.) Not all homicides are murder.
The article also says: “Bill HB454 redefines the words ‘murder’ and ‘person’ under Alabama law to make the loss of any fetus during pregnancy the exact equivalent of murdering a child . . . .” (Emphasis mine.) Such redefinition would certainly be the case if the Alabama legislature includes a killing with no intent in the definition of “murder.”
Meanwhile, the part of the proposed legislation that is quoted says “[e]nforcement shall be subject to the same legal principles as would apply if the victim were a person who had been born alive.” Unless there’s something really odd going—which is, of course, possible—the legal principle that would apply if the victim had been born alive is a homicide isn’t murder without intent.
But actually reading the bill the article is reporting on, it would appear to be designed to allow a prosecution for murder of a woman who procures an abortion. The words “miscarriage” and “miscarry” do not appear in the bill, and I’m not seeing where in the bill a woman who naturally miscarries could be charged with murder. In other words, I don’t see what in the bill supports the article’s claim that “Bill HB454 redefines the words ‘murder’ and ‘person’ under Alabama law to make the loss of any fetus during pregnancy the exact equivalent of murdering a child . . . .” (Perhaps I should read it again the morning.)
I’m afraid this article comports with my general experience that the majority of reporters don’t really understand the legal concepts and issues they’re reporting on, or, if they do, don’t allow those concepts and issues to get in the way of the point they want to make.
Does "miscarry" have a legal definition? Medically they are called "spontaneous abortions." If there is no legal definition in the jurisdiction in question, and the word isn't mentioned in the laws, what's to stop the law being used successfully against a woman who suffered, through no fault of her own, a spontaneous abortion?
“Miscarry” and “miscarriage” don’t, as best I can recall, have established definitions in the same way that “murder” does. Generally, legislation would deal with this by providing definitions. For example, this bill defines “criminal homicide” as “murder, manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide”; it further says “a person commits criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or with criminal negligence causes the death of another person.” Under the framework of the bill, this would include most abortions and could include miscarriage brought on by, say, drug use. But it wouldn’t appear to include spontaneous miscarriages or still births.
BTW, it appears this bill—called “the Equal Protection Act,” I kid you not—was introduced on May 9, 2023, and hasn’t moved since. If I’m tracking it correctly, the committee to which it was referred hasn’t taken it up. So the article, dated May 10, 2023, is wrong when it begins “The Alabama House is preparing to vote on a bill that would potentially turn every miscarriage or stillbirth into a homicide investigation.” The Alabama House wasn’t preparing to take up the bill; the bill had simply been introduced by five members of the House.
I think there is a huge difficulty in policing pregnant women's conduct. For example, I went into hospital for a check-up when 11 weeks pregnant because I was spotting blood. A scan confirmed the baby was well, but I had to avoid heavy lifting, sex etc and rest as much as possible for the next couple of weeks. Picking up my three-year-old would have counted as "heavy lifting" as would have carrying a bag of shopping home. I had a supportive husband, good friends and some family help which made following these instructions feasible. Not all women are in that fortunate position.
In Alabama, if I ignored doctor's advice, lifted something heavy, such as an older child, and miscarried, what would happen?
These scenarios might sound hyperbolic, but they are not entirely hypothetical. Even before the Alabama court began enforcing the vulgar fiction that a frozen embryo is a person, authorities there had long used the notion of fetal personhood to harass, intimidate and jail women – often those suspected of using drugs during pregnancies – under the state’s “chemical endangerment of a child” law, using the theory that women’s bodies are environments that they have an obligation to keep free of “chemicals” that could harm a fetus or infringe upon its rights.
Using this logic, police in Alabama, and particularly in rural Etowah county, north-east of Birmingham, have repeatedly jailed women for allegedly using drugs ranging from marijuana to meth while pregnant – including women who have claimed that they did not use drugs, and women who turned out not to be pregnant. In 2021, Kim Blalock, a mother of six, was arrested on felony charges after filling a doctor’s prescription during a pregnancy; the state of Alabama decided that it knew better than her doctor, and they could criminalize her for following medical advice.
This is not an extreme example: it is the logical conclusion of fetal personhood’s legalization – the surveillance, jailing and draconian monitoring of pregnant women, an exercise in voyeuristic sadism justified by the flimsy pretext that it’s all being done for the good of children. Except there are no children. Lest this seem like an idea that will necessarily be corrected by political response, or by the ultimate intervention of a federal court on the question, remember that Samuel Alito’s majority opinion in Dobbs referred repeatedly to “unborn human beings”.
Apparently "policing pregnant women's conduct" isn't as difficult as you imagine. Heck, policing the conduct of non-pregnant women who are suspected of being pregnant is already a thing in Etowah county.
Turns out Costa Rica, was the first country to give human rights status to IVF embryos. It was later overturned by the InterAmerican Human Rights Court. But the United States is not a Signatory to that judicial body. Story Here
It’s the legalisation of a desire to reduce women to vessels and vassals. And the Alabama examples are horrid.
I did wonder if there are grounds for appeal on the grounds that the actions taken against these women, although consistent with Alabama law, are inconsistent with the US Constitution. Following medical advice re a prescription must be protected elsewhere I would have thought. Does Dobbs rule that out entirely?
It’s the legalisation of a desire to reduce women to vessels and vassals. And the Alabama examples are horrid.
I did wonder if there are grounds for appeal on the grounds that the actions taken against these women, although consistent with Alabama law, are inconsistent with the US Constitution. Following medical advice re a prescription must be protected elsewhere I would have thought. Does Dobbs rule that out entirely?
The Roe/Casey paradigm held that the Constitution held and implicit "right to privacy", which extended to cover (among other things) medical decisions related to reproduction. Dobbs pretty clearly and explicitly overturned that understanding. Writing for the majority, Alito claimed:
The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision.
Further, he claimed:
What sharply distinguishes the abortion right from the rights recognized in the cases on which Roe and Casey rely is something that both those decisions acknowledged: Abortion destroys what those decisions call 'potential life' and what the law at issue in this case regards as the life of an 'unborn human being'.
Given prescription drugs can affect what Alito calls "an 'unborn human being'" and that he explicitly rejects the idea that the Constitution contains a right to personal autonomy in one's reproductive decisions, I'd say the likelihood of this particular SCOTUS recognizing such a right is somewhere between "slim" and "none".
Which shows quite clearly that the overturn was wrong on more than one level. Thanks, Croesos. I had a feeling it must be tied up with the specific exclusion of privacy. Bloody SCOTUS.
One dead, four injured after explosion outside reproductive center in Downtown Palm Springs; police and FBI investigating as an act of terror
An FBI official described the law enforcement response as “probably one of the largest bombing investigations that we’ve had in Southern California.”
One person is confirmed dead and four were injured after an explosion caused by what was believed to be a bomb rocked the American Reproductive Centers building on North Indian Canyon Drive near East Tachevah Drive just before 11 a.m. this morning in what federal authorities are investigating as “an intentional act of terrorism.”
Akil Davis, assistant director of the Los Angeles Federal Bureau of Investigation, told reporters the blast created a debris field spanning over 250 yards in all directions from the 1100 block of Indian Canyon Road.
<snip>
The American Reproductive Centers provides In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) and other reproductive treatments. It is the only full service facility of its kind in the Coachella Valley, with a facility in Loma Linda being the next closest.
Mayor Pro Tem Naomi Soto described the fertility clinic as “a place of hope” where people go to start or expand their families.
According to its operating hours on its website, the office was not open at the time of the explosion.
Remember when we were told that "returning the issue to the states" was supposed to mean we didn't have to worry our pretty little heads about this kind of thing any more?
Except abortion was not the issue motivating this guy. He was an anti-natalist/pro-mortalist. He left a recording and a website. From MSN:
“I figured I would just make a recording explaining why I’ve decided to bomb an IVF building, or clinic,” he said. “Basically, it just comes down to I’m angry that I exist and that, you know, nobody got my consent to bring me here.”
“I’m very against [IVF], it’s extremely wrong. These are people who are having kids after they’ve sat there and thought about it. How much more stupid can it get?" he added.
...
In the FAQ section of his website, Bartkus shared that his best friend, Sophie, who held similar beliefs, had recently died after convincing her boyfriend to shoot her in her sleep. “If I recall correctly, we had agreed that if one of us died, the other would probably soon follow,” he wrote.
Bartkus’ account appeared to align with the April 22 death of 27-year-old Sophie Tinney in Fox Island, Washington. Her boyfriend, 29-year-old Lars Eugene Nelson, was arrested and charged with second-degree murder. Investigators believe Tinney persuaded Nelson to shoot her in the head while she was asleep.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that for his method he was inspired (for lack of a better word) by attacks on abortion clinics, but he probably had no problem with abortion.
The Trump admin via Pam Bondi of course condemns this act in the the strongest terms:
The Trump administration understands that women and mothers are the heartbeat of America. Violence against a fertility clinic is unforgivable.
Except abortion was not the issue motivating this guy. He was an anti-natalist/pro-mortalist. He left a recording and a website. From MSN:
“I figured I would just make a recording explaining why I’ve decided to bomb an IVF building, or clinic,” he said. “Basically, it just comes down to I’m angry that I exist and that, you know, nobody got my consent to bring me here.”
“I’m very against [IVF], it’s extremely wrong. These are people who are having kids after they’ve sat there and thought about it. How much more stupid can it get?" he added.
...
In the FAQ section of his website, Bartkus shared that his best friend, Sophie, who held similar beliefs, had recently died after convincing her boyfriend to shoot her in her sleep. “If I recall correctly, we had agreed that if one of us died, the other would probably soon follow,” he wrote.
Bartkus’ account appeared to align with the April 22 death of 27-year-old Sophie Tinney in Fox Island, Washington. Her boyfriend, 29-year-old Lars Eugene Nelson, was arrested and charged with second-degree murder. Investigators believe Tinney persuaded Nelson to shoot her in the head while she was asleep.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that for his method he was inspired (for lack of a better word) by attacks on abortion clinics, but he probably had no problem with abortion.
I think the US Attorney(who seems like a MAGA type) was engaged in some pretty loaded language when he described Martkus as "anti-pro-life", which might give one the idea that Martkus was mostly motivated by the abortion issue, from the pro-choice side. When it's likely more accurate to say he's just literally anti-life.
I'm wondering if the manifesto will reveal any connection to a larger sociopolitical movement, or if he's just a garden-variety misanthrope with above-average articulation.
Comments
First of all, this applies to the Federal government. Second, it states the Federal government cannot impose its will on any religion. It says nothing about a religious institution speaking to the affairs of government. There is a tax law, called the Johnson rule, that says a religious institution endorsing a political candidate may lose its tax status, but it does not prohibit the institution from endorsement, it just says there could be consequences.
Article one, section three of the Alabama Constitution states:
In some ways, the Alabama Constitution is more specific in what is prohibited by law. However, we know Alabama is in the middle of the Bible belt which means it is religiously conservative. There is no prohibition of a individual using his religious reasoning in discussing a political issue.
That does not mean I agree with that reasoning,
Nor do I think it should be included in an official judgement since that does have the affect of law. And, if that judgement stands, it would mean a woman who naturally miscarries could be charged with murder.
Yes, there should be a separation of the state from the church, but there is no partition of religion from the state.
I think the concern is that of an elected official using her/his personal religious beliefs as basis for or justification of a legal matter, which could be shown as a preference of a kind re: the law.
It also applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment.
Sure it does. Let's say a sect lobbies the government to suppress all sects other than the Western Branch of American Reform Presbylutheranism. I'm pretty sure the First Amendment would prohibit such laws going into effect. I'm not sure there's as much of a bright line as you claim between "speaking to the affairs of government" and "using the levers of government power to enact a sectarian agenda on non-adherents".
No, I don't think so - not murder. All classes of murder require some level of intention to commit harm. But prosecution under this law? You might reasonably worry about prosecutors going after women who miscarry having made non-ideal life choices, however (significant drug or alcohol use, for example).
There is an Alabama Supreme Court case from 2014 that upheld the conviction of a woman for child endangerment when she was prosecuted after her baby was born addicted to cocaine, caused by the mother's drug use in pregnancy. I think the same logic would apply to this "wrongful death of a minor" law, and a mother who miscarries in a situation where that miscarriage could be reasonably attributed to her actions would be in legal jeopardy. It's not clear to me how far a court might go in judging a mother's choices - drug use has precedent, as I mentioned, but what about something like a mother who fails to take the recommended vitamin supplements or something? Would that be sufficient to bring charges? I'd think it unlikely, but I'm not confident enough in that statement to want to be a woman pregnant in Alabama.
However . . . No. But here, that “individual” is a government official using his religious reasoning to decide, not discuss, a political issue.
No, it doesn’t. Murder, @Leorning Cniht says, requires intent, and a natural miscarriage wouldn’t have the necessary intent.
You might want to read this article.. While the subject of the article has to deal with a pending GOP bill, the judgement of the Alabama Supreme court has the same affect.
Several years ago, Mississippi Conservatives tried to impose the same GOP bill in their State Constitution, but when it was pointed out women who miscarry could be considered criminal it was soundly voted down by the voters.
The good news is the Alabama legislature has realized the judgement went too far. They are now looking at changing the law so that IV embryos would not be considered human until after they are implanted in the uterus of a woman. But, heaven forbid if that embryo miscarries or there is a stillbirth.
You are putting words in my mouth. I said nothing about a religious sect trying to impose its sectarian agenda on non adherents, However, if Trump does win, he has indicated he would be open to make the country bend to more of a (white) Christian Nationalism.
But any religious sect does have the right to speak to capital punishment, the housing of the poor, better medical care and other cradle to grave issues. They have the right to speak to the countries military stance such as giving aid to a certain country that seems bent on genocide (I am only giving a hypothetical here, understand)
It cannot use the government to impose its doctrine and practices on everyone else, though.
The article also says: “Bill HB454 redefines the words ‘murder’ and ‘person’ under Alabama law to make the loss of any fetus during pregnancy the exact equivalent of murdering a child . . . .” (Emphasis mine.) Such redefinition would certainly be the case if the Alabama legislature includes a killing with no intent in the definition of “murder.”
Meanwhile, the part of the proposed legislation that is quoted says “[e]nforcement shall be subject to the same legal principles as would apply if the victim were a person who had been born alive.” Unless there’s something really odd going—which is, of course, possible—the legal principle that would apply if the victim had been born alive is a homicide isn’t murder without intent.
But actually reading the bill the article is reporting on, it would appear to be designed to allow a prosecution for murder of a woman who procures an abortion. The words “miscarriage” and “miscarry” do not appear in the bill, and I’m not seeing where in the bill a woman who naturally miscarries could be charged with murder. In other words, I don’t see what in the bill supports the article’s claim that “Bill HB454 redefines the words ‘murder’ and ‘person’ under Alabama law to make the loss of any fetus during pregnancy the exact equivalent of murdering a child . . . .” (Perhaps I should read it again the morning.)
I’m afraid this article comports with my general experience that the majority of reporters don’t really understand the legal concepts and issues they’re reporting on, or, if they do, don’t allow those concepts and issues to get in the way of the point they want to make.
So I'm going to stick to the politics -- interesting that Republican lawmakers in Alabama are leaping to appear to care about IVF and families using IVF. They know the public supports IVF, they know they're supposed to act like they care about families, and it's a presidential election year. It's really hard to actually care about families without caring about women, but you can fake it.
Does "miscarry" have a legal definition? Medically they are called "spontaneous abortions." If there is no legal definition in the jurisdiction in question, and the word isn't mentioned in the laws, what's to stop the law being used successfully against a woman who suffered, through no fault of her own, a spontaneous abortion?
In Alabama, if I ignored doctor's advice, lifted something heavy, such as an older child, and miscarried, what would happen?
BTW, it appears this bill—called “the Equal Protection Act,” I kid you not—was introduced on May 9, 2023, and hasn’t moved since. If I’m tracking it correctly, the committee to which it was referred hasn’t taken it up. So the article, dated May 10, 2023, is wrong when it begins “The Alabama House is preparing to vote on a bill that would potentially turn every miscarriage or stillbirth into a homicide investigation.” The Alabama House wasn’t preparing to take up the bill; the bill had simply been introduced by five members of the House.
Depending on your skin color and where exactly in Alabama you lived, potentially quite a lot could happen to you.
Apparently "policing pregnant women's conduct" isn't as difficult as you imagine. Heck, policing the conduct of non-pregnant women who are suspected of being pregnant is already a thing in Etowah county.
Senator Duckworth of Illinois and others will introduce a measure on the Senate floor calling for the unanimous consent of the Senate in supporting IVF. Duckworth issued this statement concerning the proposed legislation.
Apparently "policing pregnant women's conduct" isn't as difficult as you imagine.
Speaking personally, I had never imagined that it would be difficult. My fear is that it would be all too easy.
I did wonder if there are grounds for appeal on the grounds that the actions taken against these women, although consistent with Alabama law, are inconsistent with the US Constitution. Following medical advice re a prescription must be protected elsewhere I would have thought. Does Dobbs rule that out entirely?
Exactly. How many millenia of patriarchy was it? It's not going away in a hurry, or easily.
The Roe/Casey paradigm held that the Constitution held and implicit "right to privacy", which extended to cover (among other things) medical decisions related to reproduction. Dobbs pretty clearly and explicitly overturned that understanding. Writing for the majority, Alito claimed:
Further, he claimed:
Given prescription drugs can affect what Alito calls "an 'unborn human being'" and that he explicitly rejects the idea that the Constitution contains a right to personal autonomy in one's reproductive decisions, I'd say the likelihood of this particular SCOTUS recognizing such a right is somewhere between "slim" and "none".
Remember when we were told that "returning the issue to the states" was supposed to mean we didn't have to worry our pretty little heads about this kind of thing any more?
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that for his method he was inspired (for lack of a better word) by attacks on abortion clinics, but he probably had no problem with abortion.
The Trump admin via Pam Bondi of course condemns this act in the the strongest terms:
I think the US Attorney(who seems like a MAGA type) was engaged in some pretty loaded language when he described Martkus as "anti-pro-life", which might give one the idea that Martkus was mostly motivated by the abortion issue, from the pro-choice side. When it's likely more accurate to say he's just literally anti-life.
I'm wondering if the manifesto will reveal any connection to a larger sociopolitical movement, or if he's just a garden-variety misanthrope with above-average articulation.