Law Abortion would be punishable as murder under new Louisiana proposal - IVF and birth control might be included

Less than 48 hours after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling was leaked, indicating the landmark abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade would be overturned, Louisiana lawmakers acted aggressively to bolster state law that bans the procedure.

The House Committee for the Administration of Criminal Justice advanced a bill Wednesday that would treat anyone who undergoes or administers an abortion as a murderer. The potential penalty for someone convicted could be life in prison.

Rep. Danny McCormick, R-Oil City, authored House Bill 813 that would also allow the state attorney general prosecute abortion cases that a local district attorney refuses. He told the committee Louisiana and other states had already violated federal law by approving medical marijuana, and any constitutional concerns about his proposal should be considered similarly.

“If more than 15 states can defy the federal government over marijuana, we can do it to save the lives of innocent babies,” McCormick said, adding Louisiana should not wait until the Supreme Court’s ruling is made official.

Supreme Court officials have confirmed the content of the draft opinion first obtained by Politico, adding that it could be altered before it’s certified later year. In reversing the Roe decision, states would then be empowered to enforce their own laws concerning abortion. Louisiana is among the states with a trigger law that bans abortions as soon as the Supreme Court ruling is final. Other states are considering similar proposals.

Backers of McCormick’s bill who testified before the committee referred to various Bible verses to back their stance. They included Susan Raborn, a Baton Rouge lawyer who acknowledged she had separately aborted twins and a single fetus she had carried. She said abortion rights supporters have confronted her about her past as a member of LSU’s Golden Girls and the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders, saying those opportunities and her subsequent legal career would not have been possible without having had abortion as an option.

Raborn, 61, spoke of her continuing guilt over ending her pregnancies, and she described abortion rights supporters as racists.

“They really want to kill minority babies. They love to kill minority babies …” she said. “They’re really the KKK of today.”

Statistics the Kaiser Family Foundation compiled show Black people accounted for 38% of abortions in 2019, compared with 33% for whites and 21% for Hispanics. Louisiana was among 21 states that did not report abortion data by race or ethnicity, according to KFF. A closer look at Southern states shows Black people obtained a far larger share of abortions in Alabama and Georgia, while white people vastly outnumbered other races in Kentucky.

Research has connected racial disparities in abortion to other fundamental inequalities: lack of access to health care and contraception, subpar public education and low income.

Opponents of House Bill 813 included lawyers who said language in the proposal would make procedures such as in-vitro fertilization and the freezing of embryos punishable crimes. Birth control pills, intrauterine devices and emergency contraception would also be outlawed, based on their interpretation of the bill.

Melissa Flournoy, a former state lawmaker and board chair of Louisiana Progress, said McCormick’s measure could have unintended consequences, including the “criminalization of miscarriages.”

Gov. John Bel Edwards, a Democrat with staunch anti-abortion views, would not offer personal comment Wednesday when asked about the leaked Supreme Court ruling. He did confirm that such a law would prompt Louisiana’s 2006 trigger law into effect.

Committee member Tony Bacala, R-Prairieville, expressed concerns about whether McCormick’s bill would be constitutional but voted in favor of it anyway. He was joined by Reps. Bryan Fontenot, R-Thibodaux; Ray Garafalo, R-Chalmette; Jonathan Goudeau, R-Lafayette; Nick Muscarello, R-Hammond; Alan Seabaugh, R-Shreveport; and McCormick.

The no votes on the committee came from chairman Joe Marino, an independent from Gretna, and Rep. Vanessa LaFleur, D-Baton Rouge.

Absent for the vote were Reps. Marcus Bryant, D-New Iberia; Valarie Hodges, R-Denham Springs; Denise Marcelle, D-Baton Rouge; Richard Nelson, R-Mandeville; and Debbie Villio, R-Kenner.

Link / Archive
 
The thing I'm worried about is if they are going to classify miscarriages as a form of abortion or not. I feel like it would be super shitty to have someone legit want their baby, only to lose them and then be charged for murder over something she had no control over.

Let's be real lads, the only reason why they are overturning this now is because of record low birth rates and the gov needs more soldiers, voters, and wage slaves for the future. They don't care about anyone, let alone babies. If you think they are bringing America back to moral values, you are delusional. A congressman would totally throw a baby in a pit of fire if it meant they could stay in power longer.
 
Given how these women act when shit doesn't go their way, I wouldn't want them to have children. That is if they even find somebody to procreate with them.

The gray morality of "my body, my choice" with "abortion is murdering babies" loses weight when added the context and arguments of these decisions.

In principle, it's a complex, controversial issue that neither side knows or wants to handle accordingly.
 
But why should the baby qualify as a life if the woman was going to abort it anyways?
The sense I could make of it is if anybody would have a chance to harm a pregnancy, you'd harm the woman as well. Think about that logic for a second.

"Your Honor, she was going to get an abortion anyway! Why am I on trial for punching her in the stomach?"

One is a standard procedure that would be expertly handled (hell, that would be a better argument for abortion LIMITS of when to operate during trimesters) and one is a careless, reckless action.
 
The sense I could make of it is if anybody would have a chance to harm a pregnancy, you'd harm the woman as well. Think about that logic for a second.

"Your Honor, she was going to get an abortion anyway! Why am I on trial for punching her in the stomach?"

One is a standard procedure that would be expertly handled (hell, that would be a better argument for abortion LIMITS of when to operate during trimesters) and one is a careless, reckless action.
No, he's on the hook for the woman. That's a given. The problem stems from the law where if he kills the baby he's also on the hook for that. It's not either or. He will always be responsible for the harm done to the woman, but why should he be held liable for the baby if she was going to go out and get an abortion?

He's not advocating that we all go and punch women waiting in line at the abortion clinics. I'd like to think A&N has at least that much decorum.
 
He will always be responsible for the harm done to the woman, but why should he be held liable for the baby if she was going to go out and get an abortion?
Because he wasn't performing a licensed operation. He was merely harming a pregnant woman.

Okay, say you have a tree in your property. You don't want it there. Then somebody crashes into that same tree and causes damage. Would that person be liable for the tree, even if you didn't want it?
 
Because he wasn't performing a licensed operation. He was merely harming a pregnant woman.

Okay, say you have a tree in your property. You don't want it there. Then somebody crashes into that same tree and causes damage. Would that person be liable for the tree, even if you didn't want it?
That's the issue at play here. Why should I hold that guy liable? Why should the law?

This is strictly a legal exercise, by the way, I'm not sure how the emotions will run in actual scenarios and could go anywhere. Because as you said, it wasn't the operation and she could realize that maybe she would have changed her mind, etc. The problem stems entirely from a defensive standpoint. We disagree and it really is a matter of perspective, but I don't see why the man should have an extra 20 years tacked on for something that was going to be removed anyways. I don't see why the guy destroying the tree should be held liable either at least from the standpoint of damaging the tree I was going to get rid of anyways. Maybe an aspect of metal trapped in the wood now making that more expensive to remove... but that's as far as I can think of.
 
This is strictly a legal exercise, by the way, I'm not sure how the emotions will run in actual scenarios and could go anywhere.
Is something like this even have a legal precedent?

but I don't see why the man should have an extra 20 years tacked on for something that was going to be removed anyways.
Again, I believe it's intent and harm. Oh, you're getting an abortion, let me do it myself. After all, the result is the same? If that technicality would be removed, it would open up another can of worms.

If a botched abortion happened that harmed the lady, then I would think they'd be liable for malpractice or even attempted murder.

Ultimately, I'm not a woman and aside from principle, I don't know why I'm even arguing for or against this.
 
Is something like this even have a legal precedent?
I'm sure there is somewhere. I wouldn't even know how to find it with the current outrage of Roe v. Wade, though. Any mention of abortion is gonna hijack the SEO with that.
Again, I believe it's intent and harm. Oh, you're getting an abortion, let me do it myself. After all, the result is the same? If that technicality would be removed, it would open up another can of worms.

If a botched abortion happened that harmed the lady, then I would think they'd be liable for malpractice or even attempted murder.
And I think he'd agree with you, I figured the argument was strictly from an accidental standpoint. Where there was no intent to cause harm. A drunk driver doesn't mean to kill a bus full of kids... unless they're a mean drunk. I suppose one could argue a robbery gone wrong on the way to the clinic - I mean, let's be honest not a lot of the major ones are in safe places - would bring up an interesting dilemma, but then you'd have to prove he knew they were heading there.
Ultimately, I'm not a woman and aside from principle, I don't know why I'm even arguing for or against this.
Because it's fun, at least I find it fun. These are things that get the gears going.
 
By any scientific or commonly understood definition of the term "alive" it very much is alive.

I know you're gay so you skipped the parts of high school biology that didn't interest you (all of it) but let's review:

-it is growing and changing, cells dividing and multiplying to create functioning organ systems
-it receives nutrients and uses them for energy and growth
-it has human DNA distinct from both the mother and the father
-within a couple weeks of conception it has a fully functional heart that beats audibly and circulates blood through its system- its own blood, a distinct ABORH from the mother's
-it can die.

These are all traits of a living being.
The fetus isn't alive, which is why its abortion involves some kind of sodium-based injection to kill it before it's ripped out limb by limb.

Miscarriages also aren't a thing.
 
Having a consenting procedure =|= driving drunk, harming innocents. Try again.
Let's have some fun with this and extrapolate on my earlier scenario.

The person who is pregnant, on their way to a clinic to terminate the pregnancy, gets hit by a drunk driver, but suffers no real injury to herself besides a little bruising. No broken bones, no concussion, etc.

Unfortunately the stress of the accident, and maybe the pressure from the collision, while not harmful to the woman, caused the pregnancy to terminate itself.

It didn't happen right at the moment the accident took place. Instead, she had a miscarriage a day or two later, and it was directly the result of the drunk driver who collided with her automobile.

If all the above information is accurate, should the drunk driver be charged with manslaughter? Does the woman owe the drunk driver money for services rendered for the unorthodox procedure?

You be the judge!!!
 
Última edición:
Okay, say you have a tree in your property. You don't want it there. Then somebody crashes into that same tree and causes damage. Would that person be liable for the tree, even if you didn't want it?

Yes, because that way your lawsuit settlement can now be used to pay for the removal of the tree as well as treat you to that vacation in the Bahamas you've been wanting.
 
Given how these women act when shit doesn't go their way, I wouldn't want them to have children. That is if they even find somebody to procreate with them.

The gray morality of "my body, my choice" with "abortion is murdering babies" loses weight when added the context and arguments of these decisions.

In principle, it's a complex, controversial issue that neither side knows or wants to handle accordingly.
It's as if there kind of should be some kind of like something of a standard and say like if you can't raise your kid like in a like proper way like you kinda like somehow should take the kid away and kinda like sorta find another kinda like a relative or like a place some kind of like an orphanage where like the kid would kinda be raised in accord to like kinda like according to said some sort of standard kinda.

Makes you think about how leftists would rather legalize baby murder instead of following through their socialist scam to support orphanages to raise them kids right.
Instead they take their strawman bullshit they try to press on conservatives and say it'd be more economical to kill people instead.
 
She did a back-alley abortion
after it was outlawed. Let justice
be done.

SLUT BEING HANGED.gif
 
The person who is pregnant, on their way to a clinic to terminate the pregnancy, gets hit by a drunk driver, but suffers no real injury to herself besides a little bruising. No broken bones, no concussion, etc. Unfortunately the stress of the accident, and maybe the pressure from the collision, while not harmful to the woman, caused the pregnancy to terminate itself. It didn't happen right at the moment the accident took place, but she had a miscarriage a day or two later, and it was directly the result of the drunk driver who collided with her automobile. If all the above information is accurate, should the drunk driver be charged with manslaughter? Does the woman owe the drunk driver money for services rendered for the unorthodox procedure?
In this case of a soon-to-be-aborted baby dying as the result of a car accident the drunken driver (although his actions were unintentional) still robbed the pregnant woman of her right to a last-second change of heart (which does happen) to spare the unborn baby's life. So I would say he would likely be charged with manslaughter although, knowing the full circumstances, the court would likely be more lenient than they would otherwise be had the woman not been intending to abort the baby.

"Does the woman owe the drunk driver money for services rendered for the unorthodox procedure?"

I would say 'no' since no contractual agreement (verbal or written) existed between the woman and the drunk driver, thus leaving the woman a beneficiary of the "Law of Serendipity".

Law of Serendipity: "An unsought, unintended, and/or unexpected, but fortunate, discovery and/or learning experience that happens by accident."
 
Atrás
Top Abajo