Let us Re-visit Abortion, Here Are Some Proposals

So here is a proposal I am making to really revamp our abortion laws for our new judges and the legislators. Since we are clearly going down that road, I would like to focus on the proposals that could help bring some dignity back to women while still respecting their right to make this decision. I am not outright calling for a revocation of Roe v. Wade, but instead merely want to add some regulations and criminal penalties while still protecting the rights to allow this in our society.

This proposal applies to ANY State or Federal jurisdiction, whichever jurisdiction it gets relegated to.

First off, I believe that the choice to kill unborn babies, literally the most vulnerable segment of the human race, requires the consent of both creators. But I will write in some clauses on that as well. I throwing my own title into it, but I think the lawmakers will probably come up with something better anyways.

So without further a due , here are my proposals:

Resolution to Re-Define Early Termination of Unborn Humans Act (The name is a work in progress, and subject to change)
Introduction
In an effort to curb the rampant immorality of our people in God's eyesIn an effort to curb dangerous and irresponsible behavior, as well as take into account the rights of the father which have been ignored and neglected for generations, new restrictions on the termination of unborn life shall hereby be in effect.
A new maximum allowance of one termination of life per annum will hereby go into effect, with the exception of waivers outlined in section one.
Section 1]:No citizen of the USA may seek to have more than the authorized maximum allowance for termination of life in a given year, with the following exceptions noted:

1. (a)the delivery of the child may cause undue hardships, stresses, injury, or fatality to either the mother or child
   
2. (b)a diagnosis for a terminal illness, or genetic defect has been identified which would severely limit and/or impair the quality of life of the child
   
3. (c)the conception was the product of rape or incest
   
4. (d)the mother falls into a coma that may complicate delivery. In which case the decision to terminate will fall to the father if present, or the legal guardian, and then to executor of estate.
   
5. (e)the mother will be entering or is already incarcerated into prison for the duration of the pregnancy, at which point she may choose termination
   
   Penalties outlined in Section 4
   Section 2]No woman, without the consent of the father who's genetic code makes up 50% of the conceived life, may carry out the termination of an unborn human life without the consent of the father , with exception to the following life situations:
   
   
   1. (a)the woman has no clue who the father is or may be,
      
   2. (b)the father has waived his parental rights to make a decision in the fate of his child,
      
   3. (c)the father is absentee and has abandoned his duties as a parent,t
      
   4. (d)the father has any existing domestic violence convictions against the mother
      
   5. (e)the father is incarcerated at any point during the pregnancy
      
   6. (f)the father has been committed to psychiatric care at any point during his life or declared mentally deficit, even upon being cleared to re-renter society
      
   7. (g)the father is registered as a sex offender
      
   8. (h)the father is in a medical state, such as a coma, and is unable to make his wishes known, unless before entering such state, has had his wishes for the child known by way of a legal and notarized writ on file.
      
      Penalties outlined in Section 4
      Section 3] No government agency or jurisdiction or private interest has the authority to order forced sterilization upon any woman against her will, or intervene in the voluntary choice by a woman to become sterilized. NO EXCEPTIONS
      
      Section 4]Criminal Penalties
      Nobody is guilt of a crime by seeking consultation with a physician, religious figure, friend, family, or legal counsel on termination of life.
      If a termination of life is medically documented beyond the established per annum limit and does not fall within the exceptions highlighted in Section 2, the individual is guilty of a first degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to 1 year in prison, and a maximum fine of ten thousand dollars ($10,000). Any medical professional who assists in the execution of a termination of life beyond the per annum limit is guilty of a third degree felony punishable by up to five years in prison, a maximum imposed fine of up to $250,000, and may risk losing their certification to practice medicine.
      
      
      Ok that is what I have so far. I feel like this is a reasonable piece of legislation and that for the most part, still maintains the bulk of the rights people who are pro choice want to see, but discourages a lifestyle of irresponsibility which puts the lives of children, parents, and the general public at risk. Most women who have an abortion usually only do so once in a lifetime anyways, so it should be no big deal to limit it to one a year. The biggest implication for me is the restoration of a fathers rights to have a voice in the decision of termination of life he helped create. There are sick individuals out there that would dangle the life of the child to extort the father for some kind of gain. There should be criminal penalties imposed.
      
      Also of note, that in this legislation, it is the physician who would be charged harder for breaking the law. The individual in question has lighter penalties defined for them. Ultimately, lawyers will end up settling most of these cases with probation anyways.
      
      So, there it is. I am fully aware at how unpopular this is going to be received. My goal is to focus really on the proposed legislation itself and the definitions. Should I add some exceptions, delete some?? Do we need harsher or lighter penalties?? When I feel it is right, I am going to email it to Marco Rubio to see what he thinks. They can give it the appropriate legalese speak and wording and give it an appropriate name. I like it though, I think it strikes a balance between the rights to choose, fathers rights, and the respect and dignity of the child itself.
      
      Well then, break the dam and unleash the river!
      
      edit on 11-14-2016 by worldstarcountry because: broken code
      
      
      
      edit on 11-14-2016 by worldstarcountry because: (no reason given)
      

Here is my issue with abortion.

I do not believe that the constitution in any way sought to inform people about abortion. This was not an issue that the founding fathers had ever heard of, and the constitution is not in any way speaking to it.

So abortion should fall to the states, as should all other issues not discussed in the constitution. For the supreme court to decide that somehow the right to privacy speaks to abortions is a joke. So regardless of your views on rather or not abortions should be legal, it should be up to the states to decide, or let people push forth with an amendment.

Whats more, the Roe v wade decision was made in 1973. Clearly the medical information we have on fetuses has changed in the more than 50 since the decision, and so it would be worth having the court relook at the case. This was exactly the argument in the 1992 case planned parenthood v. Casey.

The suprem court decided to uphold the Roe v wade case in the casey decision. What was disturbing was that instead of the decision mentioning the new evidence that was in front of them, it was merely 15 pages defending "stare decisis". This is a latin term meaning basicaly that precedent must be followed.

It sounds confusing, but this is it in a nut shell. The supreme court decided in 1992 that they should not re look at abortion because it is important to follow precedent. This is a joke. Can you imagine if in Brown v board of education that the court had said "Sorry we can't look at segregation because precedent is important". The Casey decision was a joke and shows why the issue of abortion should not be up to the courts.

So now we are left with an abortion decision relying on medical information from more than 50 years ago that governs all abortion policy. Now liberal are upset that conservatove court appointees can overule abortion law. Well, if you live by the court making laws that they were never intended to do, you die by it.

Perhaps pro choice people should refocus their efforts on working on abortion law at the state level (which by the way the vast majority of states would allow some sort of abortion), or gain enough support to pass an amendment instead of relying on the courts.

a reply to: Grambler

I respect that. I had planned to forward this to my Senator. But if it did get relegated back down to a States Issue, this proposal is still applicable.

I would like to hear some opinions from the women as well. I know not all women are thrilled about this topic. I want to declare that I am fully willing to have a respectful dialogue on this matter with no insults or accusations on my part. I just want to try and focus on scientifics, and legal writing with regard to opinions.

I think we should make it simple instead of these punishments, how many you have listed there? Any woman who wants an abortion should claim the faith based religious exemption for killing their children, "God told me to get rid of it". I'm serious, it would be cheaper and easier and everyone would be happy.

Honestly, that doesn't sound "reasonable" at all...

& dare I say, in this patriarchal world, women wouldn't get a say if it was the man giving birth.



This is basically about principle, you either believe in a person to choose their own path when it comes to their body or you don't.

As much as I detest abortion, I can't bring myself to be authoritarian and I say leave it up to God.

God knows best.

a reply to: Grambler

As usual, your constitutional interpretation is correct.
There should be no involvement by the central government on this issue.


Buck

a reply to: MOMof3

Well that does not really apply here. And I only listed one single punishment for the patient seeking these services, and another , single, harsher punishment for the physician.

As far as I know, that religious exemption is untrue. Nobody successfully used "God told me to do it" as a way to escape murder. Some may have been declared mentally unfit for trial who used this excuse, but that is typically in conjunction with an already established pattern of the crazies.

So tell me, your a mother of 3, so clearly you chose not to abort. What is your opinion on some of the exemptions I have put forward in section 1 and 2 in regards to term. limits and the rights of the father?? Or my section 3 which says no forced, or deprived sterilization?? I have found that some religiously affiliated Hospitals make it difficult for a woman to receive her procedures to prevent pregnancy. I know, because my wife was denied three twice with "youth of age" or some other bs decision against allowing them to carry it out in their Hospital.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

I respect that. But what is inside that womans body is not hers alone. There was a man present to make that life possible. If that man wants to keep the child, allow him too. But the woman would not be required to stick around at all, and reserves her right to forfeit any parental responsibilities. I should add that in there.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

In an effort to curb the rampant immorality of our people in God's eyes, as well as take into account the rights of the father which have been ignored and neglected for generations, new restrictions on the termination of unborn life shall hereby be in effect.

No. We are not a religious nation. We are a secular nation. You answer to "god", I'll "to mine own self be true".

Roe V Wade isn't broke, so don't try to fix it. It's the law, been the law for decades. It's been ruled on. It's done. (As Donald Trump says about gay marriage)

I agree with Grambler it should be a state issue. For example, If California overwhelmingly wants it legal then let them or if Texas overwhelmingly doesn't than they should be able to make it illegal. I don't believe the Federal Government should have anything to do with it. Also I think this logic can be applied to most social issues. The Feds just need to ensure no one's individual liberties are being trampled on.

I think your proposal would be perfect for states that are leaning as pro life to adopt. But as a federal law it would probable create a whole lot of turmoil.

a reply to: flatbush71

As usual, your constitutional interpretation is correct.

For several decades now, the Supreme Court has consistently disagreed with your constitutional interpretation.

originally posted by: Grambler
Here is my issue with abortion.

I do not believe that the constitution in any way sought to inform people about abortion. This was not an issue that the founding fathers had ever heard of, and the constitution is not in any way speaking to it.

Er... You do know that abortion predates the Constitution correct? The Founding Fathers most DEFINITELY had heard of it before.

a reply to: windword

so we strike any reference to God in my proposal. I will do that now.

And as far as making this a state issue, yes fine lets make it a state issue. How would this proposal look for people respective state??

a reply to: worldstarcountry

But what is inside that womans body is not hers alone.

Actually it is and I strongly disagree with the sentiment that a man should get a say.

He is not the one carrying for nine months.
He is not the one risking life and death during the process of child birth.


Like I said, if men could get pregnant, the woman would have no say whatsoever.
& I might add that there would be a whole lot more abortions taking place.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Irrelevant and failure to show merit or purpose.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Where are your precepts to increase sexual education levels and promote contraceptive use? You know policies that are actually proven to reduce abortions?

a reply to: worldstarcountry

okay....
1. I would venture to guess that for the most part, if a women is having more than one abortion/year,
it would be in cases where there are multiple births. not sure if your one/per year is meant to mean the loss of one live, or just one medical proceedure. but if the couple has gone through infertility treatments, often times there can be many fertilized eggs and she can become pregnant with triplets or more. and in those cases, they might chose to sacrifice a few to ensure that the one or more that are allowed to life can be born healthy.

2. as far as the father's consent...
do you know what I am going to say??? if you've read my posts before you might know...
this is the way the the south carolina wrote the law that is currently on their books..

South Carolina Code Title 44: Health, Chapter 41: Abortions
Statutory Definition of Legal Abortion:
Abortions defined as using instrument or medication with the intent to terminate a pregnancy (other than birth, to preserve a the baby’s live or remove dead fetus) are legal in South Carolina only under the following three circumstances:

In the first trimester with the pregnant woman’s consent
In the second trimester with the pregnant woman’s consent in a certified hospital or clinic
In the third trimester when necessary to preserve the life or health of the pregnant woman on the written recommendation of two doctors, and if the basis is mental health then both the two doctors and a consulting psychiatrist must agree in writing the abortion is necessary
Note this law says the husband’s consent is required in the third trimester, but spousal consent was found unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1976 and that can’t be enforced

so, I am first gonna tell you that the supreme court has already ruled that spousal consent requirements are unconstitutional...

then then, I am gonna focus on what this law says about the third trimester...
first, they are not allowed at all unless the mother's life or health is in danger.
and then I am gonna ask this one question....
why they hell did they give the decision as to weather she should be risking her life and health to the husband??? I am not saying that that decision shouldn't fall on him if she is incompacitated and unable to express her desires on the issue, but that isn't what this law, as it is written, not as it is enforced, is saying.. it is just bypassing her desires all together and making the husband's desire more important... even though it has been certified by doctors that her life and health is in danger.

you seem to be making the same mistake here.....
it's the women's life, only the women can decide if she wants to sacrifice that life, if the husband decides, then it's more like murder!

a reply to: Hazardous1408
Lets work with the realities of our current world, and not a hypothetical universe where human men become pregnant and carry children. That just falls back on speculation and conjecture which cannot even be proven.

Facts are, half that child is from the father. That is not a question, or a theory. It is just fact. Lets work from there and see where we get?

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: windword

so we strike any reference to God in my proposal. I will do that now.

Please also strike any inference to having a moral superiority over a woman's right to her own autonomy.

And as far as making this a state issue, yes fine lets make it a state issue. How would this proposal look for people respective state??

I'm absolutely opposed to women having different basic constitutional rights to their own autonomy from state to state. Civil rights are federally protected an observed.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: Hazardous1408
Lets work with the realities of our current world, and not a hypothetical universe where human men become pregnant and carry children. That just falls back on speculation and conjecture which cannot even be proven.

Facts are, half that child is from the father. That is not a question, or a theory. It is just fact. Lets work from there and see where we get?

Ok.

The foetus is 100% inside the womb of the female so therefore she makes the decision 100%.

Where do we go from here?

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Abortion is a barbaric practice that illustrates the disregard of life.

But it is legal, the barbarians who endorse it seem to like it, so until we can evolve to be better stewards of life on this planet, the killings will never stop.

Nice try OP, but it is a futile exercise.