Abortion only for rape, insest, and life of the mother.

[averageJOE]

My question is genuine as I really don't know.

For the sake of the thread assume Romney wins the presidency. He then overturns Roe vs. Wade, and only allow abortions in the case of rape, insest, or to save the life of the mother.

My question is about the rape part.

In order for an abortion to be performed does a woman first have to legally prove rape? I know in some cases it's obvious that the woman was raped, if physical violence is involved. But that isn't always how it is.

If a woman is raped and impregnated, names her attacker, but her attacker claims she consented, will she be forced to wait for a trial with a guilty verdict before the abortion is performed?

 

[Sunstone]

Good questions. Another question is what punishment would you inflict on a woman who had an illegal abortion?

 

[Willamena]

My question is genuine as I really don't know.

For the sake of the thread assume Romney wins the presidency. He then overturns Roe vs. Wade, and only allow abortions in the case of rape, insest, or to save the life of the mother.

My question is about the rape part.

In order for an abortion to be performed does a woman first have to legally prove rape? I know in some cases it's obvious that the woman was raped, if physical violence is involved. But that isn't always how it is.

If a woman is raped and impregnated, names her attacker, but her attacker claims she consented, will she be forced to wait for a trial with a guilty verdict before the abortion is performed?

No doubt.

 

[Alex_G]

My question is genuine as I really don't know.

For the sake of the thread assume Romney wins the presidency. He then overturns Roe vs. Wade, and only allow abortions in the case of rape, insest, or to save the life of the mother.

My question is about the rape part.

In order for an abortion to be performed does a woman first have to legally prove rape? I know in some cases it's obvious that the woman was raped, if physical violence is involved. But that isn't always how it is.

If a woman is raped and impregnated, names her attacker, but her attacker claims she consented, will she be forced to wait for a trial with a guilty verdict before the abortion is performed?

A sorry state of affairs when abortions are only allowed in the case of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. Your right to point out a practical problem with its implementation, but to me it seems like a smaller technical problem within a larger one, that of the policy itself not being just.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Good questions. Another question is what punishment would you inflict on a woman who had an illegal abortion?

I've asked that question before here. The answer is typically jail time for her and for the doctor that performed the illegal abortion, whether it was surgical or a chemically-induced miscarriage.

Charming.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

I've always wondered why pro-lifers, who claim that there's no difference between aborting a blastocyst and murdering a newborn, would even make an exception for a pregnancy that's the result of rape. If a zygote achieves full human rights at the instant of conception, of what relevance are the circumstances of that conception?

The answer, of course, is that pro-lifers feel that the only women who deserve to be punished by being forced to carry a pregnancy to term and deliver a baby are the ones who consented to having sex in the first place. Can it be made any clearer that this matter is all about pro-lifers' pathological hatred of sexually active females?

-Nato

 

[Drolefille]

To answer the OP, people have tried to codify "forcible rape" or talk about "legitimate rape" or even "emergency rape" and it's all bunk. But it's an effort to force the woman to prove it really was rape.

I wouldn't be surprised if some people would require a police report as well.

 

[Alceste]

Paul Ryan helped write some of those new laws that redefined rape as "forcible" rape, which means that if you don't have cuts, bruises, broken bones and a police report to show for it, you must not have been raped. These laws basically make people with severe disabilities fair game, and this definition has already resulted in the acquittal of a man who raped a non-communicative woman with the mind of a four year old. The judge argued that she could have grunted, screamed or struggled more, so her lack of consent was unclear.

But their actual platform plank is to write a constitutional amendment granting a fetus all the rights of persons at the moment of conception. I don't actually think either of them believe in any exceptions. Romney the bishop tried to bully a woman whose life was in danger, whose doctor strongly recommended terminating a pregnancy, into ignoring her doctors advice. He undermined the ruling of a higher church authority to do it, and went so far as to talk to her parents in an effort to increase the pressure. So he doesn't believe in life-saving abortion. There's no reason to think he believes in abortion in cases of rape and incest either.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Yes to everything here.....LOL..!!!! I thought this whole abortion battle was settled...but my opinion is it will all be reopened if Romney/Ryan are elected. The republican platform concerning personhood, Todd Akins and Joe Walsh's views are scary for women's right to choose.

 

[BSM1]

I've always wondered why pro-lifers, who claim that there's no difference between aborting a blastocyst and murdering a newborn, would even make an exception for a pregnancy that's the result of rape. If a zygote achieves full human rights at the instant of conception, of what relevance are the circumstances of that conception?

The answer, of course, is that pro-lifers feel that the only women who deserve to be punished by being forced to carry a pregnancy to term and deliver a baby are the ones who consented to having sex in the first place. Can it be made any clearer that this matter is all about pro-lifers' pathological hatred of sexually active females?

Most pro-lifers are actually closet anti-choicers. Being adamantly pro-choice is one thing that keeps me from being totally conservative.

 

[Amechania]

But their actual platform plank is to write a constitutional amendment granting a fetus all the rights of persons at the moment of conception. I don't actually think either of them believe in any exceptions. Romney the bishop tried to bully a woman whose life was in danger, whose doctor strongly recommended terminating a pregnancy, into ignoring her doctors advice. He undermined the ruling of a higher church authority to do it, and went so far as to talk to her parents in an effort to increase the pressure. So he doesn't believe in life-saving abortion. There's no reason to think he believes in abortion in cases of rape and incest either.

He's definitely a hardliner who subscribes to the offical LDS view:
The official statement from the Mormon church (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) regarding abortion is as follows: "In today's society, abortion has become a common practice, defended by deceptive arguments. Latter-day prophets have denounced abortion, referring to the Lord's declaration, "Thou shalt not . . . kill, nor do anything like unto it" (D&C 59:6). Their counsel on the matter is clear: Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. Church members who encourage an abortion in any way may be subject to Church discipline.
Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after consulting with their local Church leaders and receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer.
When a child is conceived out of wedlock, the best option is for the mother and father of the child to marry and work toward establishing an eternal family relationship. If a successful marriage is unlikely, they should place the child for adoption, preferably through LDS Family Services"
—See True to the Faith (2004), 4–5

 

[Skwim]

My question is genuine as I really don't know.

For the sake of the thread assume Romney wins the presidency. He then overturns Roe vs. Wade, and only allow abortions in the case of rape, insest, or to save the life of the mother.

No president can't overturn it; however, they could very well present legislation that rendered it toothless.

 

[Alceste]

No president can't overturn it; however, they could very well present legislation that rendered it toothless.

They can overturn it by amending the constitution to ensure the rights of a fertilized egg are legally fully equal to the rights of the woman whose uterus it needs to use to develop. In Roe vs. Wade the court decided a woman's right to privacy is violated by abortion restrictions. A constitutional amendment would attempt to place the right to life of a blastocyst on a higher level than the mother's right to privacy, and the court would have to interpret future cases in this light, effectively overturning Roe vs. Wade.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

He's definitely a hardliner who subscribes to the offical LDS view:
The official statement from the Mormon church (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) regarding abortion is as follows: "In today's society, abortion has become a common practice, defended by deceptive arguments. Latter-day prophets have denounced abortion, referring to the Lord's declaration, "Thou shalt not . . . kill, nor do anything like unto it" (D&C 59:6). Their counsel on the matter is clear: Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. Church members who encourage an abortion in any way may be subject to Church discipline.
Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after consulting with their local Church leaders and receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer.
When a child is conceived out of wedlock, the best option is for the mother and father of the child to marry and work toward establishing an eternal family relationship. If a successful marriage is unlikely, they should place the child for adoption, preferably through LDS Family Services"
—See True to the Faith (2004), 4–5

That's ludicrous......

 

[Skwim]

They can overturn it by amending the constitution to ensure the rights of a fertilized egg are legally fully equal to the rights of the woman whose uterus it needs to use to develop. In Roe vs. Wade the court decided a woman's right to privacy is violated by abortion restrictions. A constitutional amendment would attempt to place the right to life of a blastocyst on a higher level than the mother's right to privacy, and the court would have to interpret future cases in this light, effectively overturning Roe vs. Wade.

Of course, but this isn't a power that resides in the president or the legislature. It takes more than that.

There are two entities that can amend the Constitution:

1. Constitutional Amendments are typically a joint venture between Congress and the states. Either the House of Representatives or the Senate may propose an amendment. The measure must receive a favorable vote from two-thirds of both houses of Congress, and is then sent to the states for ratification.
   
   In order for the amendment to be added to the Constitution, three-fourths of the state legislatures must ratify the amendment within a reasonable period of time. Congress determines the definition of "reasonable," but seven years is a common time frame.
2. Article V of the Constitution provides that the Constitution may also be amended if the states call a constitutional convention, draw up an amendment, and ratify it by a "yes" vote of three-fourths of the convention. The last time the US held a constitutional convention was 1787, when the US Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation. source

 

[averageJOE]

To answer the OP, people have tried to codify "forcible rape" or talk about "legitimate rape" or even "emergency rape" and it's all bunk. But it's an effort to force the woman to prove it really was rape.

I wouldn't be surprised if some people would require a police report as well.

This is exactly what I was wondering. I'm thinking that there will have to be a conviction first, then the abortion. And seeing how our justice system works, the process of a trial can last a very long time. First theres the arrest, then the charge, then the arraingment and a trial date is set, then both sides have to build their case/defense, then the trial itself. During all this time the unwanted fetus continues to grow inside the woman.

Someone please correct me. Would it really be like that?

 

[averageJOE]

Paul Ryan helped write some of those new laws that redefined rape as "forcible" rape, which means that if you don't have cuts, bruises, broken bones and a police report to show for it, you must not have been raped. These laws basically make people with severe disabilities fair game, and this definition has already resulted in the acquittal of a man who raped a non-communicative woman with the mind of a four year old. The judge argued that she could have grunted, screamed or struggled more, so her lack of consent was unclear.

This is how I picture it; the only way for a woman to get her abortion she has to walk into the police station with her clothes ripped apart, face busted, and her attacker in handcuffs right behind her admitting it.

Here are two more questions; What happens if she dosn't know who her attacker was, never got a look at him? And, will she have to somehow prove she was impregnated by the rape? Meaning, say she says she had sex the two nights in a row before her rape. Will she then be forced to prove she got pregnant from the rape and not from the other two nights?

But their actual platform plank is to write a constitutional amendment granting a fetus all the rights of persons at the moment of conception. I don't actually think either of them believe in any exceptions. Romney the bishop tried to bully a woman whose life was in danger, whose doctor strongly recommended terminating a pregnancy, into ignoring her doctors advice. He undermined the ruling of a higher church authority to do it, and went so far as to talk to her parents in an effort to increase the pressure. So he doesn't believe in life-saving abortion. There's no reason to think he believes in abortion in cases of rape and incest either.

About the insest, unless the male family member comes out and admits to it that woman seems like she will fall right into the same legal hole as a rape victim.

 

[Drolefille]

This is exactly what I was wondering. I'm thinking that there will have to be a conviction first, then the abortion. And seeing how our justice system works, the process of a trial can last a very long time. First theres the arrest, then the charge, then the arraingment and a trial date is set, then both sides have to build their case/defense, then the trial itself. During all this time the unwanted fetus continues to grow inside the woman.

Someone please correct me. Would it really be like that?

Likely not. It could but it's not likely.
Most people who want these restrictions haven't thought the consequences all the way through. See the congressman who thinks that there is NEVER a case where a woman's life would be saved by an abortion thanks to "modern medicine"
Sometimes I feel like telling the GOP that The Handmaid's Tale is NOT an instruction manual.

 

[Alceste]

This is how I picture it; the only way for a woman to get her abortion she has to walk into the police station with her clothes ripped apart, face busted, and her attacker in handcuffs right behind her admitting it.

Here are two more questions; What happens if she dosn't know who her attacker was, never got a look at him? And, will she have to somehow prove she was impregnated by the rape? Meaning, say she says she had sex the two nights in a row before her rape. Will she then be forced to prove she got pregnant from the rape and not from the other two nights?

About the insest, unless the male family member comes out and admits to it that woman seems like she will fall right into the same legal hole as a rape victim.

Back in the days when the only legal way to get an abortion was that it was necessary for the woman's health, there were a number of ways to go about it. Some women were able to find a doctor who would approve an abortion if she claimed to be severely mentally unhinged in some way, for example suicidally depressed. Other women were able to find a nurse or doctor through the grape vine who would do the procedure for them secretly. Others went for various folk remedies like drinking poison, throwing themselves down a flight of stairs or having someone punch them in the stomach as hard as possible.

There was never a time and surely never will be a time where a woman's access to abortion will be through the police and courts. First, it's far too slow. Second, it's too intimidating. Rather than gamble on a hostile reception at the police station and courthouse, women will just go back to inducing their miscarriages in secret, although hopefully by safer methods and with more accurate information than in the past.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

Tea Party Senate candidate says pregnancy from rape is God's will.

Once again, we see the male pathology about female control over procreation.A rape victim is supposed to carry and give birth to the child of a rapist just to satisfy someone else's piety?

-Nato