OT Killing Babies (Bill 669)

[SlyPokerDog]

Idaho Supreme Court temporarily blocks new abortion law

BOISE, Idaho — The Idaho Supreme Court on Friday temporarily blocked a new state law that would ban abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy and allow the law to be enforced through lawsuits.

Idaho last month had become the first state to enact legislation modeled after the Texas statute banning abortions after about six weeks. The ruling from Idaho’s high court in a lawsuit brought by Planned Parenthood means the new law won’t go into effect as planned on April 22.

Republican Gov. Brad Little signed into law the measure that would’ve allowed people who would have been family members to sue doctors who perform abortions after cardiac activity is detected in embryos. But when he signed it, Little said he had concerns about whether the law was constitutional.

The law would allow the father, grandparents, siblings, aunts and uncles of a “preborn child” to each sue an abortion provider for a minimum of $20,000 in damages within four years after the abortion. Rapists can’t file a lawsuit under the law, but a rapist’s relatives could.

Planned Parenthood of Great Northwest, Hawaii, Alaska, Indiana and Kentucky had called the law unconstitutional.

The law was modeled after a Texas law that the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed to remain in place until a court challenge is decided on its merits. The Texas law allows people to enforce the law in place of state officials who normally would do so. The Texas law authorizes lawsuits against clinics, doctors and anyone who “aids or abets” an abortion that is not permitted by law.

When he signed the bill, Idaho’s governor noted his concerns with the legislation.

“Deputizing private citizens to levy hefty monetary fines on the exercise of a disfavored but judicially recognized constitutional right for the purpose of evading court review undermines our constitutional form of government and weakens our collective liberties,” Little wrote.

He said that he worried some states might use the same approach to limit gun rights.

https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-...ourt-temporarily-blocks-new-abortion-law.html

--The Associated Press

 

[julius]

The people who think we should restrict gun access (etc) should totally model a law after this. Saying anyone who killed someone with a gun can be sued by anyone in the state. Family, neighbors, whatever.

 

[ABM]

The people who think we should restrict gun access (etc) should totally model a law after this. Saying anyone who killed someone with a gun can be sued by anyone in the state. Family, neighbors, whatever.

I really dislike guns. Period. Never have owned one. Errr....wait, other than the Red Ryder my brother-in-law gave me one Christmas as kind of a joke. We had all just seen a live version of A Christmas Story a few weeks previous.

 

[Phatguysrule]

The people who think we should restrict gun access (etc) should totally model a law after this. Saying anyone who killed someone with a gun can be sued by anyone in the state. Family, neighbors, whatever.

It would make good precident I guess, though I wouldn't vote for anybody who supported either of these laws.

I agree with this judge. Lawsuits like these are a big part of the problem here in the US.

 

[barfo]

When he signed the bill, Idaho’s governor noted his concerns with the legislation.

“Deputizing private citizens to levy hefty monetary fines on the exercise of a disfavored but judicially recognized constitutional right for the purpose of evading court review undermines our constitutional form of government and weakens our collective liberties,” Little wrote.

So, he's aware it violates his oath of office but did it anyway.

barfo

 

[SlyPokerDog]

 

[SlyPokerCat]

Punishment for being a slut of course.

 

[oldmangrouch]

If the uterus is government property, does that mean a hysterectomy should be approved by the government?

 

[SlyPokerCat]

There is literally no point in talking to @ABM about this. He has shown time and time again the hypocrisy that is the Republican way with abortion. Force a woman to carry out the baby. Then not give a shit if the kid has medical issues or starves after they are born.

"ItS nOt My ReSpOnSiBiLiTy To StOp ThEm FrOm GoInG tO hEaVeN"

 

[SlyPokerCat]

This has been said ad nauseum too. Obamacare made it so the lifetime benefit limit did not have a cap. That means that your insurance company can't cap your LIFETIME benefits at an amount like 1 million dollars anymore. You know how far 1 million in medical takes you now? Not as far as you would think.

That is one of the single best rules put into a health insurance initiative there has ever been.

Republicans and Democrats are not the same in "trying to fuck over everyone else so they ruin healthcare and die." The Republicans do that enough by themselves.

 

[Phatguysrule]

This has been said ad nauseum too. Obamacare made it so the lifetime benefit limit did not have a cap. That means that your insurance company can't cap your benefits at an amount like 1 million dollars anymore. You know how far 1 million in medical takes you now? Not as far as you would think.

That is one of the single best rules put into a health insurance initiative there has ever been.

Republicans and Democrats are not the same in "trying to fuck over everyone else so they ruin healthcare and die." The Republicans do that good enough by themselves.

No, democrats have to seperate themselves somehow.

Democrats and Republicans are the same in that neither really cares about the platform.

They are the same in that they care about their position in and support from their respective party over all else.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Woman arrested in Starr County on murder for ‘illegal abortion’

A woman was arrested Thursday and charged with murder for having a self-induced “illegal abortion.”

According to the Starr County Sheriff’s Office, Lizelle Herrera, 26, was arrested and served with an indictment “on the charge of Murder after Herrera did then and there intentionally and knowingly cause the death of an individual by self-induced abortion.”

Herrera is currently in custody at the Starr County Detention Center. She faces a surety bond of $500,000.

The case remains under investigation.

Her arrest comes as Texas enacted one of the strictest abortion laws in the country last year in SB 8 which encourages private citizens to sue individuals or organizations that help people get an abortion after six weeks of gestation. The law is currently being contested in court.

https://myrgv.com/local-news/2022/04/08/woman-arrested-in-starr-county-for-illegal-abortion/

Murder charge is DROPPED against Texas woman, 26, three days after she was arrested for performing 'self-inducted abortion'

• Lizelle Herrera, 26, was cleared of all charges Sunday by the local district attorney in Starr County, Texas
• She was originally arrested Thursday after allegedly terminating her pregnancy
• Police said she 'intentionally and knowingly caused the death of an individual by self-induced abortion'
• It is unclear how far along Herrera was in her pregnancy
• A recently passed Texas law bans all abortions after the first detection of an embryonic 'heartbeat'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...arrest-performing-self-inducted-abortion.html

 

[Lanny]

People thought I was absurd to bring up such a notion when I posted a few months ago the possibility of this happening. I knew it was just a matter of time before it would be introduced. Disgusting to even think about.

https://miamistandard.news/2022/03/...-kill-their-babies-up-to-28-days-after-birth/

Proposed law in Maryland would allow mothers to kill their babies up to 28 days after birth

Say what? I gotta know the whole story.

 

[Lanny]

https://www.somdnews.com/opinion/le...cle_f2ec74fa-cdf4-5424-92c3-3f9b80fa8030.html

This provision of HB 626 would protect from any investigation or prosecution a person whose baby dies due to a “failure to act” during the first 28 days after birth. A failure to act could be the failure to provide food, water, protection from exposure to extreme weather, etc. It essentially decriminalizes infanticide. HB 1171 will incorporate this “freedom” into the Declaration of Rights of the Maryland Constitution through the words “including but not limited to.”

Who is Somdnews?

 

[ABM]

We reached out to the bill’s sponsor, Delegate Nicole Williams, who told us that the bill would not legalize infant homicide in Maryland, nor is that the bill’s intent.​

“It does not allow the killing of a baby,” Williams told Snopes in a phone interview. “That would be a homicide if that occurred. This bill doesn’t seek to modify any of our laws” on homicide.

The intent of the bill, Williams said, was to protect pregnant people from being criminally charged or held liable in civil court in the event they terminate their pregnancies or experience pregnancy loss in the form of miscarriages or stillbirths.

There is no slippery slope. That's such a vague and bullshit statement.

https://aclj.org/pro-life/official-...lead-to-unintended-and-undesirable-conclusion

Hard to say.

Official Analysis by Pro-Abortion-Majority Committee Staff on California Abortion Bill Confirms What We've Been Saying – "'Perinatal Death' Language Could Lead to Unintended and Undesirable Conclusion"

 

[julius]

Who is Somdnews?

I think it's related to Dee's nuts.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

https://aclj.org/pro-life/official-...lead-to-unintended-and-undesirable-conclusion

Hard to say.

Official Analysis by Pro-Abortion-Majority Committee Staff on California Abortion Bill Confirms What We've Been Saying – "'Perinatal Death' Language Could Lead to Unintended and Undesirable Conclusion"

No one wants to legalize infanticide.

 

[ABM]

No one wants to legalize infanticide.

They'd better get the Bill(s) worded correctly.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

They'd better get the Bill(s) worded correctly.

And you've read the actual bill or just one person's opinion on it that they're using to ask for money?

 

[ABM]

And you've read the actual bill or just one person's opinion on it that they're using to ask for money?

I downloaded and read the pertinant parts from the quoted hearing. All accuratley quoted.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I downloaded and read the pertinant parts from the quoted hearing. All accuratley quoted.

So you saw the part that says "perinatal death due to a pregnancy-related cause."

That invalidates what you and the article you posted are claiming.

 

[ABM]

So you saw the part that says "perinatal death due to a pregnancy-related cause."

That invalidates what you and the article you posted are claiming.

I said they'd better get the Bill(s) worded correctly.

That's exactly what being discussed.

“Perinatal Death” - Second, the “perinatal death” language could lead to an unintended and undesirable conclusion. As currently in print, it may not be sufficiently clear that “perinatal death” is intended to be the consequence of a pregnancy complication. Thus, the bill could be interpreted to immunize a pregnant person from all criminal penalties for all pregnancy outcomes, including the death of a newborn for any reason during the “perinatal” period after birth, including a cause of death which is not attributable to pregnancy complications, which clearly is not the author’s intent.

While the bill does not define “perinatal,” the term is generally used to describe the period from approximately past 22 (or 28) completed weeks of pregnancy up to 7 completed days of life. (L.S.Bakketeig, P.Bergsjø, “Perinatal Epidemiology.” International Encyclopedia of Public Health (2008), p. 45.) Welfare & Institutions Code Section 13134.5(b) defines perinatal as "the period from the establishment of pregnancy to one month following delivery."

In order to clarify that the bill’s immunity provision is only intended to apply to a perinatal death after a live birth when the cause of death is directly attributable to pregnancy, the author proposes the following clarifying amendment on Page 7, at line 10: insert “due to a pregnancy related cause” at the end of the sentence. Reflecting both of the above-proposed amendments, the entire subdivision would read as follows:

 

[SlyPokerCat]

So you saw the part that says "perinatal death due to a pregnancy-related cause."

That invalidates what you and the article you posted are claiming.

I know I like to get all my news from a website that has a page for articles calling out the radical left. You don't?

 

[ABM]

I know I like to get all my news from a website that has a page for articles calling out the radical left. You don't?

Well, somebody's gotta report it.

What, you have issues with quotes/links from court hearings?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I said they'd better get the Bill(s) worded correctly.

That's exactly what being discussed.

“Perinatal Death” - Second, the “perinatal death” language could lead to an unintended and undesirable conclusion. As currently in print, it may not be sufficiently clear that “perinatal death” is intended to be the consequence of a pregnancy complication. Thus, the bill could be interpreted to immunize a pregnant person from all criminal penalties for all pregnancy outcomes, including the death of a newborn for any reason during the “perinatal” period after birth, including a cause of death which is not attributable to pregnancy complications, which clearly is not the author’s intent.

While the bill does not define “perinatal,” the term is generally used to describe the period from approximately past 22 (or 28) completed weeks of pregnancy up to 7 completed days of life. (L.S.Bakketeig, P.Bergsjø, “Perinatal Epidemiology.” International Encyclopedia of Public Health (2008), p. 45.) Welfare & Institutions Code Section 13134.5(b) defines perinatal as "the period from the establishment of pregnancy to one month following delivery."

In order to clarify that the bill’s immunity provision is only intended to apply to a perinatal death after a live birth when the cause of death is directly attributable to pregnancy, the author proposes the following clarifying amendment on Page 7, at line 10: insert “due to a pregnancy related cause” at the end of the sentence. Reflecting both of the above-proposed amendments, the entire subdivision would read as follows:

including the death of a newborn for any reason during the “perinatal” period after birth, including a cause of death which is not attributable to pregnancy complications

That statement is wrong.

The bill says this: perinatal death due to a pregnancy-related cause

 

[SlyPokerCat]

Well, somebody's gotta report it.

What, you have issues with quotes/links from court hearings?

If you wanna live in an echo chamber have at it. Places reporting on "Democrat meltdowns" based on biased interpretations and opinions seems like a great source to hang your hat on.

 

[ABM]

including the death of a newborn for any reason during the “perinatal” period after birth, including a cause of death which is not attributable to pregnancy complications

That statement is wrong.

The bill says this: perinatal death due to a pregnancy-related cause

The Hearing was on April 5th. Perhaps the Bill's language has since been updated. Again, this was from the Hearing:

In order to clarify that the bill’s immunity provision is only intended to apply to a perinatal death after a live birth when the cause of death is directly attributable to pregnancy, the author proposes the following clarifying amendment on Page 7, at line 10: insert “due to a pregnancy related cause” at the end of the sentence. Reflecting both of the above-proposed amendments, the entire subdivision would read as follows:

123467. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, a person shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability or penalty, or otherwise deprived of their rights under this article, based on their actions or omissions with respect to their pregnancy or actual, potential, or alleged pregnancy outcome, including miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion, or perinatal death due to a pregnancy-related cause.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

The Hearing was on April 5th. Perhaps the Bill's language has since been updated. Again, this was from the Hearing:

In order to clarify that the bill’s immunity provision is only intended to apply to a perinatal death after a live birth when the cause of death is directly attributable to pregnancy, the author proposes the following clarifying amendment on Page 7, at line 10: insert “due to a pregnancy related cause” at the end of the sentence. Reflecting both of the above-proposed amendments, the entire subdivision would read as follows:

123467. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, a person shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability or penalty, or otherwise deprived of their rights under this article, based on their actions or omissions with respect to their pregnancy or actual, potential, or alleged pregnancy outcome, including miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion, or perinatal death due to a pregnancy-related cause.

Yes, and the bullshit article you posted was from today and it intentionally omitted the updated and most recent revision of the bill in an attempt to solicit donations.

 

[ABM]

If you wanna live in an echo chamber have at it. Places reporting on "Democrat meltdowns" based on biased interpretations and opinions seems like a great source to hang your hat on.

If you wanna live in an echo chamber have at it. Places reporting on "Democrat meltdowns" based on biased interpretations and opinions seems like a great source to hang your hat on.

Apparently, Catholics aren't especially enamored with the verbiage.

https://cacatholic.org/article/ab-2223-fails-clarify-question-infanticide-protections

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Apparently, Catholics aren't especially enamored with the verbiage.

https://cacatholic.org/article/ab-2223-fails-clarify-question-infanticide-protections

From the article you just posted:

the bill that seeks to decriminalize infant deaths from pregnancy-related causes

So infant deaths from pregnancy-related causes should be criminalized?!?

What, in your opinion, should be the criminal penalty for a miscarriage?

What, in your opinion, should be the criminal penalty for a genetic defect that results in the infant dying after they are born?