Senator Glick has introduced SB 1 which would ban abortion in Indiana, subject to limited exceptions.
Indiana: government small enough to fit in your uterus.
In the context of this legislation, “abortion” does not include termination of a pregnancy intended to produce a live birth, intended to remove a dead fetus, or “intended to terminate a fetus where the fetus suffers from an irremediable medical condition that is incompatible with sustained life outside of the womb, regardless of when the child is born.”
“Fetus” is defined as an “unborn child” throughout all stages of the fetus’s development in a pregnant woman’s uterus from implantation until birth. (Bit of a drafting faux pas there, using the word in the definition of the word.) In any event, it’s clear enough that the legislation is intended to apply to a fertilized egg once it has implanted in the uterus until the birth of the child. As I understand it, implantation is going to be something like a week after fertilization and after the zygote has become a blastocyst. The definition of “pregnancy” in this legislation also hinges on implantation.
“Abortion,” then, is the termination of a human “pregnancy” where pregnancy is defined as having a living fetus implanted in the woman’s uterus. Abortion is made “unlawful” unless it’s performed by a physician either surgically or through a drug. If surgical, the abortion must be performed in a hospital or an ambulatory outpatient center. If drug-induced, the abortion must be after an in-person examination and be consumed in the presence of the physician. The pregnant woman must file a consent with the physician and, if a minor, the consent of her parent or guardian. Furthermore, an abortion is “unlawful” unless either: 1) the abortion is (in the reasonable medical judgment of the physician) necessary to prevent a permanent impairment of the life of the pregnant woman; or 2) the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest and the woman signs an affidavit under penalties for perjury “attesting to the rape or incest.” Abortions performed after 20 weeks are required to have a second physician present who will “take all reasonable steps in keeping with good medical practice” to preserve the life and health of the “viable unborn child.”
I don’t know all the twists and turns in current abortion legislation, so maybe the text of the bill isn’t telling me everything I need to know; but if I’m reading the new IC 35-41-3-12 correctly, a pregnant woman can perform an illegal abortion on herself without it being a crime. “It is a defense to any crime involving the death of or injury to a fetus that the defendant was a pregnant woman who committed the unlawful act with the intent to terminate her pregnancy.” A person who helps her can defend against criminal charges arising out of the death or injury to the fetus except for the criminal charges of unlawful abortion or feticide, a Level 3 felony.
I think this is bad legislation because I believe that a woman’s reproductive rights deserve a great deal more consideration. The fact that rape, incest, and unimplanted eggs are excepted underscore that most people do not believe that a fertilized egg is morally equivalent to a baby. The closer a fetus gets to viability and birth, the greater moral weight people generally assign to it, and the more that weight should be balanced, under the law, against a woman’s reproductive rights. (Even that last bit is a little too easy for me to say, since I don’t have a uterus.) It’s a line drawing problem and one that Roe sought to address through its trimester system. The first trimester was basically to be unregulated, second trimester could impose “narrowly tailored” restrictions, and the third trimester could basically ban all abortions unless necessary to protect the woman’s health.
These additional curtailments on the reproductive freedom of women in Indiana would be imposed beginning on September 1, 2023.
Hmmm if the state Democrats can’t take advantage of the lunacy of this proposed law then they might as well close up shop. No attack ads just talk to Hoosiers and give the facts on why this is bad law
Could even try to turn the tables –
” Why is it that a majority of Republican men can vote to decide what a Hoosier woman can do with THEIR body? Long pause – ” How would they feel if a majority of women voted to force a man to have a vasectomy and be sent to jail with no get out of jail free card, when they rape and abuse a woman or even get behind on their child support? Do you think the same men would stand up and cheer that Hoosier women and children are finally being given their due!” Laughing – “Ya right.”
Pause “Hoosier women and their medical professionals should be the only ones to decide what is right for their bodies!” Not rich and powerful Republican men and people wanting to force their religious beliefs on you.! Hey Roe worked for 50 years! Lets give it another 50 years! I’m (Name Here) and I endorse a Hoosier’s women’s right to choose to do what they feel is right with THEIR body!” We are the new Indiana Democratic Party! We don’t care about national issues that we cannot control! We care about Hoosiers issues that we can control! – More to come on our new Hoosiers values! Please vote Democrat!
“Ya right., that wouldn’t happen in a Indiana minute!”.
OK that sounds better…
There was some talk that the House of Representatives would amend this bill and be a little more lenient (emphasis on the little) then the Senate. We will see.
A strong majority of people have always opposed second trimester abortion. But Roe mandated that states allow second trimester abortion said it was in the Constitution. As public policy, it was thus always flawed. As far as the legal reasoning in the opinion to adopt that policy, well that was a train wreck. Even liberal constitutional scholars agreed on that.
I have little doubt that most states will end up legalizing abortion during the first trimester (during which 90-93% of abortions take place) and banning it after that, with the three exceptions included. That’s where the vast majority of Americans are. That is also the approach most industrialized nations have taken.
The Roe decision says that the Constitution protects a right to privacy which I think is correct.
(internal citations omitted.)
Your faith that first trimester access to the exercise of reproductive rights will be largely preserved seems to ignore the prevalent rhetoric among right wing politicians that government criminalization of abortion is necessary because abortion is the same thing as murdering a baby.
But that rhetoric was developed when there was zero chance to enact those policies because Roe stood in the way. Now those politicians have to deal with the real live consequences of their rhetoric If they don’t, they will lose re-election. The two most extreme abortion opponents in the Indiana House were decisively defeated in Republican primaries this spring and abortion was a big reason they lost. The same thing is going to happen in primaries and general election to those who push the most extreme position, both on the right and the left. It’s called democracy and, unless Trump is re-elected, it’s how we decide public policy in this country.
Of course, Griswald was the first case that came up with the unenumerated “right to privacy.” Roe said that the right of privacy includes the right to choose an abortion, at least for the first six months of pregnancy. The trouble with these unenumerated rights is what do you apply them to? What are the limitations on how they are applied? How about my shooting up heroin in my own home? Why don’t I have a “right of privacy” to do that? Why don’t I have the right to discipline my children as I see fit? How is that not protected by a right to privacy? What about prostitution laws…why can’t someone sell their bodies for money? How is that not involve privacy?
The possible issues to which a right of privacy could be said to be applied are limitless. That approach just gives enormous power to unelected federal judges.
Not all our rights have to come via constitutional interpretation. The Constitution, after all, is a floor on our rights, not a ceiling. Legislative bodies are always free to expand upon those constitutional rights. Democracy is how we reach reasonable compromises on public policy issues. I don’t know why my friends on the left assume that all rights should be said to come from the Constitution. Depending on judicial activism seems like a bad bet, especially considering the makeup of the courts now. Conservative judicial activism could be right around the corner. I’ll give you an issue…minimum wage. An activist conservative court could easily conclude that the minimum wage law violates the right to contract.
I just think liberals need to stop depending on judges to enact their preferred policies and instead turn to legislatures.
I’ll confess that I’ve never had a firm grip on just exactly what a “right” is and how it’s different from a law. Part of my blind spot has to do with not really buying into the idea that rights exist objectively in nature, independent of human opinion. Whatever they are precisely, I believe that rights are created by humans and can be alienated if not enforced by humans.
Ultimately, I guess I feel like a “right” is a legal entitlement that, because of other legal mechanisms, can’t be taken away by a simple majority of legislators who occupy a legislative body at a given moment in time. I’m not sure what the permissible scope of those other legal mechanisms ought to be. Traditionally, this has taken the form of judicial law wizards who purport to divine the meaning from our constitutions.
But, you’re right that liberals should be focused on legislatures. They’ll tell you that their ability to take control of legislatures is frustrated by gerrymandering. In some places, that’s probably true.
IC 35-41-3-12 Is authored by Susan Glick how convenient that they found a woman to write the bill.
I honestly don’t believe the anti abortion supporters will stop at six weeks. You have two billionaires in Texas Tim Dunn and Farris Wilksthat that pretty much control the legislature and pushed and recieved the most draconian laws in the nation. In fact they want the Texas churches to help the parents and the children instead the state.. On top of it they want to do away or make public education faith based.
We have a over burdened foster care system and throw in all of the extra underemployed young women ( Oh boy, there will be babies for the well to do Hoosier families to adopt!) that will give birth and their offspring will be a buden on society until they hit eightteen.
There is a good chance that divorces will go up when unwanted babies cause stress in households..
Luckily Illinois is a short drive for many families and single woman. So who loses the poor as usual. Just what all our small Indiana towns and cities need is more impoverished parents and children. Now lets see if the Republicans are just blowing smoke when it comes to helping all the impecunious Hoosiers affected by abortion.
Americans love prohibition when it’s “your problem”, but when “your problem” is also “my problem” and “them” becomes “us”, it’s a little different. It seems to me that there are enough authoritarian folks out there who don’t appreciate that fact still believe that you can make problems go away by passing a law against it, and when SCOTUS affirms or denies the law, that’s suddenly more effective. To see just how effective that is, I’m sure all have seen just how effective the speeding laws and signs they set up are. No more speeding. But regardless of the prohibition, I’ve noticed that when people want to do something or really believe that the law is unreasonable, they figure out a way to do it anyway.