Getting closer to outlawing abortion?

Posted: 6/9/05 at 1:26am

"LUFKIN, Texas -- A 19-year-old East Texas man faces a life prison sentence for causing his teenage girlfriend to miscarry twins, even though she wanted to end the pregnancy. Gerardo Flores was accused of causing the miscarriage by stepping on his girlfriend's stomach. He was prosecuted under the state's new fetal protection law. Erica Basoria acknowledged asking Flores to help end her pregnancy. But the 17-year-old can't be prosecuted because of her legal right to abortion. The defense contended that Basoria punched herself while Flores was stepping on her, making it impossible to tell who killed the twins. The jury reached a verdict after deliberating four hours. Because prosecutors declined to seek the death penalty in the case, Flores received the automatic life sentence."

So, here's the situation. If they've convicted this young man of killing a fetus, and they already convicted Laci's murderer of killing her fetus as well, how much longer is it before abortion is outlawed? It would seem inevitable at this point.
Updated On: 6/9/05 at 01:26 AM

[shira467]

Posted: 6/9/05 at 1:32am

Stupid men making decisions about things that aren't theirs...

[Rose_MacShane]

Posted: 6/9/05 at 1:48am

Really, why ARE men in charge of things like these that they will never, ever have to deal with and go through?
This is off-topic, but I just have to ask: Does anyone remember that pharmacist who refused to fill birth control pill perscriptions on the grounds that he found it "wrong" yet he would fill prescriptions for Viagra et al? Isn't taking boner pills just as immoral as taking birth control pills??
...oh wait, I forgot: A erection and everything it entails is a gift from God, but holding off on having kids is doing the Devil's work. Next thing you know, abstinence will be evil too, because we women are just letting those potential little people rot away when we should be cranking out kids like there's no tomorrow, g*ddamn it!

[Rose_MacShane]

Posted: 6/9/05 at 1:49am

...wow. Didn't mean to go off like that...

Posted: 6/9/05 at 1:51am

Rose - that's the same mentality that causes viagra to be covered by many insurance companies, but not birth control.

And I believe that pharmacist's situation has resulted in pending legislation (allowing them to make that choice) but I don't know where it stands.

[Rose_MacShane]

Posted: 6/9/05 at 1:59am

You mean pending legislation that will allow a**wipes like this guy to refuse to fill prescriptions? Fine. Then someone should draft a bill that gives female pharmacists the right to refuse to fill boner pill prescriptions on the same grounds.
Good lord, you'd think not being able to get it up is the freakin' end of the world...

Posted: 6/9/05 at 2:04am

Rose - believe it or not, these men in charge have actually had testimony given (by other men in charge, of course) that the denial of erectile function risks men being unable to perform any of their life's duties as well as they should - it's that intrinsic to the nature of the beast (so to speak.)

Never underestimate the capability of those in control to get what they want.

And the whole pharmacist thing hinges on the right to maintain individual morality codes - even though you have to be state licensed to fill the position. I think they're pulling in the concepts of conscientious objection into this.

Posted: 6/9/05 at 3:04am

Just a couple of snippets from various news sources:

"Thus far in the 2005 legislative session, 15 states (AZ, AR, CA, GA, IN, MD, MI, MO, NJ, RI, SD, TN, TX, VT, WV) have introduced 20 relevant bills regarding pharmacist refusal. Of these, 11 states are considering bills that would permit a pharmacist to refuse to dispense birth control (AZ, AR, GA, IN, MD, RI, SD, TN, TX, VT, WV) and 4 states (CA, MO, NJ, WV) are considering bills which would protect patients' access to their prescriptions."


"Gay Dodson, executive director of the Texas State Board of Pharmacy, said that pharmacists can decline to fill prescriptions they believe could harm a patient but that state law says nothing about moral objections. However, Texas law specifies no penalties for pharmacists who refuse on moral grounds, Dodson said. 'The Legislature would have to change that for there to be,' she said. 'It makes it hard on us to take action because the law is unclear.' "


Updated On: 6/9/05 at 03:04 AM

Posted: 6/9/05 at 8:14am

*bump*

[SallyBrown]

Posted: 6/9/05 at 8:22am

wtf?

I definately don't like the part about her having the legal right to abortion, but choosing instead to have the father of her babies step on her stomach..thus having a 19-year-old sent to jail for the rest of his life....19!

[Bluemoon]

Posted: 6/9/05 at 8:30am

I'm sorry, but pro-choice implications aside, am I the only one who finds this guy's act of stepping all over her womb incredibly brutal and violent? I suppose you could make the argument that she consented (even wanted) this abuse, but stomping on someone's organs to damage whatever is assault. If he beat her up but she said that was what she wanted, would that be ok? I just find the nature of this man's act brutal and disturbing.

Posted: 6/9/05 at 8:31am

Sally - the 'particulars' about both the situations I mentioned make me sick, and if I look just at the individual scenarios, I have pretty violent reactions (at least emotionally.) The facts are what they are, however. And these facts should give women in this country (especially free-thinking women) great pause for thought.

[paradox_error]

Posted: 6/9/05 at 8:35am

No offence, but this title is really ironic...

But other than that, let me quote myself again: America is going down the sh!thole.

Posted: 6/9/05 at 8:43am

BlueMoon - of course you're not the only one who finds that particular act sickening. And most people thought Peterson got exactly what he deserved. BUT, it's the very unquestionable nature of these scenarios that will keep people's mouths shut until they realize that what it all means is the illegalization of all abortions once again.

Paradox - I'm afraid I'm not getting the irony . . .

[Bluemoon]

Posted: 6/9/05 at 8:51am

D- I guess I make a distinction between a surgical procedure, safe and legal in a clinical setting, and a physical assault from the outside, the consequences of which are a miscarriage. Because of this distinction I don't forsee a turning back.

Posted: 6/9/05 at 8:57am

Blue - that distinction may not make a difference - they're charging these men with murdering the fetus - how that happens may be a moot point.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 6/9/05 at 9:47am

The scary parts are the simple, acknowledged facts that LED to this boy getting a life sentence:
His girlfriend/wife got pregnant by him.
She wanted an abortion.
She asked him for help.
He beat her up.
She beat herself up.
The case shows that they can't prove which beating actually killed the fetus.
The boy is convicted and nearly gets the death penalty, instead getting the "lesser" conviction of life.

That frightens the ever-living hell out of me.

Posted: 6/9/05 at 9:50am

Bway - the frightening part to me is their 'any means to an end' mentality. This will serve the purpose of the right-to-life movement, and this young man's life is an allowable sacrifice toward that end.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 6/9/05 at 10:04am

Well, you know, taking life is ok, so long as it's the life WE (and by WE, I mean wackjob religious right folk) choose.

[WindyCityActor]

Posted: 6/9/05 at 10:25am

Hmmm...outlaw abortions?

The rich will got out of the country for them (as well as any medical procedures using stems cells.)

The poor will resort to dangerous actions like this incident which will endanger the mother's life.

We are heading towards shoving everyone who isn't White Male and Christian to the "back of the bus."

Posted: 6/9/05 at 10:36am

"Hmmm...outlaw abortions?"

Thanks, Windy - that made me finally see Paradox's irony reference. This is why I shouldn't post when I first wake up!

I venture to say that there will be all sorts of illegal activity if this movement toward constriction continues.

Updated On: 6/9/05 at 10:36 AM

[robbiej]

Posted: 6/9/05 at 10:42am

I am as pro-choice as they come. But there is an evil, vindictive little part of me (the part that's still pissed off about not being accorded the same rights and protections under the law) that has absolutely no sympathy for stupid straight people.

If people are too f*cking stupid to learn how to use birth control, how am I supposed to muster up any sort of feeling of compassion. Straight folks need a good kick in the ass and I hope they get it.

Aw great...now I'm all evil. I'm gonna go chant.

Posted: 6/9/05 at 10:52am

Robbie - I guess I'm just evil enough to understand your point

BUT, then we're left with confronting the issue of those who want to take precautions, and are denied because someone doesn't believe in it - and then the state is working (in 11 cases, anyway) to back that position up!

[bunchamuncha]

Posted: 6/9/05 at 10:53am

"If people are too f*cking stupid to learn how to use birth control, how am I supposed to muster up any sort of feeling of compassion. Straight folks need a good kick in the ass and I hope they get it."


I'm sorry, I find that statement moronic and insulting.

As for this case. I think the interpretation of "legal right to an abortion" is a bit fuzzy. Personally, I am a firm believer in the right to choose, but I think this girl should have gotten tossed in jail too. You go to the doctor to terminate a pregnancy, you don't beat the fetus' out of yourself with your boyfriend's help. I'd toss both their @sses in jail and throw away the key.

Posted: 6/9/05 at 11:01am

Bunch - as I stated earlier, the specifics of the individual case are repulsive - and I'm not sure anybody could argue that they're not. I'm just seeing what's being set as precedent for the abortion issue.