If a state passes the death pnalty for a mother who gets an abortion, is there any recourse?

[S K]

There is increasing talk among "pro-lifers" that abortion is murder and the mother who gets one must be put to death. The former confederacy and states like Idaho are quite receptive to that idea.

if they go down the slippery slope and start passing laws like contraception or gay sex is a capital crime - doesn't that show that the "federalism" of the constitution is a flawed concept.

If the only way the federal government can get this power back is through a constitution amendment, Red America will make sure that it does not happen.

[Roy]

Better watch out. The "liberals" will make talking bad about Biden a
capital offense

[S K]

is this "both sides"ing supposed to be funny?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/10/republican-wave-state-bills-homicide-charges

a significant proportion of the Republican Party is serious about going medieval on reproductive rights.
trivializing this phenomenon isn't helpful.

[Roy]

I did a quick search and I didn't find one state that was talking about
death penalty for abortion.

The referenced article doesn't mention one either. It just portrays
that homicide means death penalty. Federal capital statutes fall into
three broad categories: (1) homicide offenses; (2) espionage and
treason; and (3) non-homicidal narcotics offenses.

Meanwhile local, state, and federal governments are trying to suppress
free speech. A current example is the White House criticizing the news
media for discussing Biden's mental health. Similarly we know they
suppressed discussion on the safety of the COVID vaccines.

.

[S K]

On Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 4:41:08 PM UTC-5, Roy wrote:

>
> Meanwhile local, state, and federal governments are trying to suppress
> free speech. A current example is the White House criticizing the news
> media for discussing Biden's mental health. Similarly we know they
> suppressed discussion on the safety of the COVID vaccines.
>
> .

I didn't know MAGA has penetrated misc.legal.moderated.

[Stuart O. Bronstein]

Roy <monta...@outlook.com> wrote:
> On 2/15/2024 1:18 PM, S K wrote:
>> On Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 12:44:54 AM UTC-5, Roy wrote:
>>> On 2/14/2024 4:20 PM, S K wrote:
>>>> There is increasing talk among "pro-lifers" that abortion is murder
>>>> and the mother who gets one must be put to death. The former
>>>> confederacy and states like Idaho are quite receptive to that idea.
>>>>
>>>> if they go down the slippery slope and start passing laws like
>>>> contraception or gay sex is a capital crime - doesn't that show
>>>> that the "federalism" of the constitution is a flawed concept.
>>>>
>>>> If the only way the federal government can get this power back is
>>>> through a constitution amendment, Red America will make sure that
>>>> it does not happen.
>>>>
>>> Better watch out. The "liberals" will make talking bad about Biden a
>>> capital offense
>>
>> is this "both sides"ing supposed to be funny?
>>
>> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/10/republican-wave-state-
>> bills-homicide-charges
>>
>> a significant proportion of the Republican Party is serious about
>> going medieval on reproductive rights. trivializing this phenomenon
>> isn't helpful.
>
> I did a quick search and I didn't find one state that was talking
> about death penalty for abortion.

If a state proposes a law making abortion murder, and murder is
punishable by the death penalty, that's exactly what's happening. And
that's what South Carolina, specifically has done.

> The referenced article doesn't mention one either. It just portrays
> that homicide means death penalty. Federal capital statutes fall into
> three broad categories: (1) homicide offenses; (2) espionage and
> treason; and (3) non-homicidal narcotics offenses.
>
> Meanwhile local, state, and federal governments are trying to suppress
> free speech. A current example is the White House criticizing the
> news media for discussing Biden's mental health. Similarly we know
> they suppressed discussion on the safety of the COVID vaccines.

The White House criticizing those kinds of statements isn't supressing
speech. They're not proposing any legislation that would prevent news
media from saying anything. They're just responding to allegations.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[Roy]

Free speech is something we can all support

While the ACLU stands in stark opposition to the NRA on many issues, it
is representing the group to safeguard the First Amendment rights of all
advocacy organizations.

https://www.aclu.org/cases/national-rifle-association-v-vullo

[Stan Brown]

Don't forget the eighth amendment. And most states have similar
provisions in their constitutions. Anyone who was actually sentenced
to death would be able to appear to a higher state court (maybe) and
a federal court (certainly), claiming that death for such an act was
cruel and unusual. Whether they'd prevail in court is a question,
though.

Article VI clause 2 (the "supremacy clause") says
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound
thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the
Contrary notwithstanding."

At least currently, contraception comes under the right to privacy,
which the Supreme Court has affirmed. I am pretty sure sex between
consenting adults does too, and if it does for straight couples then
it must also for gay or lesbian couples, under the Fourteenth
Amendment. Even if a state legislature were to pass such a law, I
think any state judge who took their oath(*) seriously would have to
throw out any criminal case.

(*)Every state judge has taken an oath to support the US
Constitution, under Article VI clause 3:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members
of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial
Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall
be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution. ..."

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

[Stan Brown]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 16:56:12 -0800 (PST), Roy wrote:
> Free speech is something we can all support

It's easier to support if you know what it is.

First, it guarantees you the right to say what you like, but it
doesn't guarantee you any particular forum in which to say it, not
does it guarantee you that anyone will listen.

Second, the Founders expected that through free speech, in the
contention of opposing ideas, the truth would emerge. That means that
disagreements get aired and people listen to both and decide which is
right.

Third, free speech is not without consequences. If you libel someone,
you can be hauled into court and may have to pay damages. If you
shout "fire" in a crowded theater, and people are injured in the
resulting panic, you may be both civilly and criminality liable. Or,
more mundanely, if you say something wrong or stupid (or both), you
may be called out for it.

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 13:41:05 -0800 (PST), Roy wrote:
> Meanwhile local, state, and federal governments are trying to suppress
> free speech. A current example is the White House criticizing the news
> media for discussing Biden's mental health.

No, "criticizing the news media" is not an attempt to "suppress free
speech". It is, in fact, an example of free speech. The news media
have the right to cover the news and comment on it. People who don't
like their coverage or their analysis have the right to say so.
Suppressing free speech -- well, free press, in this case -- would be
preventing them from printing what they wanted to. That has not
happened, and I think the chances of its happening under this
President are roughly nil. (No doubt Der Furor _would_ try to
suppress free speech if he gets in, as we all know he goes ballistic
whenever he is criticized, plus he doesn't believe the Constitution
applies to him.)

(By your logic, you are trying to suppress the White House staff's
free speech! Surely you know better than that. Criticism is not an
attack on free speech but an exercise of it.)

> Similarly we know they
> suppressed discussion on the safety of the COVID vaccines.

No, we don't know any such thing.

[John Levine]

According to Roy <monta...@outlook.com>:

>> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/10/republican-wave-state-bills-homicide-charges
>>
>> a significant proportion of the Republican Party is serious about going medieval on reproductive rights.
>> trivializing this phenomenon isn't helpful.
>
>I did a quick search and I didn't find one state that was talking about
>death penalty for abortion.
>
>The referenced article doesn't mention one either.

You should look harder. The second paragraph of that article has links
to five state bills that would treat abortion as homicide.



--
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

[Roy]

On 2/15/2024 9:37 PM, John Levine wrote:
> According to Roy <monta...@outlook.com>:
>>> ...

>>
>> I did a quick search and I didn't find one state that was talking about
>> death penalty for abortion.
>>
>> The referenced article doesn't mention one either.
>
> You should look harder. The second paragraph of that article has links
> to five state bills that would treat abortion as homicide.
>
>
>

None of the bills suggested it would have the death penalty attached.
There are lots of "homicide" crimes like killing someone as a result of
driving drunk.

[Roy]

On 2/15/2024 9:33 PM, Stan Brown wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 16:56:12 -0800 (PST), Roy wrote:
>> Free speech is something we can all support
>
> It's easier to support if you know what it is.
>

> ...

>
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 13:41:05 -0800 (PST), Roy wrote:
>> Meanwhile local, state, and federal governments are trying to suppress
>> free speech. A current example is the White House criticizing the news
>> media for discussing Biden's mental health.
>
> No, "criticizing the news media" is not an attempt to "suppress free
> speech". It is, in fact, an example of free speech. The news media
> have the right to cover the news and comment on it. People who don't
> like their coverage or their analysis have the right to say so.
> Suppressing free speech -- well, free press, in this case -- would be
> preventing them from printing what they wanted to. That has not
> happened, and I think the chances of its happening under this
> President are roughly nil. (No doubt Der Furor _would_ try to
> suppress free speech if he gets in, as we all know he goes ballistic
> whenever he is criticized, plus he doesn't believe the Constitution
> applies to him.)
>
> (By your logic, you are trying to suppress the White House staff's
> free speech! Surely you know better than that. Criticism is not an
> attack on free speech but an exercise of it.)

What you say is true but we don't know what happens behind closed doors.
Reporters who are critical of Biden may not get interviews or other
such access to the White House. Question: When was the last time Biden
gave an interview to Fox News?

>
>> Similarly we know they
>> suppressed discussion on the safety of the COVID vaccines.
>
> No, we don't know any such thing.
>

I have a doctor friend whose was telling his patients not to get
vaccinated and had to leave his job at a hospital. It was intimated that
he could lose his license.

The government also told us not to use hydroxychloroquine for COVID
because of a possible very serious and include irregular heart rhythms
that can result in death. Some states restricted distribution of the
drug. My wife had been on it for years for arthritis and her and her
doctor had go through bureaucratic steps to get her refills.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7439006/

We were also told the Wuhan lab wasn't responsible for COVID and it was
crazy conspiracy theory. Testimony at Congressional hearings was that
there was no evidence that the lab was NOT responsible when they were
saying that.

https://oversight.house.gov/landing/covid-origins/

[Rick]

"S K" wrote in message
news:65750f10-92b1-4f7d...@googlegroups.com...

>
>There is increasing talk among "pro-lifers" that abortion is murder and the
>mother who gets one must be put to death. The former confederacy and
>states like Idaho are quite receptive to that idea.

That's a really broad generalization and you don't include specifics. I
have seen no statistics to support your view that a majority of people in
the states you mention would support this or that legislatures in those
states are likely to pass such a law. But even if they did, it is the right
of the people in those states to pass whatever laws they collectively want,
as long as courts (including federal) support the decisions. That's how our
system works.

>
>if they go down the slippery slope and start passing laws like
>contraception or gay sex is a capital crime - doesn't that show that the
>"federalism" of the constitution is a flawed concept.

Again, I repeat that the people in individual states can collectively and
through their elected officials decide what laws to pass, and if those laws
pass muster in the courts (including federal), then that is our system at
work and it's hard to see how this makes federalism "flawed".

>
>If the only way the federal government can get this power back is through a
>constitution amendment, Red America will make sure that it does not happen.

Again, our system has a process for passing constitutional amendments, and
if enough people through their elected officials support an amendment, then
it will be passed. Again, it's hard to see how this makes the system
"flawed". It may mean that individuals may personally disagree with some
of the decisions made by states or the federal government, but that's just
part of the system.

And there is no such thing as "Red America". Our country is a collection of
individuals who have varying ideas, and some of them come together in groups
because they share philosophies. But ultimately, we are a nation of
individuals who ultimately vote as individuals.

--

[Stuart O. Bronstein]

Roy <monta...@outlook.com> wrote in news:uqmvgf$3obni$1...@dont-email.me:

>> (By your logic, you are trying to suppress the White House staff's
>> free speech! Surely you know better than that. Criticism is not an
>> attack on free speech but an exercise of it.)
>
> What you say is true but we don't know what happens behind closed doors.
> Reporters who are critical of Biden may not get interviews or other
> such access to the White House. Question: When was the last time Biden
> gave an interview to Fox News?

Biden is not the one denying White House press credentials to reporters he
doesn't like. Trump did that.

Additionally, most of Fox is not news. According to Sean Hannity it's
"advocacy journalism." That is not news.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[Stan Brown]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 22:33:24 -0800 (PST), Roy wrote:
> What you say is true but we don't know what happens behind closed doors.
> Reporters who are critical of Biden may not get interviews or other
> such access to the White House. Question: When was the last time Biden
> gave an interview to Fox News?

And that is irrelevant to the concept of free speech.

The First Amendment does not compel anyone to speak to reporters or
anyone else.

[micky]

In misc.legal.moderated, on Thu, 15 Feb 2024 22:32:48 -0800 (PST), Roy

<monta...@outlook.com> wrote:

>On 2/15/2024 9:37 PM, John Levine wrote:
>> According to Roy <monta...@outlook.com>:
>>>> ...
>>>
>>> I did a quick search and I didn't find one state that was talking about
>>> death penalty for abortion.
>>>
>>> The referenced article doesn't mention one either.
>>
>> You should look harder. The second paragraph of that article has links
>> to five state bills that would treat abortion as homicide.
>
>None of the bills suggested it would have the death penalty attached.

Don't some or all of those states already have a death penalty for
murder? Or they are planning to. They're not going to mention this when
discussing abortion because it would turn off some/many voters, and
that's the reason if you searched for abortion murder or abortion
death penalty etc. you wont' find anything.

>There are lots of "homicide" crimes like killing someone as a result of
>driving drunk.

Because killing someone while driving drunk is not considered
intentional (even though he drank intentionally). Almost every
abortion is intentional, on the part of the doctor and the woman,
especially clear when the patient signs a permission form in advance.

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

[Rick]

"Stuart O. Bronstein" wrote in message
news:XnsB11A5DA0335BCs...@130.133.4.11...

I agree that the shows done by Hannity and Ingraham and Watters are not news
per se but commentary (until Hannity used it several years ago, I don't
think I had ever heard the phrase "advocacy journalism", which sounds a bit
like an oxymoron). But Fox does have some legit news shows, like the first
half hour of Special Report (hosted by Bret Baier), where the straight news
reporting is pretty indistinguishable from the regular networks. Also, the
Sunday Fox News Report and much of the stuff done by Shannon Bream and
others don't really fit into the commentary arena.

--

[Roy]

On 2/16/2024 10:14 PM, Rick wrote:

>
> I agree that the shows done by Hannity and Ingraham and Watters are not
> news per se but commentary (until Hannity used it several years ago, I
> don't think I had ever heard the phrase "advocacy journalism", which
> sounds a bit like an oxymoron). But Fox does have some legit news shows,
> like the first half hour of Special Report (hosted by Bret Baier), where
> the straight news reporting is pretty indistinguishable from the regular
> networks.  Also, the Sunday Fox News Report and much of the stuff done
> by Shannon Bream and others don't really fit into the commentary arena.
>
> --

You can't just look at Fox News cable network. They run
http://foxnews.com website and Fox News App on the Internet. They also
supply news video to the Fox TV channel broadcasting affiliates.

See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Broadcasting_Company

[Rick]

"Roy" wrote in message news:uqqn6s$ga9r$1...@dont-email.me...

And I would agree the Fox News app and website both definitely skew to the
right

--

[Roy]

So? MSNBC skews left. I was trying to point out that while that one
FOX stream that is heavy with commentary is complimented with other
products and streams that cover the news.

[Rick]

"Roy" wrote in message news:uqrjds$lti4$1...@dont-email.me...

And my point is that the Fox News Channel actually and perhaps ironically
does a much more objective job covering straight news than either the Fox
News website or app. I think if you saw a transcript of a straight news
story as reported on Bret Baier's Special Report or Shannon Bream's Fox News
Sunday and did not know what network it was from, you would not be able to
distinguish it from one produced on CBS, NBC or ABC. But the Fox News
website and app clearly skew their story selection to the right and even
their reporting on specific stories.

And yes, MSNBC and to an extent CNN both skew largely to the left.

--

[micky]

In misc.legal.moderated, on Thu, 15 Feb 2024 22:33:24 -0800 (PST), Roy

Maybe he's annoyed at "Fox News" for spending weeks or months lying
about Dominion Voting Machiunes and trying to convince the USA that
Biden lost the election he won. This is a big problem that is still
with us, when iirc 60% of Republicans still think Biden didn't win the
election. Why should he promote his enemy?

[Barry Gold]

On 2/15/2024 1:41 PM, Roy wrote:
> Meanwhile local, state, and federal governments are trying to suppress
> free speech.  A current example is the White House criticizing the news
> media for discussing Biden's mental health.  Similarly we know they
> suppressed discussion on the safety of the COVID vaccines.

The White House has a right to criticize the new media for anything they
don't like. That's the free speech of whoever actually says it (and/or
writes the speech in which it is said.

Suppressing discussion *is* a violation of free speech.

--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...