Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7463
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 16 Dec 2015, 2:50 pm

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/12/14/tenn-woman-charged-with-attempted-murder-for-failed-coat-hanger-abortion/

How is it that a woman can be charged with attempted murder of something that is not living, is inside her own body, and was her choice to try and remove?

Hmmm
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 16006
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 16 Dec 2015, 3:30 pm

bbauska wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/12/14/tenn-woman-charged-with-attempted-murder-for-failed-coat-hanger-abortion/

How is it that a woman can be charged with attempted murder of something that is not living, is inside her own body, and was her choice to try and remove?

Hmmm

Because Tennessee law is insane.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7463
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 16 Dec 2015, 3:43 pm

I agree that the Tennessee law is not all that good. My point is that the woman had the ability, means, and legal standing to go get an abortion.

Why would she try to "eliminate a fetus" with a coat hanger? If abortion is legal, why this?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3741
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 16 Dec 2015, 4:00 pm

Well...she was at 24 weeks and clinics in Tennessee only do abortions up to 16 weeks (according to your link). Seems pretty clear to me why she did it.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7463
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 16 Dec 2015, 4:33 pm

freeman3 wrote:Well...she was at 24 weeks and clinics in Tennessee only do abortions up to 16 weeks (according to your link). Seems pretty clear to me why she did it.


2 hours to St. Louis...
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3741
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 16 Dec 2015, 6:01 pm

I don't know why this woman did what she did, but I kind of doubt she said, hmm, I could drive to St.Louis and get an abortion, nah, I'll get out the clothes hanger...
If there were a clinic in her city and she could afford it , then her decision makes no sense. But there was no clinic in her state that would do it and we don't know her finances. Most likely, there were financial issues involved or she felt shame. Or maybe she's just a complete idiot , I don't know. Clearly, one goal of anti-abortion forces is to reduce the availability of places that perform abortion. Did that contribute to what happened here ? I don't know but it's certainly possible.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 17 Dec 2015, 6:43 am

freeman3
Clearly, one goal of anti-abortion forces is to reduce the availability of places that perform abortion. Did that contribute to what happened here ? I don't know but it's certainly possible

The reason abortion was made legal was exactly because women, especially poor women, resorted to crude methods.
When abortion was illegal, the ability of a woman to obtain an abortion, let alone one that was safe, depended upon her economic situation, her race, and where she lived. Women with money could often leave the country or find a physician who would perform the procedure for a high fee. Poor women, for the most part, were at the mercy of incompetent practitioners with questionable motives.
Often unable to find a provider, poor women and women of color disproportionately turned to dangerous self-abortions, such as inserting knitting needles or coat hangers into the vagina and uterus, douching with dangerous solutions such as lye, or swallowing strong drugs or chemicals. All women were subject to the desperation, shame and fear created by the criminalization of abortion.

http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/healt ... n-history/

Those who are opposed to abortion have forgotten that when illegal, abortion still occurred at much the same rate they do today. Only today abortion is far safer. Making abortions illegal did not end them, it just put women's health at much greater risk. And disproportionately the higher risk was taken by poor women.
If the goal is the elimination of abortion, then the methods must eliminate unplanned and unwanted pregnancies. Not the criminalization of abortion.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 17 Dec 2015, 7:00 am

Ricky:
... when illegal, abortion still occurred at much the same rate they do today.


Source?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 17 Dec 2015, 7:20 am

While there is very little relationship between abortion legality and abortion incidence, there is a strong correlation between abortion legality and abortion safety.

Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the United States during the 1950s and 1960s range from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. Prior to Roe v. Wade, as many as 5,000 American women died annually as a direct result of unsafe abortions


.
Highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates. For example, as Guttmacher Institute explains, the abortion rate is 29 per 1,000 women of childbearing age in Africa, and 32 per 1,000 in Latin America — regions in which abortion is illegal under most circumstances in the majority of countries. The rate is 12 per 1,000 in Western Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds.


http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/healt ... -abortion/
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 17 Dec 2015, 8:44 am

rickyp wrote:
While there is very little relationship between abortion legality and abortion incidence, there is a strong correlation between abortion legality and abortion safety.

Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the United States during the 1950s and 1960s range from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. Prior to Roe v. Wade, as many as 5,000 American women died annually as a direct result of unsafe abortions


.
Highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates. For example, as Guttmacher Institute explains, the abortion rate is 29 per 1,000 women of childbearing age in Africa, and 32 per 1,000 in Latin America — regions in which abortion is illegal under most circumstances in the majority of countries. The rate is 12 per 1,000 in Western Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds.


http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/healt ... -abortion/


I'm not impressed with either of those comparisons. In the first you are comparing US today to US 50+ years ago. There has been a lot of societal change since them including contraception, women rights and health care availability. It's just not an apples to apples situation.

In the 2nd you are comparing developing (Latin America) and extremely poor (Africa) parts of the world to the highly developed Western European countries.

Perhaps you can find 2 comparable European countries that have different abortion laws and compare their abortion rates. Or perhaps you can find 2 Latin American countries and compare their rates. Otherwise, I don't think your sources prove very much about the correlation (or lack thereof) between restrictive abortion laws and abortion rates.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 17 Dec 2015, 11:48 am

ray
I'm not impressed with either of those comparisons. In the first you are comparing US today to US 50+ years ago. There has been a lot of societal change since them including contraception, women rights and health care availability. It's just not an apples to apples situation.


Well if you want to compare what happened in the US when abortion was illegal, and when it was legal this is what it is..
If you care to explain how you think any of those societal changes would change to rate of abortion please explain. But all things being equal, women who had unwanted pregnancies have always sought to end them.
Its just when abortion was illegal, the procedure was very risky.

In 1965, abortion was so unsafe that 17 percent of all deaths due to pregnancy and childbirth were the result of illegal abortion (Gold, 1990; NCHS, 1967). Today, less than 0.3 percent of women undergoing legal abortions at all gestational ages sustain a serious complication requiring hospitalization (Boonstra et al.,2006; Henshaw, 1999). Among women undergoing legal first-trimester abortion procedures, the percentage sustaining serious complications drops to 0.05 percent (Weitz et al., 2013).


https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files ... istory.pdf
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7463
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 17 Dec 2015, 11:53 am

If abortion IS legal (I am pretty sure it is in Tennessee), then how is this woman's action OK? Are you absolving this woman of her actions for harming this child in utero? Your comparison to when abortion was illegal is not the point. She had the time to get an abortion before 24 weeks. She had the right to go where she could get an abortion after 24 weeks.

Is she culpable for her actions?

I say yes.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 17 Dec 2015, 12:29 pm

Ricky:
... when illegal, abortion still occurred at much the same rate they do today.


and when asked for back-up:

While there is very little relationship between abortion legality and abortion incidence, there is a strong correlation between abortion legality and abortion safety.

Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the United States during the 1950s and 1960s range from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. Prior to Roe v. Wade, as many as 5,000 American women died annually as a direct result of unsafe abortions


If you drill down on Ricky's source, it says this:

Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. One analysis, extrapolating from data from North Carolina, concluded that an estimated 829,000 illegal or self-induced abortions occurred in 1967.

One stark indication of the prevalence of illegal abortion was the death toll. In 1930, abortion was listed as the official cause of death for almost 2,700 women—nearly one-fifth (18%) of maternal deaths recorded in that year. The death toll had declined to just under 1,700 by 1940, and to just over 300 by 1950 (most likely because of the introduction of antibiotics in the 1940s, which permitted more effective treatment of the infections that frequently developed after illegal abortion). By 1965, the number of deaths due to illegal abortion had fallen to just under 200, but illegal abortion still accounted for 17% of all deaths attributed to pregnancy and childbirth that year. And these are just the number that were officially reported; the actual number was likely much higher.

Poor women and their families were disproportionately impacted. A study of low-income women in New York City in the 1960s found that almost one in 10 (8%) had ever attempted to terminate a pregnancy by illegal abortion; almost four in 10 (38%) said that a friend, relative or acquaintance had attempted to obtain an abortion. Of the low-income women in that study who said they had had an abortion, eight in 10 (77%) said that they had attempted a self-induced procedure, with only 2% saying that a physician had been involved in any way.

These women paid a steep price for illegal procedures. In 1962 alone, nearly 1,600 women were admitted to Harlem Hospital Center in New York City for incomplete abortions, which was one abortion-related hospital admission for every 42 deliveries at that hospital that year. In 1968, the University of Southern California Los Angeles County Medical Center, another large public facility serving primarily indigent patients, admitted 701 women with septic abortions, one admission for every 14 deliveries.


As to the North Carolina study, there are several problems. 1. There's no reference to the study. Was it peer reviewed? Did the author(s) have an agenda? 2. They extrapolate from the study to the rest of the country. Extrapolation can really magnify errors. Is.NC representative of the whole country? Who knows what their data really shows?

The 2nd paragraph discusses deaths as a result of illegal abortions. The range is between 200 and 2,700. Although tragic, I don't see how that proves that abortion was just as prevalent. The U.S. has had from 700,000 to 1,400,000 legal abortions per year since Roe v. Wade.

The 3rd paragraph discusses hospital admissions in NYC and LA because of incomplete abortions. I don't see how you can extrapolate that to claim that abortions were at the same rate pre Roe v. Wade.

I've searched the web and there isn't real data to back up this claim.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 16006
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 17 Dec 2015, 12:36 pm

bbauska wrote:If abortion IS legal (I am pretty sure it is in Tennessee), then how is this woman's action OK? Are you absolving this woman of her actions for harming this child in utero? Your comparison to when abortion was illegal is not the point. She had the time to get an abortion before 24 weeks. She had the right to go where she could get an abortion after 24 weeks.

Is she culpable for her actions?

I say yes.
Legal is one thing. Available is another. So, do you know the following that may provide context:

1) When did she discover she was pregnant?
2) Was any issue raised during pregnancy with her or the foetus (such as abnormalities)?
3) If there was, at what point?
4) Does she have much in the way of income or assets?
5) What was the position of her family?

Or much else about her or her pregnancy?

Here's my thought. What she did was horrific. But the pain, the threat to her health and the shame of what she did will be some toll to pay already.

Charging her with murder is just going way too far. There may well be a lesser charge that makes sense.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7463
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 17 Dec 2015, 1:04 pm

[quote=Danivon]
1) When did she discover she was pregnant?
2) Was any issue raised during pregnancy with her or the foetus (such as abnormalities)?
3) If there was, at what point?
4) Does she have much in the way of income or assets?
5) What was the position of her family?[/quote]

1) Doesn't say. The articles are not providing any info there.
2) Same as #1
3) Same as #1
4) Shouldn't matter. Those of lesser means are just as responsible to follow laws as others
5) Shouldn't matter. Family is nice support, but does not absolve one from actions.

What would you charge her with? I think she attempted to kill her child in utero. If there were reasons that would absolve her or bring some help her way, then that should have been done before she performed this heinous act. It is sad that she had sex, , got pregnant, did not ask for help, go to a clinic, and killed this baby in utero. Her reasons are for the judge to hear in the mitigating phase of the trial.

The reason I call it a baby is because of the criminal charge for attempted murder. People killing a fetus are not charged with a crime these days. Since the charge is filed, the baby has personhood.