Prosecutors vow not to bring charges under severe abortion laws

[Norm dePlume]

I spoke too soon. It's not a reasonable opinion.

But both prosecutors and defense lawyers say Setzler’s reliance on the rule of lenity is misguided. That’s because defendants can invoke it only at the time of sentencing, after a conviction has been obtained. In other words, it doesn’t necessarily bar a district attorney from seeking a murder charge.

[Norm dePlume]

And, as usual, BSDNC and Slate like to not mention the things that don't fit the narrative:

Those charges were later dropped after the Dougherty County District Attorney Greg Edwards determined Georgia law does not permit the prosecution of a woman ending her own pregnancy.

I don't know what you think Slate failed to mention, but here is what Slate said:

County District Attorney Greg Edwards declared that he had the charges dismissed after discovering that, under current Georgia law, “criminal prosecution of a pregnant woman for her own actions against her unborn child does not seem permitted.” Edwards noted, however, that he would “continue to review the matter thoroughly and consider any sound, legal charges.”

Of course, that's changed now. But I figured I should address this claim that inconvenient facts were omitted.

[phillygirl]

If I read the law correctly, it is the reverse; it codifies the circumstances where a woman will not be charged.

I did not see this post of yours prior to my response. Thank you.

[Michele]

Post 15 already addressed this.



That's pretty straightforward.

No, it wasn't straightforward.

Just so you don't think this is academic, this was mentioned in the MSN article:



That was before the new law, but the new law doesn't make such charges less likely. I would say the granting of full legal personhood to fetuses makes such charges much more likely.

Yes, that seems to be the talking point.

[Lanie]

States are ignoring federal law. Sheriffs are ignoring state laws, and now this. It appears we have reached a point in America where the people in power will abide by the law...or not, depending on what they believe.

This is extremely dangerous to our country.

When the SCOTUS decided on Roe versus Wade, they made a grievous miscalculation. They assumed a right that was not in the Constitution, and we have been fighting over it ever since. And every fight erodes our confidence in our laws and our legal system. This is why the supreme court picks have become so important, because the law isn't important anymore. Its what the person who holds the position believes what the law means.

When women got the right to vote, it was done so Constitutionally. There would be no argument. Now, the court makes up the law as they see fit.

It will be the death of our country.



Rest at link.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-responsibility-to-say-no-prosecutors-vow-not-to-bring-charges-under-severe-abortion-laws/ar-AABG10H?li=BBnbcA1

Mark

People need to make a choice. You can have abortion be legal and women who do it be punished or you can have it legal and they not be punished. You can't have both.

If you have a problem with punishing women for this, then welcome to being pro-choice. Kindly tell people not to call you that if you don't like it.

[Lanie]

My initial reaction to the headline was that I would have a hard time, as a prosecutor, pursuing a conviction of a woman who had an abortion under some of the newest laws. I would go after the doctor, though.

How can you get away with that?

[Billy Jingo]

I did not see this post of yours prior to my response. Thank you.

Also, those that wrote the bill anticipated prosecution of women with the new law:

Section 4.(h)(5) Lines 172 and 173

[Michele]

People need to make a choice. You can have abortion be legal and women who do it be punished or you can have it legal and they not be punished. You can't have both.

If you have a problem with punishing women for this, then welcome to being pro-choice. Kindly tell people not to call you that if you don't like it.

Women being charged criminally for abortion is a talking point.

[Billy Jingo]

No, it wasn't straightforward.

Yes, that seems to be the talking point.

You are being obtuse. What do you think personhood means?

[phillygirl]

How can you get away with that?

Not every alleged crime has to be prosecuted. If you refuse to prosecute because of race or another protected class, then that's a problem. As an example, years ago Philadelphia indicated they wouldn't prosecute marijuana possession offenses. They chose to use their resources for other crime initiatives.

As an aside, my interview for the district attorney's office was a serious of hypothetical questions where I was asked if I would choose to prosecute under various scenarios, mostly having to do with charging discretion where the mandatory minimum sentence would have to be invoked. Under almost every scenario I said I wouldn't prosecute (they were scenarios like a DUI where two brothers were in the car, both intoxicated, with the passenger brother dying and the driver brother facing a lot of jail time as a mandatory minimum). I backed up my decisions each time. The D.A. interviewing me asked "you do know you are applying for a position in the D.A.'s office, not the Public Defender's Office, yes?" I still got the job despite my clear bleeding heart tendencies. They also were well aware of my stance on the death penalty at the time and that my answer was that I would prefer not to prosecute a death penalty eligible case because I believed that the victim and the state deserved someone whose heart was in it and mine would not be.

[Billy Jingo]

From the law:

Chapter 2 of Title 1 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to persons and their rights, is amended by revising Code Section 1-2-1, relating to classes of persons generally, corporations deemed artificial persons, and nature of corporations generally, as follows:

(a) There are two classes of persons: natural and artificial.

(b) 'Natural person' means any human being including an unborn child.

(c) Corporations are artificial persons. They are creatures of the law and, except insofar as the law forbids it, they are subject to be changed, modified, or destroyed at the will of their creator

[Michele]

You are being obtuse. What do you think personhood means?

No, I'm not. It was a yes or no question. You felt a need not to answer it that way. I wasn't looking for maybe's.

[Billy Jingo]

No, I'm not. It was a yes or no question. You felt a need not to answer it that way. I wasn't looking for maybe's.

The laws are already there. This law was about expanding the definition of a person.

Perhaps you are not being obtuse; you are just confused.

[Michele]

The laws are already there. This law was about expanding the definition of a person.

Perhaps you are not being obtuse; you are just confused.

I asked, "Have states passed laws that will criminally charge women who have abortions?". Yes or no would be the answer I was looking for. It looks like the answer is no.

[Billy Jingo]

I asked, "Have states passed laws that will criminally charge women who have abortions?". Yes or no would be the answer I was looking for. It looks like the answer is no.

In that case, yes, they have.

Here's Georgia's