There is no statute of limitations for murder...so the question becomes...

The doctor who performed abortions that were legal and then made illegal would--they are required to keep patient records as part of their ethical rules. Damned if you did, damned if you did would be the situation they found themselves in if this hypothetical were to play out.

 

I don't believe you can be convicted of ANY transgression of a law that did not exist at the time. I don't think it EVER came up before because the US Constitution prohibits the imposition of ex post facto law.

 

So if abortion were made illegal....and the doctor's patients could be prosecuted for "murder"....his "ethical rules" would FORCE him to keep the records and see such records used against the women he treated?

Again....you're on a losing track, smevins.


BTW, if the Christian Theocracy needed for such an America as you envision ever came to power.....YOU would have bigger problems than women who had abortions.

- - - Updated - - -

True....because we've never "gone back" and declared something "murder".

 

It is not a "classic trap" just another day in the saga of armchair idiots who know nothing about how law actually works but think they have some gotcha moment because they grew up watching Matlock. That you cite the Rules of Evidence generically is proof of this. Business records, present recollections recorded and incriminating statements are just a few of the exceptions to the mythical hearsay rule they talk about on TV dramedies, and the rules of evidence do not even apply to pre-trial things like warrants and subpoenas. Grand Juries practically live and breath hearsay.

 

If he didn't produce, he would go to jail. Perhaps you think that the doctor is going to have his McMansion foreclosed upon to protect Typoyota Smith instead of throwing her under the bus, but I live in the real world--the one where doctors are forced to cough up the medical records that are being used to sue his ass.

No, I would not. I have money and a passport.

 

1. No doctor is going to keep records of something illegal that THEY and their patients could be prosecuted for. So there goes ONE of your arguments.

2. No woman is going to "broadcast" that she had an abortion. And even if a witness came forward, she could always deny it. So there goes ANOTHER of your arguments.

3. Grand Juries do not operate on the Salem Witch Trial mode of prosecution. So "I saw Goody Proctor consorting with an abortionist in the Danvers Wood on the All Hallow's Eve" won't cut it. So there goes ANOTHER of your arguments.

4. There is NO difference in a medically necessary therapeutic D&C (to control bleeding, or needed for an incomplete miscarriage)....and an elective abortion procedure. So no way to use it as "evidence".

5. RU-486....forget that? A steroidal compound that induces an abortion early in pregnancy and, under some "Abortion Prohibition" would be "black market" (as alcohol was in the 20s) and leaves NO TRACE in the blood-system after a few days.


On the other hand, if a future Christian Taliban United States wanted to go after GAY MEN.....they might be more able to pull that one off. You DO realize who your "friends" are, I'm sure. Although for the life of me, I can't figure out why you think you'd be "safe".

 

'Murder' is a legal term. One cannot change the definition of a legal term and then expect to apply that term retro-actively. One cannot be tried today for something that happened legally yesterday, even if it is not legal today.

 

Apparently you are also ignorant of the electronic healthcare records thingy and all those very specific procedure codes they have to send into insurance companies that originate from medical billing companies who receive their recorded notes . Your post seems to imply that. There is no such thing as privacy.

Strange that I know several women who had abortions who have "broadcast" that, and none of them were my babies.

Having testified before them before, I can tell you you are wrong.

Yes there is a way to use it as evidence, just like there is no way to know if the person running through the alley was really Tyronne just because someone said it was, but lots of Tyronne's in prison because someone said so, some of them falsely so.

That some people get away with murder does not mean that nobody can be convicted for it.

Outlawing abortion would not reduce us to to being a Muslim country or even a Christian Theocracy. As for the rest of your flappy jawed comment, I feel no particular loyalty to the United States, went to university outside the United States, and have enough friends in places outside the US that would gladly have me since they keep yapping about me coming to visit them and cheer me on every time I discuss that I intend to move from the US in about ten years.

 

It's also a term of "pro-life" RHETORIC....but on so many occasions, I've shown a FALSE term that they themselves don't truly believe.

 

1. No healthcare company is going to keep records that would make themselves "accessories to murder".

2. The OP is merely a thought experiment to show the LIE that is "pro-life" rhetoric on "Abortion is murder"....I've used an even better one...asking such "pro-lifers" - "Okay, if abortion is 'murder'...would you execute a woman who took RU-486?" Except for a FEW HONEST misogynists...none of them would give me a direct...or non-contradictory answer. (You want to try?)

3. To actually get an "Abortion Prohibition" in this country would mean a national political shift to strong, even severe Social Conservatism by the populace. That includes on gay rights as well as abortion.

Remember the Martin Niemoller quote?

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.


You'd have to change it to "First they came for the pro-choice women, and I did not speak out, Because I was not a pro-choice woman. Then they came for those who didn't pray in schools, and I did not speak out, Because I had no children in school....... And when they came for us homosexuals, there was no one left to speak out."......eventualy, smevins?

Who'd be left to speak out for you?

Without a massive depression or national disaster, and a theocratic demogogue rising to power in the US, I don't think any of that will come to pass......but if it does? I'll save you a bunk in the camp.

 

In your OP, you posed the question: "If the "pro-lifers" got their ban on abortion....would they prosecute women who got an abortion before the ban was in place?" I merely answered that they could not, because it would be unconstitutional to do so.

 

They would not be an accessory because they operate at arm's length.

I am not a state prison official charged with carrying out executions. If that were my job, I would do my job or find a new one.

It wouldn't because the lack of constancy in people's political beliefs, but even if that were not the case, that is just the temporal nature of democracy--people's views are subject to change.

I don't need anybody to speak for me and I do not pretend that life will ever be "fair" for anybody "if only <insert your political want here>". That is just reality and I doubt being shot in the head by a conservative stormtrooper is any less dead than being shot in the head by a democratic crack addict.

 

I should have re-phrased it to..."would they WANT to prosecute women who..."

 

Your racism wouldn't save you under a Rightwing Christian Theocracy, smevins. (I'm referrring to that and earlier posts).

As for the present? Your "friends and allies" will tolerate you NOW as long as you don't speak out too much on who you are.....but don't try bringing a boyfriend to a Republican meeting.

Also, I'm sure there were Jews, early on, who told themselves "Hitler's just saying that anti-Semitic stuff for the hoi-polloi....what he's really concerned with is getting the economy going and cracking down on the Bolsheviks and the Gypsies and the homosexuals ....and making the trains run on time.....he wouldn't ever REALLY come after us."

 

Says the anti-Semite who doesn't think women should be allowed to drive

I am not a republican so that part is moot, and my friends all pretty much know who I "am". I could give a rat's ass about "allies" that don't even know me but pretend to represent my interests.

Just as I am sure that there are democrats who don't realize that they are supporting the Neo-Nazi Party every time they toe the DNC line, but that is neither here nor there. Abortion=Eugenics. Sound familiar?

 

That would be a different question.

 

I'm sure you can quote me saying that...with a link?

 

But no less embarrasssing to those who scream "Abortion is MURDER!!!!"

Typically, as noted, the one that really stumps them is executing women for "murder" who self-induce an abortion with RU-486.

They don't want to appear like misogynists...or admit to being misogynists. But if they support capital punishment for pre-meditated murder...and "Abortion is murder"...then they HAVE to say "Yes".

"Oddly"....few take that honest approach.

 

We have had this discussion before. You deny that anybody who is anti-religion is anti-Semitic and no I am not going to go fishing around for you inane OP #4,567 or whatever it was in this forum that was about women not being allowed to drive.

 

So in other words, you're spreading un-founded smears against me with no proof?

See, I say nothing about you...that you haven't said. Somehow you're an out-of-the-closet homosexual man.....who for some unfathomable reason....defends social conservatism ....a political ideology would deny you yourself civil rights like marriage.

Is that a true statement or am I mistaken?

 

Um, what? I don't remember that happening. Who did they try to have arrested for what retroactive crime?

 

republicans tried to change the law mid stream to affect only one person, what they did was ruled unconstitutional

 

Wouldn't the law have affected all people who were or ended up the same situation as Schiavo?