Crowdfunding saves Florida abortion clinic with $193,000 in fines

Sure, it existed. It also wasn't a fetal homicide bill, which was the topic. That is 782.09 in Florida, passed more recently than the window I provided, not predating that window.

 

The topic was:
"murder charges enhanced for pregnant vics".

You responded to those words saying such laws came about in the last 10-20 years to curb abortion.

I cited one from 1974.

Such language has existed in state laws for many decades, not just 10-20 years.

 

Yes, and now with the new vague laws out there, if that woman is beyond 15 weeks, she and her doctor have to think twice about a D and C. Her life could be in jeopardy if it isn't done in a reasonable time.

 

That's a big negatory. FS 775.021 was enacted in 1974, but the language you keep bringing up was added MUCH (edit: 40 years) later.

The 1974 version as it appeared in 1997.:

775.021 Rules of construction.--

(1) The provisions of this code and offenses defined by other statutes shall be strictly construed; when the language is susceptible of differing constructions, it shall be construed most favorably to the accused.

(2) The provisions of this chapter are applicable to offenses defined by other statutes, unless the code otherwise provides.

(3) This section does not affect the power of a court to punish for contempt or to employ any sanction authorized by law for the enforcement of an order or a civil judgment or decree.

(4)

(a) Whoever, in the course of one criminal transaction or episode, commits an act or acts which constitute one or more separate criminal offenses, upon conviction and adjudication of guilt, shall be sentenced separately for each criminal offense; and the sentencing judge may order the sentences to be served concurrently or consecutively. For the purposes of this subsection, offenses are separate if each offense requires proof of an element that the other does not, without regard to the accusatory pleading or the proof adduced at trial.

(b) The intent of the Legislature is to convict and sentence for each criminal offense committed in the course of one criminal episode or transaction and not to allow the principle of lenity as set forth in subsection (1) to determine legislative intent. Exceptions to this rule of construction are:

1. Offenses which require identical elements of proof.

2. Offenses which are degrees of the same offense as provided by statute.

3. Offenses which are lesser offenses the statutory elements of which are subsumed by the greater offense.


(Go to "select Year" at the top of the page pick the year's version you want to see.)

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

Edit: Your language first appears in the 2014 amendment.

 

No. It’s about the people actively working against the hand of government overreach. It’s about combatting partisan, punitive initiatives that were intended, knowingly, to render the facility defunct.

 

Most vulnerable of potential humans would be more accurate. Human life beginning at conception is a rather modern conceit. At the quickening(when the fetus first kicks) is the beginning of life according to British common law. The Bible says it happens when the baby takes its first breath.

 

I see what you are saying. But do you deny that such language has existed for much longer than 10-20 years?

How about the 1949 case of
Supreme Court of Ohio in Williams v. Marion Rapid Transit? That opened a floodgate.

Since 1949 a number of other states have overruled former decisions and have allowed recovery for prenatal injuries. Amann v. Faidy, 415 Ill. 422, 114 N.E.2d 412 (Sup. Ct. *360 1953) (overruling Allaire v. St. Luke's Hospital, supra); Woods v. Lancet, 303 N.Y. 349, 102 N.E.2d 691, 27 A.L.R.2d 1250 (Ct. App. 1951) (overruling Drobner v. Peters, supra); Steggall v. Morris, 363 Mo. 1224, 258 S.W.2d 577 (Sup. Ct. 1953) (overruling Buel v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis, supra); Tursi v. New England Windsor Co., 19 Conn. Sup. 242, 111 A.2d 14 (Super. Ct. 1955), and Prates v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 19 Conn. Sup. 487, 118 A.2d 633 (Super. Ct. 1955) (refusing to follow Squillo v. City of New Haven, 14 Conn. Sup. 500 (Super. Ct. 1947)). See also Von Elbe v. Studebaker-Packard Corp., 15 Pa. Dist. & Co. R.2d 635 (C.P. 1958).

The courts of many other states, which have considered the question for the first time, have also permitted recovery for prenatal injuries. Rainey v. Horn, 221 Miss. 269, 72 So. 2d 434 (Sup. Ct. 1950); Tucker v. Howard L. Carmichael & Sons, Inc., 208 Ga. 201, 65 S.E.2d 909 (Sup. Ct. 1951); Damasiewicz v. Gorsuch, 197 Md. 417, 79 A.2d 550 (Ct. App. 1951); Mitchell v. Couch, 285 S.W.2d 901 (Ky. Ct. App. 1955); Mallison v. Pomeroy, 205 Or. 690, 291 P.2d 225 (Sup. Ct. 1955); Worgan v. Greggo & Ferrara, Inc., 11 Terry 258, 50 Del. 258, 128 A.2d 557 (Super. Ct. 1956); Poliquin v. MacDonald, 101 N.H. 104, 135 A.2d 249 (Sup. Ct. 1957).

All of the above courts have repudiated the theories upon which the rule denying liability was based. Leading text writers have also condemned the rule. 2 Harper and James, Torts, § 18.3 (1956); Prosser, Torts, § 36, pp. 174-75 (2d ed. 1955). See also White, "The Right of Recovery for Prenatal Injuries," 12 La. L. Rev. 383 (1952); Note, 36 Va. L. Rev. 611 (1950); Note, 48 Mich. L. Rev. 539 (1950); Note, 63 Harv. L. Rev. 173 (1949); Note, 35 Cornell L.Q. 648 (1950); Annotation 10 A.L.R.2d 1059, at p. 1071 (1950); Annotation 27 A.L.R.2d 1256 (1953). In recent decisions, four states which had not before passed upon the question of liability for prenatal injuries denied recovery to the personal representative of a child stillborn. *361 Drabbels v. Skelly Oil Co., 155 Neb. 17, 50 N.W.2d 229 (Sup. Ct. 1951); Howell v. Rushing, 261 P.2d 217 (Okla. Sup. Ct. 1953); West v. McCoy, 233 S.C. 369, 105 S.E.2d 88 (Sup. Ct. 1958); Hogan v. McDaniel, Tenn., 319 S.W.2d 221 (Sup. Ct. 1958). The first three decisions expressly said they made no determination of the rights of a child born alive. As mentioned above there are factors which may differentiate prenatal death cases from those brought for a surviving child.

Smith v. Brennan

 

The Bible also says we are known by God while in the womb. But I doubt many on the left would be ok with "kicking" as a line in the sand. (16 weeks)

 

Government does that all the time. Your city can probably do that to your local hooker hotel. Our can and did here in Wilmington. Punitive initiatives will sometimes render a facility defunct.

 

90 percent of abortions are done before 12 weeks.

 

The Bible is so inconsistent. It’s like it is a bunch of folk tales written down after written language got popular.

 

Interestingly, if you want to talk about enhancement, that would be an explicit recognition of difference. Enhancement means that the crime against the pregnant woman is worse because she is pregnant, not that you committed a crime against two people. I thought he was trying to draw an equivalence to the fetal murder statutes, but if the goal is to talk about enhancements, that doesn't strengthen the case that the law treats a fetus as a person in any way.

 

Just mind your own damn business

No one cares what the bible says.

The bible isn't the rule of law. If you think it should be, we have serious problems. Stay out of my house. Keep your church business to yourselves. Stay away from my DR. Stay away from our schools. Republicans want to run all of our personal lives. Pathetic.

 

Suffering and collateral damage are irrelevant


The group pointed to new State Department language that called for PEPFAR to partner with organizations that advocate for “institutional reforms in law and policy regarding sexual, reproductive and economic rights of women.” Conservatives argued that’s code for trying to integrate abortion with HIV/AIDS prevention, a claim the administration has denied.

U.S. Rep. Chris Smith, a longtime supporter of PEPFAR who wrote the bill reauthorizing it in 2018, said he would not move forward with reauthorization this time unless it barred nongovernmental organizations that used any funding to provide or promote abortion services.

Because that proposal faces stiff opposition from congressional Democrats, Smith, with support from prominent anti-abortion groups, wants to cut PEPFAR’s usual five-year funding to one year if that ban is not included. He said that would allow lawmakers to revisit contracts with partners they believe may support or provide abortion services.

The head of PEPFAR, John Nkengasong, told the AP he knew of no instance of the program’s money going directly or indirectly to fund abortion services.


Abortion opposition threatens HIV/AIDS program
Abortion opposition threatens HIV/AIDS program - Tampa Bay Times

 

Ladies and gentlemen: Please return the goalposts to their original, upright position.

 

We can now close this thread, and any more threads about abortion. This poster just nailed it!

We are not Iran or Iraq, we don't make laws so that they align with the Bible, or the Koran.

 

Really? I admitted to not understanding what you clarified, (thank uou btw).. and then I listed a gazillion other cases that prove this is not a 10-20 year phenomenon.

Do you consider fetal protection laws a new thing? Or is my list enough to verify that it is not?

 

That’s just part of the plan to try to silence and minimize opposition to abortion.
Rule 1 paint the opposition as racist misogynist idiots. Therefore their beliefs are rooted in evil and not worth considering.

 

Trying to protect an unborn human life=on the side of evil.

Wow that’s a creative take.

 

Wut? It’s a widely held one. Writ large the GOP is a hot bed of evil and many other very bad, no good, terrible things the most minor being a complete lack of self awareness.