How would abortion laws work in Romney-world v3.0?
Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:51 pm
In Massachusetts, Willard Mitt Romney ran as a staunchly pro-choice candidate, based on a tragic tale he used to tell. That was version 1.0.
The Republican presidential primaries brought us Romney version 2.0. He has said he would gladly sign a law that outlaws all abortion, and would appoint more justices like Thomas and Scalia to the court.
And now, in keeping with his current move to the middle, we have Romney version 3.0. His most recent stated preference is that abortion should be illegal, but with exceptions for rape and incest.
Leaving aside his notorious flipping on issues, I don't know what this kind of law would look like in the real legal world. I can see it from a moral or philosophical standpoint, as it is for the LDS church, but not a legal one. Maybe someone can help me out here?
This kind of law would appear to require some kind of official verification to get a legally approved abortion. As creepy as it sounds to require such a thing, certainly a court-ordered DNA test on the fetus would establish that it was fathered by a close relative, at which point a doctor could be ordered by the court to perform the abortion.
But in the case of rape, this is where we venture into the murky Todd Akin world of classifying the 'legitimacy' of the rape charge. We would either have to unquestioningly accept the word of the woman seeking the abortion, which would establish a reliable loophole, or require some level of evidence that a rape occurred.
After the abortion, the dead fetus's DNA would establish paternity, which would have to be considered solid evidence to convict its father of rape. And if it turns out a woman claimed rape to get an abortion, she would need to be severely punished, both for killing the fetus and for making a false accusation against the DNA-established father.
It all looks like a legal nightmare to me.
The Republican presidential primaries brought us Romney version 2.0. He has said he would gladly sign a law that outlaws all abortion, and would appoint more justices like Thomas and Scalia to the court.
And now, in keeping with his current move to the middle, we have Romney version 3.0. His most recent stated preference is that abortion should be illegal, but with exceptions for rape and incest.
Leaving aside his notorious flipping on issues, I don't know what this kind of law would look like in the real legal world. I can see it from a moral or philosophical standpoint, as it is for the LDS church, but not a legal one. Maybe someone can help me out here?
This kind of law would appear to require some kind of official verification to get a legally approved abortion. As creepy as it sounds to require such a thing, certainly a court-ordered DNA test on the fetus would establish that it was fathered by a close relative, at which point a doctor could be ordered by the court to perform the abortion.
But in the case of rape, this is where we venture into the murky Todd Akin world of classifying the 'legitimacy' of the rape charge. We would either have to unquestioningly accept the word of the woman seeking the abortion, which would establish a reliable loophole, or require some level of evidence that a rape occurred.
After the abortion, the dead fetus's DNA would establish paternity, which would have to be considered solid evidence to convict its father of rape. And if it turns out a woman claimed rape to get an abortion, she would need to be severely punished, both for killing the fetus and for making a false accusation against the DNA-established father.
It all looks like a legal nightmare to me.