|
|
|
Florida moving closer to passing fetal personhood law?
Posted by Mitch Perry on Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 6:08 PM
Critics call it something else: fetal personhood, to be exact.
Today, Democrats on the committee, as well as some members of the public, blasted the proposed legislation as an attempt to erode the 1973 Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision legalizing women to having an abortion in this country.
Tampa state Sen. Arthenia Joyner was particularly intense questioning Stargel about the intent of the legislation, asking questions like: What if violence is committed on a pregnant woman who's not even aware that she's pregnant?
Stargel succinctly responded, saying the penalty would be the same for the assailant.
"It would have the same affect. She's still lost her baby," Stargel said.
The Lakeland Republican defended herself, saying she's received messages on Facebook that claim she's against women.
"All this is saying is a baby within that womb, that baby is a person," adding that her intent is not to affect a woman's right to choose.
But her critics were formidable. Joan Hendricks from Crawfordville asked if pregnancy tests would be required in all instances of domestic violence. She also lamented the fact that there would be no time limits for prosecution.
Another opponent, Diane Wilson, said the law does nothing for violence against women. She said funding for more shelters, providing rehabilitation for domestic violence abusers, and providing more information to police about how to react to such crimes would be much more productive.
"What is the real aim of this bill?" she asked, answering her own question by saying that it would establish fetal personhood, and gain political points at the expense of women and victims of domestic violence.
Barbara Zdravecky from Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida referred to previous failed attempts at such legislation in Mississippi and Colorado.
South Florida Sen. Eleanor Sobel said she's "really tired" of anti-abortion bills being introduced each year in the Legislature, and Stargel's bill sounds like a violation of due process.
In both 2010 and 2012, attempts to put similar measures on the Florida ballot as a constitutional amendment failed for lack of sufficient signatures.
Comments (3)
The bill explicitly exempts abortion (see below). Pro-aborts can't stand the thought of recognizing an unborn baby as a victim.
This subsection does not permit the prosecution:
51 1. Of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for
52 which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized
53 by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such
54 consent is implied by law;
like
dislikeThat's this week. Next week or month they'll be prosecuting anyone who get an abortion for whatever reason.
Florida has a long history/tradition of using what politicians call "camel's nose" techniques for getting laws passed. This is just getting the camel's nose under the tent and eventually the whole camel ends up in the tent a little at a time. This is one of those examples in the law. Start small, implement a little at a time, and eventually you can prosecute women and doctors for abortions. Now, the anti-abortion side will deny this, but, in Florida, there is significant precedence for using this technique.
Florida passed a law several years ago that allowed police to write citations to people not wearing their seatbelts. They managed to get it passed in the legislature by making it a "secondary" offense. The police had to pull you over for some other offense and only then could they write you another ticket for not wearing your seatbelt. In the last year or two, the legislature made it a primary offense. A police offficer does not need the other offense, he can pull you over for just not wearing your seatbelt. They got the the seatbelt law passed, with the limitation and then they took the limitation away, because they could not get the seatbelt law passed as a primary offense. The Legislature is now trying to pass a no-texting-while-driving law in exactly the same way. Police cannot write a ticket for texting while driving unless they have another offense for which they can pull you over. Trust me, if it passes, in a few more years, they will make it a primary offense and eliminate the need for the other reason to pull you over.
I am not comparing the Unborn Victim's Act to a traffic offense, just showing how the technique works and how the Florida Legislature knows, understands and uses the technique. Incremental change, litle by little, is a lot easier to get passed than one big law that does not stand a chance. Government chips away at our rights, gets us used to it in small doses and the next thing you know, our rights are gone.
Showing 1-3 of 3