If a fetus is a person, it should get child support, due process and citizenship.
May 18, 2019 16:21:43 #
This is an interesting article I read today. Warning: it is lengthy.
If a fetus is a person, it should get child support, due process and citizenship.
The logic of Alabama’s (and now, MIssouri’s) abortion law should permit you to claim a fetus on your taxes and collect insurance if you miscarry.
By Carliss Chatman
Carliss Chatman, an assistant professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law, studies corporate personhood, corporate governance and ethics, among other legal topics.
Washington Post; May 17 at 3:11 PM
“Alabama has joined the growing number of states determined to overturn Roe v. Wade by banning abortion from conception forward. The Alabama Human Life Protection Act, as the new statute is called, subjects a doctor who performs an abortion to as many as 99 years in prison. The law, enacted Wednesday, has no exceptions for rape or incest. It redefines an “unborn child, child or person” as “a human being, specifically including an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability.”
We ought to take our laws seriously. Under the laws, people have all sorts of rights and protections. When a state grants full personhood to a fetus, should they not apply equally?
“For example, should child support start at conception? Every state permits the custodial parent — who has primary physical custody of the child and is primarily responsible for his or her day-to-day care — to receive child support from the noncustodial parent. Since a fetus resides in its mother, and receives all nutrition and care from its mother’s body, the mother should be eligible for child support as soon as the fetus is declared a person — at conception in Alabama, at six weeks in states that declare personhood at a fetal heartbeat, at eight weeks in Missouri, which was on the way to passing its law on Friday, but at birth in states that have not banned abortion.
“And, what about deportation? Can a pregnant immigrant who conceived her child in the United States be expelled? Because doing so would require deporting a U.S. citizen. To determine the citizenship of a fetal person requires examination of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, which declares, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The word “born” was not defined by the drafters. Presumably, they intended the standard dictionary definition: brought forth by birth. Our dates of birth are traditionally when our lives begin; we do not celebrate our dates of conception or the date of our sixth week in utero. But in states with abortion bans, “born” takes on new meaning. Now legislatures assign an arbitrary time during gestation to indicate when life, personhood and, presumably, the rights that accompany these statuses take hold. This grant of natural personhood at a point before birth brings application of the 14th Amendment into question and may thus give a fetus citizenship rights — but only in those states. There are no laws that allow the United States to deny citizenship rights to a natural-born citizen merely because they reside with, or in, a noncitizen.
“Detaining any person without arraignment or trial violates the Constitution and international human rights laws. A fetus has not committed a crime, not been arraigned or charged, not weathered a trial by a jury of its peers, not had the opportunity to confront its accuser. These laws redefining personhood surely mean that a pregnant woman cannot be incarcerated, as doing so requires confining a second person without due process.
“If personhood begins in utero, a fetus will need a name and a Social Security number to begin exercising private rights and using public resources. A Social Security number is necessary to claim a child on taxes. It is also a requirement to act on behalf of a child privately, like opening a bank account, buying savings bonds or obtaining insurance coverage. Typically, parents apply for a Social Security number when they obtain a birth certificate, but if states declare that personhood begins at some earlier arbitrary point in time, they will need to provide evidence, perhaps through a life certificate, that this new person exists and resides in their state. Once the life is established, can a mother insure a six-week fetus and collect if she miscarries? Will the tax code be adjusted in these states to allow parents to claim their unborn children as dependents at conception? If so, can a woman who suffers more than one miscarriage in a fiscal year claim all of her children?
“How does the Alabama law effect the laws of the other states? Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution requires a census every 10 years to count all persons residing within the United States. If a fetus is granted personhood, it should be included in the count. The census currently asks about the age and date of birth of each household resident. Will it now include the date of conception in select states so that fetuses may be counted? There is the potential to unfairly skew census data and disproportionately apportion representatives and resources to those states.
“These questions highlight the unintended and potentially absurd consequences of sweeping abortion bans. At the heart of the issue is how the 14th Amendment’s definitions of personhood and citizenship should be applied. States have been allowed to define the personhood of unnatural creatures — such as corporations — since very early in our nation’s history. In exchange for this freedom, states are not permitted to go back on their deal. In other words, once personhood rights are granted, a state may not deny life, liberty or property without due process, nor may a state deny equal protection under the law. States have never had the right to define the personhood of people. This was a subject — influenced either by place of birth or by complying with immigration and naturalization requirements — for the Constitution and federal law. State grants of natural personhood challenge this norm.
“When states define natural personhood with the goal of overturning Roe v. Wade , they are inadvertently creating a system with two-tiered fetal citizenship. This is because Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey create a federal floor for access to the right to choose — a rule that some ability to abort a fetus exists in the United States. If these cases are overturned, that eliminates only the federal right to abortion access. Overturning Roe would not prohibit a state from continuing to allow access. In a post-Roe world, in states like New York that ensure the right to choose through their constitutions and statutes, citizenship will begin at birth. In states that move the line to define life as beginning as early as conception, personhood and citizenship will begin as soon as a woman knows she is pregnant.
“Trying to define citizenship and personhood based on the laws of each state creates some far-fetched and even ridiculous scenarios. If we follow that logic, we’ll tie our Constitution into a knot no court can untangle.”
That so any GOPTP-controlled state legislatures are trying to overturn Roe v. Wade with short-sided and not thought-through legislation, it would seem that all of them would be declared un-constitutional by most any court. That Trump has put 2 ultra-conservative justices on the SCOTUS, in the belief that they will provide the majority needed to overturn Roe v. Wade PLUS protect him from any constitutionally allowed investigations into his fitness for office, his illegal business dealings and his blatant obstruction of justice, will be the only saving of these latest attacks on women and their rights to control their own bodily functions.
Finally, I would invite anyone who claims to be a Christian to read the following Scripture passage:
Numbers: 5; 11-29 (NIV), “The test of the unfaithful wife;” then tell me that God DOESN’T condone any abortion, no matter how the child was conceived. In fact, in this passage, God would be CAUSING the death of an unborn child.
Also, why was Moses told NOT to count children, under the age of 1 month, as part of his census of the Hebrews leaving Egypt? All the male Levites a month old or more numbered 23,000. They were not counted along with the other Israelites because they received no inheritance among them.
https://biblehub.com/numbers/26-62.htm
And, why did Israelites NOT consider a child to be an individual until AFTER its birth?
In Jewish law, although the human soul exists before birth, human life begins at birth, that is, at the time when the child is more than halfway emerged from the mother's body.
http://www.jewfaq.org/m/birth.htm
Finally, why is it that we don’t stop sending so much aide to Israel like we do with other countries? Israel allows “abortion-on-demand” and the state pays for it. Funny the pro-lifers and conservatives NEVER mention that.
https://m.jpost.com/Israel-News/As-abortion-fight-heats-up-in-US-termination-in-Israel-easily-accessible-589923
If a fetus is a person, it should get child support, due process and citizenship.
The logic of Alabama’s (and now, MIssouri’s) abortion law should permit you to claim a fetus on your taxes and collect insurance if you miscarry.
By Carliss Chatman
Carliss Chatman, an assistant professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law, studies corporate personhood, corporate governance and ethics, among other legal topics.
Washington Post; May 17 at 3:11 PM
“Alabama has joined the growing number of states determined to overturn Roe v. Wade by banning abortion from conception forward. The Alabama Human Life Protection Act, as the new statute is called, subjects a doctor who performs an abortion to as many as 99 years in prison. The law, enacted Wednesday, has no exceptions for rape or incest. It redefines an “unborn child, child or person” as “a human being, specifically including an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability.”
We ought to take our laws seriously. Under the laws, people have all sorts of rights and protections. When a state grants full personhood to a fetus, should they not apply equally?
“For example, should child support start at conception? Every state permits the custodial parent — who has primary physical custody of the child and is primarily responsible for his or her day-to-day care — to receive child support from the noncustodial parent. Since a fetus resides in its mother, and receives all nutrition and care from its mother’s body, the mother should be eligible for child support as soon as the fetus is declared a person — at conception in Alabama, at six weeks in states that declare personhood at a fetal heartbeat, at eight weeks in Missouri, which was on the way to passing its law on Friday, but at birth in states that have not banned abortion.
“And, what about deportation? Can a pregnant immigrant who conceived her child in the United States be expelled? Because doing so would require deporting a U.S. citizen. To determine the citizenship of a fetal person requires examination of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, which declares, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The word “born” was not defined by the drafters. Presumably, they intended the standard dictionary definition: brought forth by birth. Our dates of birth are traditionally when our lives begin; we do not celebrate our dates of conception or the date of our sixth week in utero. But in states with abortion bans, “born” takes on new meaning. Now legislatures assign an arbitrary time during gestation to indicate when life, personhood and, presumably, the rights that accompany these statuses take hold. This grant of natural personhood at a point before birth brings application of the 14th Amendment into question and may thus give a fetus citizenship rights — but only in those states. There are no laws that allow the United States to deny citizenship rights to a natural-born citizen merely because they reside with, or in, a noncitizen.
“Detaining any person without arraignment or trial violates the Constitution and international human rights laws. A fetus has not committed a crime, not been arraigned or charged, not weathered a trial by a jury of its peers, not had the opportunity to confront its accuser. These laws redefining personhood surely mean that a pregnant woman cannot be incarcerated, as doing so requires confining a second person without due process.
“If personhood begins in utero, a fetus will need a name and a Social Security number to begin exercising private rights and using public resources. A Social Security number is necessary to claim a child on taxes. It is also a requirement to act on behalf of a child privately, like opening a bank account, buying savings bonds or obtaining insurance coverage. Typically, parents apply for a Social Security number when they obtain a birth certificate, but if states declare that personhood begins at some earlier arbitrary point in time, they will need to provide evidence, perhaps through a life certificate, that this new person exists and resides in their state. Once the life is established, can a mother insure a six-week fetus and collect if she miscarries? Will the tax code be adjusted in these states to allow parents to claim their unborn children as dependents at conception? If so, can a woman who suffers more than one miscarriage in a fiscal year claim all of her children?
“How does the Alabama law effect the laws of the other states? Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution requires a census every 10 years to count all persons residing within the United States. If a fetus is granted personhood, it should be included in the count. The census currently asks about the age and date of birth of each household resident. Will it now include the date of conception in select states so that fetuses may be counted? There is the potential to unfairly skew census data and disproportionately apportion representatives and resources to those states.
“These questions highlight the unintended and potentially absurd consequences of sweeping abortion bans. At the heart of the issue is how the 14th Amendment’s definitions of personhood and citizenship should be applied. States have been allowed to define the personhood of unnatural creatures — such as corporations — since very early in our nation’s history. In exchange for this freedom, states are not permitted to go back on their deal. In other words, once personhood rights are granted, a state may not deny life, liberty or property without due process, nor may a state deny equal protection under the law. States have never had the right to define the personhood of people. This was a subject — influenced either by place of birth or by complying with immigration and naturalization requirements — for the Constitution and federal law. State grants of natural personhood challenge this norm.
“When states define natural personhood with the goal of overturning Roe v. Wade , they are inadvertently creating a system with two-tiered fetal citizenship. This is because Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey create a federal floor for access to the right to choose — a rule that some ability to abort a fetus exists in the United States. If these cases are overturned, that eliminates only the federal right to abortion access. Overturning Roe would not prohibit a state from continuing to allow access. In a post-Roe world, in states like New York that ensure the right to choose through their constitutions and statutes, citizenship will begin at birth. In states that move the line to define life as beginning as early as conception, personhood and citizenship will begin as soon as a woman knows she is pregnant.
“Trying to define citizenship and personhood based on the laws of each state creates some far-fetched and even ridiculous scenarios. If we follow that logic, we’ll tie our Constitution into a knot no court can untangle.”
That so any GOPTP-controlled state legislatures are trying to overturn Roe v. Wade with short-sided and not thought-through legislation, it would seem that all of them would be declared un-constitutional by most any court. That Trump has put 2 ultra-conservative justices on the SCOTUS, in the belief that they will provide the majority needed to overturn Roe v. Wade PLUS protect him from any constitutionally allowed investigations into his fitness for office, his illegal business dealings and his blatant obstruction of justice, will be the only saving of these latest attacks on women and their rights to control their own bodily functions.
Finally, I would invite anyone who claims to be a Christian to read the following Scripture passage:
Numbers: 5; 11-29 (NIV), “The test of the unfaithful wife;” then tell me that God DOESN’T condone any abortion, no matter how the child was conceived. In fact, in this passage, God would be CAUSING the death of an unborn child.
Also, why was Moses told NOT to count children, under the age of 1 month, as part of his census of the Hebrews leaving Egypt? All the male Levites a month old or more numbered 23,000. They were not counted along with the other Israelites because they received no inheritance among them.
https://biblehub.com/numbers/26-62.htm
And, why did Israelites NOT consider a child to be an individual until AFTER its birth?
In Jewish law, although the human soul exists before birth, human life begins at birth, that is, at the time when the child is more than halfway emerged from the mother's body.
http://www.jewfaq.org/m/birth.htm
Finally, why is it that we don’t stop sending so much aide to Israel like we do with other countries? Israel allows “abortion-on-demand” and the state pays for it. Funny the pro-lifers and conservatives NEVER mention that.
https://m.jpost.com/Israel-News/As-abortion-fight-heats-up-in-US-termination-in-Israel-easily-accessible-589923
May 18, 2019 16:28:25 #
alabuck wrote:
This is an interesting article I read today. Warni... (show quote)
" If a fetus is a person, it should get child support, due process and citizenship. "
Okay.
May 18, 2019 17:55:17 #
alabuck wrote:
This is an interesting article I read today. Warni... (show quote)
Israel’s stand on abortion has nothing to do with our purpose in supporting them.
WE need abortion laws. Roe vs Wade was fiction. We, as a nation, did all right before that nonsense.
May 18, 2019 20:51:43 #
alabuck wrote:
This is an interesting article I read today. Warni... (show quote)
All of these proposed legal issues are ridiculous! There is no need to focus on them when the unborn child is being supported by its mother as a regular course of events. And there may even be support of the father too! The declaration of the fetus as person should be stated to only apply in the case of abortion . . . and to ONLY APPLY TO THAT INSTANCE!!! All States involved in these new bills/laws would be wise to take these possible issues serious and word their new bill/law accordingly! These issues were not a problem before Roe-v-Wade and should not be one now!!!
That being said, every step should be taken, by every State of the Union, to initiate a Bill such as has been done in Alabama . . . all life is precious!!!
May 18, 2019 21:33:29 #
Carol Kelly wrote:
Israel’s stand on abortion has nothing to do with our purpose in supporting them.
WE need abortion laws. Roe vs Wade was fiction. We, as a nation, did all right before that nonsense.
WE need abortion laws. Roe vs Wade was fiction. We, as a nation, did all right before that nonsense.
___________________
I take it then, you’ve never heard of the “Helms amendment,” that was passed in 1973 or the “Mexico City policy,” sometimes referred to as the “world gag rule,” initiated by the Reagan administration, in 1984. Both restricted US foreign aid going to countries that allowed abortions for their citizens.
One of Donald Trump's first acts as President was a, Jan. 23, 2017, executive order that cuts off U.S. support to foreign groups unless they promise not to "perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning." This includes providing patients with referrals or information about the procedure, even if those activities are funded by non-U.S. government sources.
Every Republican president since Ronald Reagan has adopted a variant of the "Mexico City policy" — so called after the city where it was first announced. And every Democratic successor has reversed it.
But Trump's version is far more sweeping. Rather than limiting the ban to U.S. aid for family planning services, Trump has for the first time applied it to aid for virtually all global health services, including HIV treatment and prevention. Meaning if any health service also provides information on abortion, it can't get U.S. funding. As previously reported by the media, some of the world's largest charities providing health care for people in poor countries have deemed the terms ethically or logistically unacceptable — critics often refer to the policy as "the global gag rule." As a result, these groups have already given up millions of dollars in U.S. funding and begun cutting back on services.
Can you not see the hypocrisy of Trumpet’s action? He treats Israel like its our 51st state. Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II. The United States and Israel signed an agreement in September 2016 to give Israel $38 billion in military assistance over the next decade, the largest such aid package in U.S. history but one that included concessions by Israel's government. The annual funding Israel receives from the United States may be increased by $200 million in 2019, according to President Donald Trump’s fiscal year budget request. Israel is expected to receive $3.3 billion in 2019.
The additional $200 million in requested funds are the result of a $38 billion 10-year memorandum of understanding signed between Israel and the United States at the end of President Barack Obama’s term in office. The additional proposed funds are being apportioned to provide “assistance to bolster Israel’s capacity to defend itself and maintain its qualitative military edge.
I’m all in favor of Israel being our ally and of our helping to protect her but, if we’re going to restrict our foreign aid to a country based on their relationship to abortion, we should treat ALL of our aid recipients the same.
May 19, 2019 11:00:10 #
Carol Kelly wrote:
Roe vs Wade was fiction. We, as a nation, did all right before that nonsense.
You mean apart from all the women dying through back alley abortions? Sure, we were doing just fine.
May 19, 2019 20:20:23 #
alabuck wrote:
This is an interesting article I read today. Warni... (show quote)
"If a fetus is a person, it should get child support, due process and citizenship.
The logic of Alabama’s (and now, MIssouri’s) abortion law should permit you to claim a fetus on your taxes and collect insurance if you miscarry."
1) Child support. Certainly. There is a cost to carrying a child and if absentee father's are expected to shoulder some of the costs of a child, why not some of the costs for an unborn child?
2) I can't think of anyone more dependent than an unborn child. Yes they should be able to be claimed as a dependent.
3) You only collect insurance on your kids IF you have bought an insurance policy on them. Life insurance is not provided by our government!
May 19, 2019 20:29:40 #
alabuck wrote:
___________________ br br I take it then, you’ve ... (show quote)
Hmm. Israel, our ally, $38 billion over the next decade. Iran, our sworn enemy, $150 billion at one fell swoop. Definitely something wrong with this picture!!!!
May 19, 2019 20:35:16 #
kemmer wrote:
You mean apart from all the women dying through back alley abortions? Sure, we were doing just fine.
Why did women take the risk of "back alley" abortions? Because it was ruinous for a woman to be discovered to have extramarital sex let alone have a child out of wedlock; and birth control was illegal. A woman could not even say no to sex with her husband. Putting the child up for adoption would not prevent her from being "ruined" Such is no longer the case. Not only is birth control available to all, if you don't want a child you can easily place it for adoption.
That excuse just won't fly!
May 19, 2019 20:48:25 #
May 19, 2019 21:08:32 #
May 19, 2019 22:00:02 #
JoyV wrote:
So point out the errors in my response,
If women today thought a mistake pregnancy was no big deal and after 9 months of pregnancy they could always get shed of the baby through adoption and nobody gave it a second thought, is the way public opinion stands today, you might be right. That’s not the case.
May 19, 2019 23:05:20 #
kemmer wrote:
If women today thought a mistake pregnancy was no big deal and after 9 months of pregnancy they could always get shed of the baby through adoption and nobody gave it a second thought, is the way public opinion stands today, you might be right. That’s not the case.
I never said it was no big deal. But it isn't the life destroying disaster it once was. Not to mention prevention of pregnancy is easily accomplished. If you don't want a baby, be responsible in your behavior. Either abstain or use birth control. If you choose to have a baby and change your mind after you are pregnant (this is true for all abortion cases except rape), instead of killing the baby put it up for adoption. There are many people wanting to adopt on long waiting lists. If you drive a car after dark and don't turn your lights on, try telling the cop who stops you that you didn't choose to drive without lights, you just never chose to turn them on. So driving without lights just happened. It wasn't your choice.
So how can getting shed of an unwanted baby through adoption be worse than getting shed of an unwanted baby through ending its life by aborting it?
May 19, 2019 23:53:00 #
JoyV wrote:
So point out the errors in my response,
You are ignoring the family. Even today, some families will not accept an out-of-wedlock child.
May 20, 2019 00:47:14 #
JoyV wrote:
So how can getting shed of an unwanted baby through adoption be worse than getting shed of an unwanted baby through ending its life by aborting it?
Not everyone considers a non-viable, partially formed fetus a baby.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.