Anna Quindlen, the Socialite/Newsweek columnist and complete proabort had a "gotcha" column several weeks ago. Quindlen: How Much Jail Time for Women Who Have Abortions? - Newsweek Anna Quindlen - MSNBC.com
The gist of her column was that prolifers had to want criminal penalties for women who've had abortions, or they weren't being consistent.
Those ancient notions undergird the refusal to confront the logical endpoint of criminalization. Lawmakers in a number of states have already passed or are considering statutes designed to outlaw abortion if Roe is overturned. But almost none hold the woman, the person who set the so-called crime in motion, accountable. Is the message that women are not to be held responsible for their actions? Or is it merely that those writing the laws understand that if women were going to jail, the vast majority of Americans would violently object? Watch the demonstrators in Libertyville try to worm their way out of the hypocrisy: It's murder, but she'll get her punishment from God. It's murder, but it depends on her state of mind. It's murder, but the penalty should be ... counseling?
>>>>>>>>>>
... But there are only two logical choices: hold women accountable for a criminal act by sending them to prison, or refuse to criminalize the act in the first place. If you can't countenance the first, you have to accept the second. You can't have it both ways.
This is a stupid, simplistic argument (something Quindlen is known for) and here are two responses to her either/or (legal or jail) approach
National Review online asked a number of "pro-life experts" their opinion. Hit the link for all of them, and we excerpt two, below the link. An NRO Symposium on Abortion & Women on National Review Online
Dorinda C. Bordlee
“How much jail time?” is a contrived question that is both deceptive and desperate. It is deceptive because it ignores the fact that the American pro-life movement has consistently considered the woman as the second victim of abortion. The abortion ban enacted in South Dakota, as well as the abortion bans with post-Roe activation clauses enacted in recently in Louisiana and several other states, explicitly state: “Nothing in this section may be construed to subject the pregnant mother upon whom any abortion is performed or attempted to any criminal conviction and penalty.”
The question “How much jail time?” is also a desperate attempt to distract the public from what they have learned about the crime against humanity known as partial-birth abortion, in which a child’s brain are suctioned out while only inches from complete birth, and about the most common methods of abortion, which involve ripping the unborn child from the womb piece by piece.
A more appropriate question is: How much jail time we should impose on abortion providers who financially benefit from the plight of women who are abandoned by those who should be caring for them and their unborn children? How much jail time is appropriate for abortionists who expose women to startling increased risks of breast cancer, problems with future pregnancies, and a three to six times increased risk of suicide? How much jail time for the destroying the lives of countless women and children?
— Dorinda C. Bordlee is executive director of the Bioethics Defense Fund.
Marjorie Dannenfelser
What an ingenious strategy from the National Institute for Reproductive Health and their friend Anna Quindlen. Only the best inside-the-Beltway political gurus could route out such a good fear and panic-tinged wedge issue. But alas, their complete cognitive dissonance when it comes to understanding abortion opponents will defeat them. They hope to prop up the stereotype of abortion opponents as harsh, uneducated, unfeeling Neanderthals who either want to punish women or who are legal idiots not willing to accept the consequences of their position.
But “Just pray for them” is exactly what will continue to emanate from the “national conversation” they seek to ignite. Compassion for mother and child will continue to dominate YouTube and any other outlet where Quindlen or her friends hope to “out” abortion opponents. My guess is that as soon as this happens the “conversation” will go mute.
The fact of the matter is that compassion for women before abortion was legal and compassion for them after unborn protections are enforced will drive the law. The focus of such laws is on protection, not punishment. Women were not punished by the legal system before 1973’s Roe v. Wade decision and there is absolutely no drive to punish her now. While the position may be counterintuitive to some, it is clearly a uniquely American case of handling a delicate and tragic situation with sensitivity.
— Marjorie Dannenfelser is the president of the Susan B. Anthony List.
Chritianity Today also presented a sensible response:
'How Much Time Should She Serve?' | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction
Gans said the primary responsibility should fall to those with the information necessary to make an educated choice. "The only advice [women with unwanted pregnancies] are being given [is from] the very people who stand to gain from our circumstances," she said. "I have heard my sisters say again and again, 'I didn't think I had any choice. I wasn't told there were any other choices I could make.'"
She believes that those who perform abortions are doing it for the money. "We know as a rule that if you approach this subject with civil remedies, abortionists get out of the business of abortion."
Would making most abortion procedures illegal cause women to seek deadly, unprofessional abortions? Almost certainly not, Earll said. "What we saw with abortion is that when it's illegal, most women don't try to have one. The law is a teacher in this."
Moreover, it's a false assumption that even legal abortions are safe, said Yoest. "Women are still at serious risk. Abortion is the most unregulated health provider industry in the country today. We don't keep good records of outcomes of abortion for women."
How many, I wonder, will read the NRO symposium responses (impressive) to Quindlan's shock and awe column? Her redredging the false "throw them in jail or else" notion is shocking, not to mention simplistic for one seemingly so intelligent. I am in awe of her ability to get away with it. When Catholics walk away from truth, they do it big time.
Posted by: Judith Anderson | September 06, 2007 at 03:56 PM
Saved as a favorite, I really like your website!
Posted by: Ezequiel | November 13, 2013 at 01:36 PM
Keep on writing, grsat job!
Posted by: repeteurwifi.fr | November 21, 2013 at 09:30 AM