[N_Fiddledog]

If that won't help maybe the Washington Post can explain it. I'll line-out the Alabama sections so less discerning readers (Hi Beave ) can understand it's not the same bill as the Georgia one:

Women in Alabama and Georgia will not be criminalized

$1:

Unlike other states — which have passed limited abortion bills such as bans on the types of abortion procedure and gestational age of the fetus — Alabama’s proposed bill is an all-out ban on abortion.

“This bill is very simple,” said Collins. “It’s not about birth control or the morning after the pill. It’s about not allowing abortion once the woman is pregnant. The entire bill was designed to overturn [Roe v. Wade] and allow states to decide what is best for them.”

However, the bill explicitly states that women are exempt from criminal and civil liability, a tenet that Alabama lawmakers have repeatedly reinforced.

“In my bill, women would not under any circumstances face jail time if they got an abortion,” Collins said. Instead, the law targets doctors, who can be prosecuted for performing an abortion, a felony punishable by up to 99 years imprisonment.

Carol Sanger, professor at Columbia Law School, said such penalties on doctors were “just another way to make women frightened” and create “more disincentives for physicians and residents to take up this practice.”

The Georgia law is more complex.

Like Alabama, it explicitly states that doctors who perform abortions will be prosecuted. It is clear about those penalties. The bill is more vague about the prosecution (or non-prosecution) of women.

On Tuesday, Slate published an article with a not-entirely-accurate headline: “Georgia just criminalized abortion. Women who terminate their pregnancies would receive life in prison.”

It suggested that under the Georgia law, women who terminate their pregnancies would be prosecuted and sentenced to either life in prison or death.

That is incorrect.

“The news headlines and social media headlines that speculate about the bills’ unintended consequences are – at the very least – not productive. At most, they’re harmful,” Planned Parenthood’s Staci Fox told The Post on Friday.

HB 481 could not be used to successfully prosecute women, she argued. But if a woman had a miscarriage, she could be pulled into an investigation looking at whether someone performed an illegal abortion on her.

“You don’t want a woman to be forced to prove how she lost her baby,” said Sanger.

Georgia’s law does not unequivocally say that women are exempt, but legal experts point to other areas of Georgia’s penal code which have specific defenses for women, including those who miscarry.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2 ... 68880cbacb

[BartSimpson]

Tricks Tricks:

I think the difference is we're saying that we shouldn't have any input on what women can do with their bodies.

Unless we're talking about forcing those ignorant bitches to get their vaccinations. That kind of force makes perfect sense, right?

[Tricks]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Tricks Tricks:

I think the difference is we're saying that we shouldn't have any input on what women can do with their bodies.

Unless we're talking about forcing those ignorant bitches to get their vaccinations. That kind of force makes perfect sense, right?

Yes, because it affects the public as a whole. And it's also not singling out women, it's all people. Did you go to the university of logical fallacies?

How about this, women can't have abortions but every man has to get a vasectomy when they hit puberty, if they want kids later, get it undone. If we're going to force shit onto people based on their sex that is.

[raydan]

Tricks Tricks:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Tricks Tricks:

I think the difference is we're saying that we shouldn't have any input on what women can do with their bodies.

Unless we're talking about forcing those ignorant bitches to get their vaccinations. That kind of force makes perfect sense, right?

Yes, because it affects the public as a whole. And it's also not singling out women, it's all people. Did you go to the university of logical fallacies?

How about this, women can't have abortions but every man has to get a vasectomy when they hit puberty, if they want kids later, get it undone. If we're going to force shit onto people based on their sex that is.

A few of them should get that other operation when they hit puberty... I think they call it castration.

[Thanos]

1) set up a gig running discount RU486 meds to right-wing American states - you'd be rich in a heartbeat and the pseudo-Christian righties would be as pissed off at you as much as they were at those who ran the underground railroad that rescued slaves from the South

2) make a law forcing the sperm donor to be financially liable for half the child's expenses, with prison time & lifelong loss of voting/gun ownership privileges for those who run away or go deadbeat - I'm 100% sure it would have the full support of the entire GOP

[BartSimpson]

Tricks Tricks:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Tricks Tricks:

I think the difference is we're saying that we shouldn't have any input on what women can do with their bodies.

Unless we're talking about forcing those ignorant bitches to get their vaccinations. That kind of force makes perfect sense, right?

Yes, because it affects the public as a whole. And it's also not singling out women, it's all people. Did you go to the university of logical fallacies?

How about this, women can't have abortions but every man has to get a vasectomy when they hit puberty, if they want kids later, get it undone. If we're going to force shit onto people based on their sex that is.

My comment went to the heart of your assertion that we shouldn't have any input on what women can do with their bodies.

If we're not supposed to tell them what to do with their bodies then is that an all inclusive liberty or a limited liberty?

You made clear that it is a limited liberty and that it's okay to tell women what to do with their bodies when it suits you to do so.

Arguing a 'collective interest' like you did can also be applied to abortion and birth control.

Why? Because in the US we now have a declining birthrate. So we have a collective interest in having more babies and we have a collective interest in not aborting them.

So where we've established that collective interests trump individual rights then there we are.

[raydan]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Why? Because in the US we now have a declining birthrate. So we have a collective interest in having more babies and we have a collective interest in not aborting them.

And you're trying to stop illegals getting in, even kicking out the illegals already in, where's the logic in that?

[BartSimpson]

raydan raydan:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Why? Because in the US we now have a declining birthrate. So we have a collective interest in having more babies and we have a collective interest in not aborting them.

And you're trying to stop illegals getting in, even kicking out the illegals already in, where's the logic in that?

We'd be happy to keep their babies.

[BeaverFever]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

raydan raydan:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Why? Because in the US we now have a declining birthrate. So we have a collective interest in having more babies and we have a collective interest in not aborting them.

And you're trying to stop illegals getting in, even kicking out the illegals already in, where's the logic in that?

We'd be happy to keep their babies.

....in cages, apparently...

[BeaverFever]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

My comment went to the heart of your assertion that we shouldn't have any input on what women can do with their bodies.

If we're not supposed to tell them what to do with their bodies then is that an all inclusive liberty or a limited liberty?

You made clear that it is a limited liberty and that it's okay to tell women what to do with their bodies when it suits you to do so.

Arguing a 'collective interest' like you did can also be applied to abortion and birth control.

Why? Because in the US we now have a declining birthrate. So we have a collective interest in having more babies and we have a collective interest in not aborting them.

So where we've established that collective interests trump individual rights then there we are.

Republican logic: requiring kids to be vaccinated to attend public schools is equivalent to forcing a sexually abused child to haver her rapist’s baby

Republican logic: requiring unvaccinated kids to be homeschooled is equivalent to imprisoning doctors for life, several times longer than the child-molester who impregnated their patient.

[Thanos]

Pretty sure that most of the righties are as anti-vax as they are "pro-life". The conspiracist nuttery rife in their entire spectrum of beliefs. And call them "beliefs" only, not thoughts or philosophy. Ideology & belief are based only on emotion and certainly not anything factual, logical, reasonable, or rational.

[raydan]

Emotion and religion... I'm pretty sure that a lot of people are anti-abortion because of religious beliefs... doesn't necessarily make them righties, though.

Probably the same thing for Flat-earth believers, "marriage should be between a man and a woman" people, and the earth was created 10,000 years ago crazies.

[BeaverFever]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

If that won't help maybe the Washington Post can explain it. I'll line-out the Alabama sections so less discerning readers (Hi Beave ) can understand it's not the same bill as the Georgia one:

Women in Alabama and Georgia will not be criminalized

$1:

Unlike other states — which have passed limited abortion bills such as bans on the types of abortion procedure and gestational age of the fetus — Alabama’s proposed bill is an all-out ban on abortion.

“This bill is very simple,” said Collins. “It’s not about birth control or the morning after the pill. It’s about not allowing abortion once the woman is pregnant. The entire bill was designed to overturn [Roe v. Wade] and allow states to decide what is best for them.”

However, the bill explicitly states that women are exempt from criminal and civil liability, a tenet that Alabama lawmakers have repeatedly reinforced.

“In my bill, women would not under any circumstances face jail time if they got an abortion,” Collins said. Instead, the law targets doctors, who can be prosecuted for performing an abortion, a felony punishable by up to 99 years imprisonment.

Carol Sanger, professor at Columbia Law School, said such penalties on doctors were “just another way to make women frightened” and create “more disincentives for physicians and residents to take up this practice.”

The Georgia law is more complex.

Like Alabama, it explicitly states that doctors who perform abortions will be prosecuted. It is clear about those penalties. The bill is more vague about the prosecution (or non-prosecution) of women.

On Tuesday, Slate published an article with a not-entirely-accurate headline: “Georgia just criminalized abortion. Women who terminate their pregnancies would receive life in prison.”

It suggested that under the Georgia law, women who terminate their pregnancies would be prosecuted and sentenced to either life in prison or death.

That is incorrect.

“The news headlines and social media headlines that speculate about the bills’ unintended consequences are – at the very least – not productive. At most, they’re harmful,” Planned Parenthood’s Staci Fox told The Post on Friday.

HB 481 could not be used to successfully prosecute women, she argued. But if a woman had a miscarriage, she could be pulled into an investigation looking at whether someone performed an illegal abortion on her.

“You don’t want a woman to be forced to prove how she lost her baby,” said Sanger.

Georgia’s law does not unequivocally say that women are exempt, but legal experts point to other areas of Georgia’s penal code which have specific defenses for women, including those who miscarry.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2 ... 68880cbacb

I don’t know how it can be spelled out for you any clearer:

The old abortion laws specifically exempted women from prosecution. This one doesn’t. Why do you think that is? The Republicans were busy and just forgot? The printer ran out of ink when it got to thay part?

They omitted it on purpose, either to leave the possibility open or to scare women into think it might happen, or both.

GET IT???

It’s great that Planned Parenthood and others don’t think the Republicans would be successful if they tried, and don’t want women scared away. I really hope they’re right. But that’s bot the same thing as saying women are exempt from the law now is it? Speculating that Republicans will fail uf they try is not the same thing as saying the law doesn’t allow it. We all know the Republicans are zealous enough to try- this whole law is a perfect example- and we all know how US “Justice” system favours prosecutors, especially when the defendants are black and/or low income as those needing these services often are.

[raydan]

Question... just curious

In these states that would make abortions illegal and if a woman gets an abortion... who would be breaking the law, the woman, the person aborting her or both?

Because if the woman is not breaking the law, she can just go elsewhere, out of state or out of country.

[BeaverFever]

raydan raydan:

Question... just curious

In these states that would make abortions illegal and if a woman gets an abortion... who would be breaking the law, the woman, the person aborting her or both?

Because if the woman is not breaking the law, she can just go elsewhere, out of state or out of country.

Ostensibly just the doctor although Georgia may have left themselves an opening to go after the mother or others by declaring fetuses to be people with independent rights.