Reply #35: No flames here, but...

[huskerlaw]

from a legal standpoint, I believe the judge was correct.

In Virginia law, if an abortion is deemed illegal, Statute 18.2-71 — the hotly contested statute involved in this case — makes a criminal out of "any person administer to, or cause … any drug or other thing" with intent to destroy an unborn child.

Martingayle, the defense attorney, argued that there was nothing to contest. The meaning of the statute was crystal clear.

He said that "any person" meant anyone other than the mother, who is protected by the principal of expectant mother immunity.

Martingayle cites a 1997 Florida case in which a teenage mother shot her womb, effectively giving herself an abortion.

The woman in that case, State vs. Ashley, was acquitted, as was the mother in a similar 1998 case in Georgia.

On the other hand, the prosecution argues, that "any person" means all persons. The law applies to everyone, including a woman giving herself the abortion.

The legal question turns on the definition of the word "any". Since the Virginia court didn't have any Virginia cases that told them how "any" was legally defined, they turned to cases from Florida and Georgia, both of which said that "any" meant "anybody but the mother".

Of course now the Virginia legislature is free to more clearly define the word "any"...so that in the future it includes the mother (and I guaran-damn-tee you that they will).

Frankly, narrowing the definition to include the mother is dangerous. There's one hell of a slippery slope from there.

As for this instance, the mother was clearly at the end of her rope and instead of discussing whether or not what she did was wrong (leave that to the court, and legally it wasn't), we should be discussing WHY she did what she did...and what we can do to make sure another woman in her situation isn't forced to make the same decision.