Ok, I know we've had endless debate on the existence of judges trying to make law by interpreting laws in different ways. Lots of you think judges, by definition, can't be activist because they are simply interpreting the laws. What do you think about the virginia illegal abortion case, where it was ruled that the mother was exempt from the illegal abortion laws?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/story?id=2585102&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

Quote :

"But Skinner's defense lawyer, Kevin Martingayle, argued that the law did not make it a crime for a mother to cause her own abortion. Ultimately, that argument convinced Circuit Court Judge W. R. Carter."

The striking part of the ruling is the specific statute the judge ruled exempted the mother from this law.

Quote :

"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 [to] 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. "

The defense attorney cited several other cases where the mother was acquitted of charges, but none were in Virginia. The judge should have ruled based only on the Virginia statute and whether or not "any person" actually means "any person" or it REALLY MEANS "any person besides the mother"


I would like your opinions on whether this judge did his job correctly or if he went out of bounds and incorrectly interpreted this law. Your personal feelings on abortion should not be disregarded. If you think what she did OUGHT to be legal, that's fine too, but do you think that "any person" really has a meaning different than its most obvious, common, and indeed proper usage?

10/20/2006 5:41:00 PM

No one has an opinion on this?

10/20/2006 7:49:14 PM

um

any judge that rules in an abortion case is an activist judge?

10/20/2006 8:30:55 PM

Quote :

""It's a joke that the Right wing claims it is against 'judicial activists.' What they want are judicial activists who agree with them." - Molly Ivins"

10/20/2006 9:21:28 PM

Any judge that rules that "any person" clearly doesn't mean "any person" is being an activist judge. The fact that this is an "abortion" case is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

10/21/2006 12:00:22 PM

this may sound cruel and insensitive because it is.

I dont care. The woman was unfit to parent and her boyfriend was scum of the earth. If she was desperate enough to shoot herself she has already suffered enough. This case is a complete waste of resources to prosecute. She did all of us a favor by not bearing a child which she had no intention or means of parenting.

10/21/2006 12:48:04 PM

Well, what's the difference in your justification between shooting the unborn (barely) and the 2 she already had. She was unfit to raise them as well. Should we not care if she offs them?

10/21/2006 4:20:15 PM

Quote :

"unborn"

=/=

Quote :

"2 she already had"

10/21/2006 4:30:58 PM

Quote :

"The woman was unfit to parent and her boyfriend was scum of the earth. If she was desperate enough to shoot herself she has already suffered enough. This case is a complete waste of resources to prosecute. She did all of us a favor by not bearing continuing to parent a child which she had no intention or means of parenting. "

only difference. All your other points remain regardless of whether or not she waited another 2 hours to shoot herself in the stomach.

10/21/2006 4:33:21 PM

What's the difference between hiring a professional and doing it yourself? It's the same result.

I don't think what she did is defendable, but I don't know how she could possibly be punished more than she already has been.

[Edited on October 23, 2006 at 8:29 AM. Reason : ?]

10/23/2006 8:26:57 AM

Well, I'm not saying that she specifically deserves to be punished more or anything, but what I'm asking is "Do you REALLY think the statute "any person" clearly means "any person excluding the mother"

Why is that such a hard question for people on here to answer?
You can love abortion and think she should be allowed to do this and that they need to change the law to specifically exempt the mother, but answer whether or not the statute, as it stands, should be interpreted the way this judge did so...

10/23/2006 8:49:14 AM

I am saying as long as there are potholes in the road I do not want my tax dollars wasted punishing some lady for shooting herself in the gut.

Anyone who shoots themself is already suffering more pain than the criminal justice system can inflict.

10/23/2006 11:40:17 AM

So like, answering the question is too difficult?

10/23/2006 12:31:57 PM

or like, you're an idiot

He's just saying that this case couldn't be much less important to most people.

10/23/2006 4:18:19 PM

right, so I asked a direct question and got a "who really cares if this judge abuses his position, this case doesn't mean anything to me"

And then the butterfly effect of this court decision on ALL self-induced abortions in the state of Virginia passes into history without anyone going "Wait, did that judge just say black is white?"

10/23/2006 4:47:24 PM

The judge is not abusing his position, the courts interpret the laws. If the law was not written to include the mother and the judge did not feel it was the intent of the law to include the mother then he did nothing wrong.

If the lawmakers had written the law differently it would not be an issue.

10/23/2006 5:06:20 PM

Quote :

"the principal of expectant mother immunity"

The extent to which he was interpreting the law depends upon what exactly "the principal of expectant mother immunity" is. There are many contradictory laws and caselaw that has to be considered in the proper context. Just because one law clearly says one thing, doesn't mean that something else doesn't modify or override it.

BTW, the worst activist behavior I've observed from judges is when they do the Ten Commandments stunt.

10/23/2006 5:56:23 PM

ah, you left out the important details

Quote :

"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."

Quote :

""The question we shouldn't be asking is, 'What crime did she commit?' But, 'Why didn't she have access to abortion services? Why didn't she have access to mental health services?'" Paltrow said. "When Medicaid does not fund abortion. … It is totally inappropriate to turn to the criminal justice system to respond to these problems," she said."

Quote :

""If the right to kill the child resides totally in that child's mother — which it does — why would it be illegal for her to do this with a gun as opposed to with a suction vacuum machine in a doctor's office," she told ABC News."

The court also needs to consider the intent of the legislature when they passed the bill. I'm sure the intent was as he ruled to protect the mother and her baby, not the baby from her mother.

10/23/2006 6:06:27 PM

Does anybody have a link to the decision? I think it's a bit retarded to bandstand about activist judges if you have even read the justification for the decision.

10/23/2006 6:08:20 PM

oliver wendell holmes


next question

10/23/2006 7:37:28 PM

Patman, where can I find these decisions? I will gladly read it.

I took ABC News' word for it.

10/23/2006 9:14:00 PM

Should be available from the court systems website.

Hrm, I guess there wouldn't be a formal decision since this was just the district court dropping the charges. I did read that the state has filed additional charges. It's not like she is going to get away with it. They just can't charge her under that law. She's already been convicted of filing a false police report.

It looks like the anti-abortion crowd is trying to turn this law into an anti-abortion law when it was really meant to protect mothers and their babies.

[Edited on October 23, 2006 at 11:29 PM. Reason : ?]

10/23/2006 11:16:16 PM

Patman, you know those cases you cited? I mentioned them

Quote :

"The defense attorney cited several other cases where the mother was acquitted of charges, but none were in Virginia. "

This judge doesn't get to take cases in other court systems into consideration.

Also, this law was not meant to "protect mothers and their babies" because this law is in effect even when the mother is trying to kill the baby by seeking an illegal abortion. Unless you're saying that an illegal abortion is somehow less safe to the baby than a legal one. I'd wager the opposite is true.

10/24/2006 8:19:13 AM

Quote :

"This judge doesn't get to take cases in other court systems into consideration."

I'm pretty certain they can take such cases into consideration. Such rulings aren't the law of the land, but they do have value in deciding other cases.

Quote :

"Also, this law was not meant to "protect mothers and their babies" because this law is in effect even when the mother is trying to kill the baby by seeking an illegal abortion."

Can you post the full text of the law?

10/24/2006 8:34:05 AM

Quote :

"§ 18.2-71. Producing abortion or miscarriage, etc.; penalty. Except as provided in other sections of this article, if any person administer to, or cause to be taken by a woman, any drug or other thing, or use means, with intent to destroy her unborn child, or to produce abortion or miscarriage, and thereby destroy such child, or produce such abortion or miscarriage, he shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony. "

10/24/2006 8:59:25 AM

I think our law system is full of unequal punishments. This woman doesn't need prison time, she needs psychiatric help. Her kids need a stable home. Fix the problem don't get righteous.

My personal opinion is it's a woman's choice. I don't give a gamn about your unsupportable religious statements about it killing a child. If that child is to be brought into this world you better be ready to give it all it needs.

I've seen what happens to kids that don't get what they need. Watch the news.

10/24/2006 9:01:38 AM

That was sweet. I like the high and mighty tone.

But what this thread is about is LAW, if you want to say she's not guilty by reason on insanity, I'd be all for it. But to say she's not guilty because the law exempts her, when it clearly does not, is not LAW, it is opinion being thrust upon law.

10/24/2006 9:06:18 AM

It would be more interesting see the text of the decision. I would also point out that this decision is somewhat consistent with abortion bans in other states such as South Dakota. The same people who want to criminalize abortion and hold the belief abortion is murder often exempt women from punishment
when a woman attempts to get an abortion. This position is, of course, incoherent.

10/24/2006 11:49:42 AM

Quote :

"But to say she's not guilty because the law exempts her, when it clearly does not"

This has no more meaning that saying that because it says "he shall be guilty" it doesn't apply to women. The law has to be taken as a whole, not isolated bits. And it has to be taken as its overall meaning, not its exact words. You can't cherry pick by finding individual bits that suit your agenda and ignoring the rest.

10/24/2006 12:15:32 PM

Well I think it will be helpful for us to find the decision then, because I want to be updated on the nuances that make this statute not apply to mothers.

10/24/2006 12:17:57 PM

Quote :

"Except as provided in other sections of this article"

I think that might be the deal-breaker. You posted one section of the law, but that sentence implies that there may be other things which apply. Thus, "any person" might logically mean "any person except the mother" in the context of this law.

10/25/2006 3:38:07 AM

That isn't the deal breaker. Read the other sections...there's too many to post. But none of them exempt the mother.

10/25/2006 6:59:30 AM