The Word "Killing" (was Re: regret)

[Mae Kuykendall]

On "pregnant person" versus "pregnant woman," it's my view that Gedulgig
cannot alter the neutral baseline.  Gedulgig can be partly explained by
the Court's reluctance to order the government to expend money, and note
that Congress corrected the result.  Give the Court credit when it
attempts neutrality!

I suppose one could say I'm not being neutral, because I have a
purpose, to wit:  I prefer not to emphasize gender, because the legal
treatment of the circumstance of pregnancy implicates certain persons
(in nature, "women") in their capacity as legal "persons."  In that
preference, I share the Court's strong endorsement of women's status as
persons under the Constitution.  Since we all know that pregnant people
are women, the matter needing reinforcement is that they are persons
under the Constitution, not that they are women.  I don't believe that
usage foreordains any result, but it firmly situates us in
constitutional terminology.

Respectfully,

Mae Kuykendall

>>> "Lynne Henderson" <hendersl at ix.netcom.com> 4/24/2007 1:13 PM >>>
RE: The Word "Killing" (was Re: regret)Actually, I have criticized the
*Roe* Court's use of the term  a long time ago (*Legality and Empathy,
85 Mich. L. rev.)  I noted that the rhetoric implied only an evil mother
would kill her child.  Thus, telling a woman she is killin gher child is
cruel.  I don't think that's what Justice Blackmun meant, however.  

"Mother" tends to be associated with a role towards a born child,
although I suppose a pregnant woman could be termed "a mother" (or
"potential mother")

 I think Prof. Cohen's post on the term is very accurate:  A woman
seeking to  end an unwanted pregnancy  has chosen not  to be a mother
(at that time at least).  A  woman who wanted the child but has ot have
an abortion for health reasons or because the fetus/unborn child is
severely deformed or even dead is heartbroken because she won' tbe a
mother (One of my friends had the latter experience, she was referred to
an abortion clinic because they are the safest for the procedure, and
she had to run a gantlet of protesters which made the experience even
worse--she has thankfully had two healthy children since)

I prefer pregant woman since, as has been pointed out, the "pregnant
persons" gets you into the unreality of *Geduldig*.
 
   As for the distinction between first trimester and second trimester
abortions (yes, e do need those divisions--*Roe* wasn't wrong on that in
terms of the procedures, concerns, and reasons) Prof. Johnsen is
correct--particularly now tha twomen in many states have to go through
waiting periods and travel long distances, and have to raise money if
they are poor, they may be in the second trimester by the time the
abortion is performed.
  
 Of course, during oral argument in *Roe,* one Justice asked  which
life counsel would choose--"the innocent one or what" implying I guess
all women are guilty and if they want or need an abortion, they are
morally irresponsible and can be told by the State that they are under a
broad reading of *Carhart II* and *Casey*.  (and assuming that children
are innocent or not born into Original Sin or whath have you)
All this  leaves me convinced that the woman should be the one to make
the decision whether or not to have a child and concerned about the
government telling her under what circumstances and what conditions she
may or may not make that decision a reality.
Respectfully,
Lynne Henderson
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Scaperlanda, Michael A. 
  To: Johnsen, Dawn Elizabeth ; Trevor Morrison ; Jonathan H. Adler ;
conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 9:25 AM
  Subject: RE: The Word "Killing" (was Re: regret)




  We are talking about second and third trimester abortions because
that is what the Supreme Court was addressing in Carhart II.  If
referring to the woman as "mother" is disrespectful, put that on the Roe
Court, not me.  Is the Roe Court's motive "cruel and disrespectful?  How
do you know? 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  From: Johnsen, Dawn Elizabeth [mailto:djohnsen at indiana.edu]
  Sent: Tue 4/24/2007 9:59 AM
  To: Scaperlanda, Michael A.; Trevor Morrison; Jonathan H. Adler;
conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu 
  Subject: RE: The Word "Killing" (was Re: regret)


  At the risk of stating the obvious (but I feel it merits a reminder):
 9 out of 10 abortions take place in the first trimester (and virtually
none in the "eight or nearly ninth month"--so what is the point of that
reference?); people feel very differently about abortion--including
whether an abortion at, for eg, 6 weeks is a "tragedy"--and that is an
essential point of leaving the decision to the individual (for many
people it depends on the timing and circumstances); and whatever one's
moral view of abortion, many (appropriately in my view) share the the
goal of "safe, legal and less frequent" (I think "rare" is unrealistic)
through comprehensive and accurate sex education programs, contraceptive
availability, programs that support healthy pregnancy and childbearing
(health care, living wage, etc.).  Telling a woman who has a first
trimester abortion that she was a "mother" and has killed her unborn
child in my view is cruel and  disrespectful, and the motive behind such
language is obvious. 

  Dawn Johnsen

  ________________________________