Response to Tim Ryan:
Thanks for your feedback and giving me the chance to address your concerns.
I will clarify my proposal and will explain why those stipulations are absolutely crucial in order to simultaneously: protect the pro-life movement from unintended consequences of parts of existing laws, but also to protect women from dangerous medical malpractice and treatment delays. These unintended consequences feed Democrat narratives and undermine/sabotage the viability and longevity of state pro-life laws.
Please appreciate that my responses are based on my observations drawn from reading about almost every article/story I could find on this matter, familiarized myself with all the stories, perspectives, trends, polls and informally debated these issues with many pro-lifers and pro-choicers online.
Firstly, remember that my proposal does not stop states from imposing reasonable fines, prison sentences or suspending licenses against people who perform or provide an illegal abortion. But it’s not necessary to threaten a provider with 100 years in prison or million dollar fines in order to stop abortion (such as current Texas laws). This is overkill.
Many pro-life states have successfully stopped abortion without going to that extreme. Tell me about ONE pro-life state whose abortion bans weren’t effective in stopping illegal abortion in their state, simply because they didn’t have bounty-hunter laws or a threat of 100 year prison sentences for illegal abortions…
Therefore, calling for states to ensure that their punishments remain more reasonable, will not increase the number of illegal abortions. But it will lift much of the hesitation that some providers have had about providing LEGAL, medically necessary abortions, and soften the current fierce opposition raging against pro-life laws. This overkill, and the public outrage it has created, is a liability to the pro-life movement/state pro-life laws in place.
There are serious unintended consequences of anti-aiding-and-abetting prosecution, that outweighs any perceived benefit of it. Prosecution against the actual abortion provider is enough to stop illegal abortion. Threats against aiding-and-abetting are not only completely unnecessary to stop abortion, but it actually sabotages the perception/longevity of pro-life laws/exceptions.
There are medical providers who knowingly delay life-saving miscarriage care and life-saving abortions for women who meet the exception, because of either resentment and/or industry wide misinformation about pro-life laws. If you toss around the idea of potential 100 year prison sentences, or million dollar penalties, those same people will be even more dissuaded to go against the collective fear-mongering and honor the pro-life exceptions…
But at least the strong, personal responsibility to their direct patient relationship is enough to motivate most doctors to provide the life-saving intervention that his patient needs and qualifies for… However, what happens when he tries to rally support/assistance to prepare/perform the procedure, from other medical staffmembers who do NOT share the same direct responsibility/relationship to his patient, those who aren’t as motivated as he is to defy pressures/misinformation in order to help his patient? There are cases in which the doctor himself has determined that the woman meets the life-of-the-mother exception, but then is unable to find other staffmembers to help prepare or assist with the procedure (because they claim to be afraid about the law, especially if there are “aiding and abetting” provisions).
In Tennessee, a doctor determined that his patient’s pregnancy posed a severe risk to her life, and that she qualified for the life-of-the-mother exception. However, he needed assistance from other medical professionals to help prepare for the abortion. This article says: “To lower Hollis’ chance of bleeding, Goldberg wanted doctors to insert a special gel into the artery that supplied blood to her uterus to reduce its flow. But that department’s leadership didn’t feel comfortable participating… Next, they approached a maternal-fetal medicine specialist who a week earlier had said he would be able to provide an injection to stop the fetus from growing and decrease blood flow. But once the law went into effect, that specialist grew uneasy.”
I’m not sure if Tennessee had anti-aiding and abetting provisions, but this example supports my assertion that only the providers who are directly responsible to the patient, the ones certifying that she meets the exception and/or actually providing/performing the abortion, should be the ones prosecuted for illegal abortion. Otherwise these anti-aiding and abetting laws demand a time-delaying redundancy, in which every involved staffmember would have to independently certify the woman’s life exception status.
Facing a Life-Threatening Pregnancy Under Tennessee’s Abortion Ban — ProPublica
Family members of miscarrying women might fear driving her to get an abortion she needs, because they might fear being prosecuted for “aiding-and-abetting.”
According to the recent lawsuit filed against Texas, many providers feel too scared to even talk about abortion or discuss the patient’s options, even in times when the woman is experiencing a high risk pregnancy or carrying a child determined to be incompatible with life. This has caused even more distress and chaos for the woman and families already in crisis.
See paragraphs 42, 72, 88, 109, 111, 150, 159-160, 223 and 248.
[2023.05.22-Zurawski-v.-Texas-1st-Am.-Ver.-Pet.-FINAL.pdf](https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/2023.05.22-Zurawski-v.-Texas-1st-Am.-Ver.-Pet.-FINAL.pdf
In response to your “Broader Critiques and Potential Negative Outcomes.”
Regarding (1) your concern about “perception.” First of all, the current public perception of strict abortion bans with NO exceptions, and extreme penalties against medical providers and against those “aiding and abetting”… the public perception of existing pro-life laws like the ones in Texas, is that they are extreme, cruel, ignorant, endangering/killing women and overall super-screwed up. On the other hand, the majority of Americans do support exceptions such as rape/incest, the mother’s life and for fatal fetal abnormalities. In addition, the majority of Americans also oppose late term elective abortion. So, public perception would more likely favor the pro-woman exceptions and small pro-life concessions offered by proposal.
And it’s that public perception that has allowed abortion activists to shift polls more left and successfully pass almost every single abortion-until-birth ballot initiative, and to defeat almost every single pro-life ballot initiative, proposed across the U.S., including in red states such as Ohio and Missouri.
You predicted that “federal restrictions could provoke legal challenges and deepen political divides.” However, it’s the extreme states’ laws, and lack of enforcement against cases in which the woman was harmed, that have already “provoked” a huge onslaught of “legal challenges” and a deepened political divide… that’s why we have to do something to address that. I have summarized that crisis in the first few disclaimer paragraphs, and my letter to Trump/RFK/MAHA, preceding the content of this proposal. So that concern already happening; that’s why we have to do something to calm things down.
Regarding (2) your desire to punish women for illegal abortions performed/provided by someone else and your claim that providers would exploit this law… This concern is completely misguided. First of all, fears of prosecution has caused abortive women to delay care for the complications they experienced from out-of-state abortions, leading to their deaths. In fact, that’s what happened to those two Georgia women recently cited in the headlines. Georgia doesn’t actually prosecute women for illegal abortions. However, Democrat/pro-abortion lies/fear-mongering/threats about abortion was so effective and scary, that these two (now deceased) women delayed care for their abortion pill complications because they thought they would be prosecuted.
Democrats and abortion activists now use those stories to flood the news with headlines about pro-life laws killing women. So, just imagine how the anti-life headlines would multiply if pro-life states actually did threaten to prosecutive women for all abortions performed/provided by someone else? Not only would abortive women delay care, and risk death from complications, but women who miscarried would be in fear of being accused of an illegal abortion as well, and more women would die. And more stories and headlines of women dying because of pro-life laws will motivate more voters to support abortion-until-birth state and federal laws.
I theorize that prosecution against abortive women would actually empower abortion providers in multiple ways, and the mutual need for secrecy will make them think they are invincible and that they can continue illegal abortions for a long time. First of all, the fear of prosecution would stop abortive women from cooperating with investigations about illegal abortions. Abortion providers can use that fear against their patients to manipulate them as well. How can the abortionist get caught if his patient is too scared to tell, and her family doesn’t want her to go to jail either? … Also, have you read the traumatic abortion horror stories from abortive women on pro-life websites? Well, if abortive women know they will be prosecuted, then we will no longer hear those stories, those witness accounts of babies born alive, or about horrible the abortion pill really was.
Besides, public perception widely opposes the prosecution of women for abortions performed/provided by someone else. Women seeking abortions are often marginalized in various ways, and usually coerced by their male partner, or by their own family, or by our society. Abortion clinics often lie to women about the baby’s fetal development and manipulate them into abortion. There’s also the fact that only women can get pregnant. So, many people have a vitriolic reaction to the inequality of targeting potentially marginalized, coerced women for abortions, while simultaneously leaving the potentially exploitative/coercive man, blameless.
All in all, no law is perfect and prosecuting women for abortions performed/provided by someone else is an extremely unpractical idea that would do more to benefit the pro-abortion movement than anything else. It would endanger women’s lives, enrage the public and gift the Democrats with enough stories/headlines to blue wave every election until abortion-until-birth is passed either federally or in every state.
Regarding your desire to keep state “bounty hunter laws” in place, none of these “bounty hunter” lawsuits were successful at prosecuting for an illegal abortion, and they are currently being exploited by narcissistic, opportunistic men for money, filling courtrooms with petty, clownshow lawsuits and making discovery requests.
Anti-abortion deposition requests generate fear, not results | The Texas Tribune
In my opinion, only state authorities with access to information about potentially illegal abortion activity, as well as people representing women harmed by an unlawful abortion, should be empowered to sue or prosecute for an illegal abortion. Ordinary citizens should not have this power to sue over abortions in which they have no evidence of its’ illegality, nor should the government be incentivizing these clownshow lawsuits with bounty hunter awards.
My proposal does not set specific criteria as to what penalties, fines or prison sentences that pro-life laws should set. It would still allow states broad authority to establish REASONABLE penalties, fines or prison time to enforce their laws against illegal or fraudulent abortion providers, in a way that will be enough to deter the crime, without being over-kill/sabotaging the intent of the law.
*Also, you mentioned support for state laws restricting abortion related inter-state travel. No current pro-life law can ban someone from traveling to another state. However, two of the pro-life concessions address a similar concern… Mail order abortion pills are responsible for the rapid increase of the number of abortions. That can easily circumvent state laws. Trump should enforce the Comstock Act, which would ban the use of mailing abortion pills. Also, my proposal demands that abortion pills can only be dispensed to the patient IN PERSON, and that’s after a 48 hour post-counseling waiting period. In addition, my proposal’s call to restrict feticide for viable babies, would prevent sanctuary states from allowing late term elective abortion for viable babies.