Thread by @DSiPaint

Some comments on this case:

The premise of fetal homicide laws is something that makes abortion proponents very uneasy, since it can be seen as granting limited personhood to the unborn. Opponents see their uneasiness as an example of cognitive dissonance.

1/

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1205242193922969603

Homicide laws differ by state, but those w/ fetal homicide (a.k.a. feticide) provisions have to specifically exempt elective abortions (which are homicides, by definition) to be compliant w/ court precedent. Here is CA’s law for an example:

2/

When including secondary offenses & felonies for illegal abortions, every state except for NJ, NY, VT, have some form of homicide laws applying to the unborn. (38 states have them directly defined as fetal homicide laws.)

3/

Also, 32 states protect women from prosecution for illegal self-abortions. HI, NJ, OR, & WY, are silent on the matter. DE, NV, OK, & UT, specifically criminalize illegal self-abortions.

4/

These 2 sets of laws — depending on who is taking the action — will eventually have to be addressed, since they will inevitably come at odds w/ the 14A’s “equal protection” clause regarding a pregnant woman, her unborn child, & a third-party actor.

5/

There has been at least one case attempting to resolve this, State of Wisconsin v. Mark Benson (2012), in which the defendant tried to escape vehicular fetal homicide charges by invoking the 14A & WI’s maternal immunities. His defense failed.

6/

Several states grant limited personhood for inheritance, child support, or homicide laws. HI even grants full personhood in 3rd trimester (US v. Denoncourt, 1990).

Eventually, all of these inconsistencies will have to be addressed. That can’t be avoided much longer.

7/7

Typo in tweet 4: That should say 42 states, not 32 states.