Jun 28, 2023·edited Jun 28, 2023Liked by Akiva Malamet, Shikha Dalmia
I agree with everything else in here (mostly), but the Burgess case in Nebraska cited here isn't the one to use as evidence of draconian measures. The Burgess abortion occurred at almost 30 weeks of pregnancy and the duo tried to burn the body and bury it in a field (burning and concealment of a body are two charges the mother pled guilty to and which they likely would have faced charges for in almost any state).
The 30 week mark and the meds they used means there's a good chance the fetus was born alive (or would have been born alive in a hospital) and would have had good outcomes if born in a hospital at that stage. That changes the game significantly - morally, legally, and from a public opinion standpoint. Since murder charges were not filed, I'm going to assume police can't find evidence the fetus/baby took a breath, but the fact that murder charges weren't filed is interesting in and of itself. Nebraska *could* have gone far more draconian on this one and chose not to. In fact, from reports I'm reading, the prosecutors are setting things up for a deal and are not even making a sentencing recommendation, which signals likely leniency.
From a legal perspective, this case could have been prosecuted in any state that I'm aware of, including my own of New York. NY only allows abortion after 24 weeks in the case of a threat to the health of the mother or a non-viable pregnancy. NY also doesn't allow self-administered abortions after that time, so whatever state you're in, the Burgess case looks prosecutable, at the very least.
And from a public opinion standpoint, these kinds of cases of late term abortions and babies being burned in fields are exactly why the public isn't hot on abortion after 24 weeks. It's also likely why the prosecutor said he had never prosecuted a case like this - while that's being used in this piece to signal a pivotal change post-Dobbs, the more likely reason is that abortion after 24 weeks is very rare and self-administered abortions at that stage are even more rare.
None of this ignores the reality that the daughter may have been pregnant at 30 weeks because she couldn't access safe and effective abortion in Nebraska sooner. These laws are a bad idea generally. But this case doesn't serve the purpose this piece wants it to.
Thanks for your comment, I really appreciate you weighing in. The inclusion of the Burgess story was driven in part by the fact that reports differ on how late the abortion was. I've seen stories that say 20 weeks, some 24, and now thanks to your input, 30. And many if not most reports didn't report the number of weeks at all, implying that they weren't a factor in the prosecution. So some of the facts of the story are uncertain, but they lead me towards thinking that the number of weeks may not have been a factor. Also, most reports only mention that the teenage Burgess was accused of burying remains, but don't verify that there were actually remains or that she was far enough along for the remains to reflect a late-term abortion. Of course, if you are right about the 30 weeks then that affects the situation significantly in terms of the prosecuteability and ethics, and certainly the optics. So I'm inclined the think the piece still has value for the overall point being made, but I concede that some of the facts are unclear, at minimum. I'm glad you agree that if it was a late-term abortion, it was likely driven by the harshness of the laws in place that make access difficult.
Some people find their existence to be no fun at all unless they can run other people's lives, and many focus on punishing people for getting rid of an unwanted blob of ectoplasm which MIGHT have become a human being. By that same logic, it should be a crime to discard sperm and unfertilized human eggs, which also MIGHT become human beings.
Then there's the idiotic "Life begins at conception" trope, which can only be voiced by those who slept through the first three weeks of basic biology. Life is a continuous process, and there are no examples to be found of it being created from dead tissue (the origin of life on earth is, of course, an open question).
https://www.npr.org/2023/03/04/1161143595/walgreens-abortion-pill-mifepristone-republican-threat-legal-action
There is also things like the GOP states that threatened to sue Walgreens, until they folded and stopped selling abortion pills in those states.
They've been really innovative in finding ways for the government to weaponize the private sphere against personal freedom.
I agree with everything else in here (mostly), but the Burgess case in Nebraska cited here isn't the one to use as evidence of draconian measures. The Burgess abortion occurred at almost 30 weeks of pregnancy and the duo tried to burn the body and bury it in a field (burning and concealment of a body are two charges the mother pled guilty to and which they likely would have faced charges for in almost any state).
The 30 week mark and the meds they used means there's a good chance the fetus was born alive (or would have been born alive in a hospital) and would have had good outcomes if born in a hospital at that stage. That changes the game significantly - morally, legally, and from a public opinion standpoint. Since murder charges were not filed, I'm going to assume police can't find evidence the fetus/baby took a breath, but the fact that murder charges weren't filed is interesting in and of itself. Nebraska *could* have gone far more draconian on this one and chose not to. In fact, from reports I'm reading, the prosecutors are setting things up for a deal and are not even making a sentencing recommendation, which signals likely leniency.
From a legal perspective, this case could have been prosecuted in any state that I'm aware of, including my own of New York. NY only allows abortion after 24 weeks in the case of a threat to the health of the mother or a non-viable pregnancy. NY also doesn't allow self-administered abortions after that time, so whatever state you're in, the Burgess case looks prosecutable, at the very least.
And from a public opinion standpoint, these kinds of cases of late term abortions and babies being burned in fields are exactly why the public isn't hot on abortion after 24 weeks. It's also likely why the prosecutor said he had never prosecuted a case like this - while that's being used in this piece to signal a pivotal change post-Dobbs, the more likely reason is that abortion after 24 weeks is very rare and self-administered abortions at that stage are even more rare.
None of this ignores the reality that the daughter may have been pregnant at 30 weeks because she couldn't access safe and effective abortion in Nebraska sooner. These laws are a bad idea generally. But this case doesn't serve the purpose this piece wants it to.
Hi Lauren,
Thanks for your comment, I really appreciate you weighing in. The inclusion of the Burgess story was driven in part by the fact that reports differ on how late the abortion was. I've seen stories that say 20 weeks, some 24, and now thanks to your input, 30. And many if not most reports didn't report the number of weeks at all, implying that they weren't a factor in the prosecution. So some of the facts of the story are uncertain, but they lead me towards thinking that the number of weeks may not have been a factor. Also, most reports only mention that the teenage Burgess was accused of burying remains, but don't verify that there were actually remains or that she was far enough along for the remains to reflect a late-term abortion. Of course, if you are right about the 30 weeks then that affects the situation significantly in terms of the prosecuteability and ethics, and certainly the optics. So I'm inclined the think the piece still has value for the overall point being made, but I concede that some of the facts are unclear, at minimum. I'm glad you agree that if it was a late-term abortion, it was likely driven by the harshness of the laws in place that make access difficult.
Some people find their existence to be no fun at all unless they can run other people's lives, and many focus on punishing people for getting rid of an unwanted blob of ectoplasm which MIGHT have become a human being. By that same logic, it should be a crime to discard sperm and unfertilized human eggs, which also MIGHT become human beings.
Then there's the idiotic "Life begins at conception" trope, which can only be voiced by those who slept through the first three weeks of basic biology. Life is a continuous process, and there are no examples to be found of it being created from dead tissue (the origin of life on earth is, of course, an open question).
It seems you slept through it too. When an egg and sperm combine, the two parts of the genetic sequence are complete, creating a unique new human.