Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:07:12.291Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Are All Abortions Equal? Should There Be Exceptions to the Criminalization of Abortion for Rape and Incest?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

I. Glenn Cohen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There was a moment in the 2012 campaign, when Mitt Romney attempted to “pivot” to the center and get away from the statements of those like Todd Akin who made comments about how in cases of “legitimate rape,” the victims’ bodies “have ways to try and shut that whole thing down.” The way Romney did it was to make clear that while he was against abortion, he would, of course, make an exception for women who had been raped or whose pregnancy was the result of incest. This has become something of a moderate orthodoxy to those who oppose abortion. Abortion should be criminalized, yes, but with these exceptions carved out. This shibboleth has found its way not only in the public position taken by many Pro-Life politicians, but also in legislation across several U.S. states, and even the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funding for abortion, makes an exception for these kinds of abortions

Type
Symposium
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 43 , Issue 1 , Spring 2015 , pp. 87 - 104
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Moore, L., “Rep. Todd Akin: The Statement and the Reaction,” New York Times, August 20, 2012, available at <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/us/politics/rep-todd-akin-legitimate-rape-statement-and-reaction.html> (last visited January 26, 2015).+(last+visited+January+26,+2015).>Google Scholar
Cassata, D., “Mitt Romney: Abortion Should Be Legal in Cases of Rape, Incest, Mother's Health,” Huffington Post, August 27, 2012, available at <www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27/mitt-romney-abortion_n_1834888.html> (last visited January 26, 2015). (last visited January 26, 2015).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Cassata,+D.,+“Mitt+Romney:+Abortion+Should+Be+Legal+in+Cases+of+Rape,+Incest,+Mother's+Health,”+Huffington+Post,+August+27,+2012,+available+at++(last+visited+January+26,+2015).>Google Scholar
Terkel, A., “Todd Akin's Party: More than 40 Republican Candidates Oppose Abortion in Cases of Rape, Incest,” Huffington Post, August 22, 2012, available at <www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22/todd-akin-abortion-rape-incest_n_1819201.html> (January 26, 2015);. (January 26, 2015);.' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Terkel,+A.,+“Todd+Akin's+Party:+More+than+40+Republican+Candidates+Oppose+Abortion+in+Cases+of+Rape,+Incest,”+Huffington+Post,+August+22,+2012,+available+at++(January+26,+2015);.>Google Scholar
Kelly, N., “Pence Inconsistent on Abortion Position,” Journal Gazette, October 25, 2012, available at <www.journalgazette.net/article/20121025/LOCAL/310259943> (last visited January 26, 2015);.+(last+visited+January+26,+2015);.>Google Scholar
Lee, S., “Where Do Republicans Stand on Abortion Exemption?” available at <http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/the-daily-need/where-do-republicans-stand-on-abortion-exemption/14632/> (January 26, 2015).+(January+26,+2015).>Google Scholar
Ark. Code Ann. § 20-16-705 (1985) (allowing abortion exceptions for rape and incest on minors).Google Scholar
La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40:1299.35.7 (2014) (stating the qualifications for certifying a rape or incest exception to the ban on funding for abortions); Utah Code Ann. § 76-7-302 (2004).Google Scholar
Guttmacher Institute, “State Policies in Brief: An Overview of Abortion Laws,” available at <http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_OAL.pdf> (last visited January 26, 2015).+(last+visited+January+26,+2015).>Google Scholar
Hyde Amendment, Pub. L. No. 105–119, § 617, 111 Stat. 2440, 2519 (1997) (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (2006) (historical and statutory notes)).Google Scholar
E.g., Card, R. F., “Two Puzzles for Marquis's Conservative View on Abortion,” Bioethics 20, no5 (2006): 264–277, at 264,275–276;.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borgmann, C. E., “Roe v. Wade's 40th Anniversary: A Moment of Truth for the Anti-Abortion-Rights Movement?” Stanford Law & Policy Review 24, no1 (2013): 245–270;.Google Scholar
Kamm, F. M., Creation and Abortion: A Study in Moral and Legal Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992): At 82–108, 168–169.Google Scholar
Cohen, I. G., “Personhood,” Journal of Law (2 The Post) 2, no1 (2012): 437–444, at 438;.Google Scholar
Cohen, C. B., Renewing the Stuff of Life: Stem Cells, Ethics, and Public Policy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007): At 59–87.Google Scholar
Cohen, I. G., “The Constitution and the Rights Not to Procreate,” Stanford Law Review 60, no4 (2008): 1135–1196, at 1135–116.Google Scholar
Cohen, I. G., “Circumvention Tourism,” Cornell Law Review 97, no6 (2012): 1309–1398, at 1363–1365.Google Scholar
Tribe, L. H., Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes (New York City: W.W. Norton & Company, 1992): At 3;.Google Scholar
Schwarz, S. D. Latimer, K., Understanding Abortion: From Mixed Feelings to Rational Thought (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2012).Google Scholar
See Schwarz, Latimer, , supra note 10, at 151.Google Scholar
(quoting Sherwin, S., No Longer Patient: Feminist Ethics and Health Care [Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1992]: At 101.).Google Scholar
Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 159 (2007) (citing Brief of Sandra Cano, the Former “Mary Doe” of Doe v. Bolton, and 180 Women Injured by Abortion as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner).Google Scholar
Suk, J., “The Trajectory of Trauma: Bodies and Minds of Abortion Discourse,” Columbia Law Review 110, no5 (2010): 1193–1252.Google Scholar
E.g., id., at 1193–1252;.Google Scholar
Aschenbrenner, K., “Ripples against the Other Shore: The Impact of Trauma Exposure on the Immigration Process through Adjudicators,” Michigan Journal of Race and Law 19, no1 (2013): 53–111, at 57–59.Google Scholar
Fentiman, L. C., “Pursuing the Perfect Mother: Why America's Criminalization of Maternal Substance Abuse Is Not the Answer – A Comparative Legal Analysis,” Michigan Journal of Gender and Law 15, no2 (2009): 389–469, at 450.Google Scholar
E.g., Fox, D. Stein, A., “Dualism and Doctrine,” Indiana Law Journal 90 (forthcoming 2015).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Chamallas, M., “Unpacking Emotional Distress: Sexual Exploitation, Reproductive Harm, and Fundamental Rights,” Wake Forest Law Review 44, no5 (2009): 1109–1130, at 1110.Google Scholar
See Cohen, , supra note 8, at 1139–1145.Google Scholar
Id., at 1163;.Google Scholar
Cohen, I. G., “The Right Not to Be a Genetic Parent?” Southern California Law Review 81, no6 (2008): 1115–1196, at 1148–1158.Google Scholar
La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40:1299.35.7 (2014); Utah Code Ann. § 76-7-302 (2004).Google Scholar
Ark. Code Ann. § 20-16-705 (1985).Google Scholar
Cohen, I. G., “Regulating Reproduction: The Problem with Best Interests,” Minnesota Law Review 96, no2 (2011): 423–519;.Google Scholar
Cohen, I. G., “Beyond Best Interests,” Minnesota Law Review 96, no4 (2012): 1187–1274.Google Scholar
E.g., Ala. Code § 26–23B-5 (1975).Google Scholar
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-15-201 (1989).Google Scholar
Va. Code Ann. § 18.2–74.1> (1975).+(1975).>Google Scholar
W. Va. Code Ann. § 33-42-8 (1998).Google Scholar
Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 63, § 1–745.5 (2011).Google Scholar
N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 14–45.1 (2013).Google Scholar
Ga. Code Ann. § 16-12-141(c) (2012).Google Scholar
Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 63, § 1–745.5 (2011).Google Scholar
Volokh, E., “Medical Self-Defense, Prohibited Experimental Therapies, and Payment for Organs,” Harvard Law Review 120, no7 (2007): 1813–1846, at 1824–1827;.Google Scholar
Giles, S. G., “Roe's Life-or-Health Exception: Self-Defense or Relative-Safety?” Notre Dame Law Review 85, no2 (2010): 525–620, at 537.Google Scholar
Model Penal Code § 3.04 (1981);.Google Scholar
Skopets, M., Comment, “Battered Nation Syndrome: Relaxing the Imminence Requirement of Self-Defense in International Law,” American University Law Review 55, no3 (2006): 753–783, at 760.Google Scholar
See Schwarz, Latimer, , supra note 10, at 152.Google Scholar
(quoting Whitbeck, C., “Taking Women Seriously as People: The Moral Implications for Abortion,” in Pojman, L. Beckwith, F. J., Abortion Controversy: 25 Years After Roe vs. Wade, A Reader (Belmont: Wadsworth, 2d ed. 1998): At 399).Google Scholar
Cohen, I. G., “Rethinking Sperm Donor Anonymity: Of Changed Selves, Non-Identity, and One Night Stands,” Georgetown Law Journal 100, no 2 (2012): 431–447, at 444, n.61.Google Scholar
40 Am. Jur. 2d Homicide § 143 (2014).Google Scholar
For example the Model Penal Code provides that where one negligently or recklessly injures an innocent person in the course of an otherwise legitimate self-defense, one does not have a valid defense in “a prosecution for such recklessness or negligence towards innocent person,” i.e., reckless manslaughter or negligent homicide. Model Penal Code § 3.09(3) (1981).Google Scholar
21 Am. Jur. 2d Criminal Law § 140 (2014).Google Scholar
E.g., N.Y. Penal Law § 35.05 (1909).Google Scholar
See Cohen, , supra note 8, at 1142–1145, 1162, 1185–95.Google Scholar
Cf. Borgmann, C. E., “Roe v. Wade's 40th Anniversary: A Moment of Truth for the Anti-Abortion-Rights Movement?” Stanford Law & Policy Review 24, no1 (2013): 245–270, at 260;.Google Scholar
Hendricks, J. S., “Body and Soul: Equality, Pregnancy, and the Unitary Right to Abortion,” Harvard Civil Rights – Civil Liberties Law Review 45, no2 (2010): 329–374, at 336.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R., Life's Dominion: An Argument about Abortion, Euthanasia, and Individual Freedom (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1993): At 94–97.Google Scholar
Id., at 95.Google Scholar
Id., at 95–97.Google Scholar
Will, J. F., “Beyond Abortion: Why the Personhood Movement Implicates Reproductive Choice,” American Journal of Law & Medicine 39, no4 (2013): 573–616;.Google Scholar
George, R. P., Book Review, “Life's Dominion: An Argument about Abortion, Euthanasia, and Individual Freedom,” American Political Science Review 88, no2 (1994): 444–446, at 445;.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandel, M. J., Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009): At 251.Google Scholar
Kamm, F., Book Review, “Abortion and the Value of Life: A Discussion of Life's Dominion,” Columbia Law Review 95, no1 (1995): 160–221, at 180.Google Scholar
(citing Dworkin, , supra note 35, at 96.).Google Scholar
Jarvis Thomson, J., “A Defense of Abortion,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 1, no1 (1971): 47–66.Google Scholar
Id., at 560.Google Scholar
Alvarez Manninen, B., “Rethinking Roe v. Wade: Defending the Abortion Right in the Face of Contemporary Opposition,” American Journal of Bioethics 10, no12 (2010): 33–46, at 3;.Google Scholar
McFall v. Shimp, 10 Pa. D. & C. 3d 90, 92 (Pa. Com. Pl. 1978).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Nobis, N. Sidique Jarr-Koroma, A., “Abortion and Moral Arguments From Analogy,” The American Journal of Bioethics 10, no12 (2010): 59–61, at 60.Google Scholar
See Manninen, , supra note 42, at 41.Google Scholar
Cf. Motro, S., “The Price of Pleasure,” Northwestern University Law Review 104, no3 (2010): 917–978, at 36–93.Google Scholar
S.F. v. State ex rel. T.M., 695 So. 2d 1186, 1189 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996).Google Scholar
Faske v. Bonanno, 357 N.W.2d 860, 861 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984).Google Scholar
Cnty, Mercer. Dep't of Soc. Servs. ex. rel. Imogene T. v. Alf M., 589 N.Y.S.2d 288, 290 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1992).Google Scholar
see Glenn Cohen, I., “The Right Not To Be a Genetic Parent?” supra note 20 at 1128 n. 37.Google Scholar
See Manninen, , supra note 42, at 41–42.Google Scholar
(quoting Thomson, , supra note 40, at 58). In response to the burglar analogy, Eberl writes “A fetus, though, is not amoral agent responsible for actions, and, without begging the question at hand, cannot be said to be in violation of civil and moral law by virtue of being present in a pregnant woman's body; a fetus is an innocent, while the burglar is not.”.Google Scholar
Eberl, J. T., “Fetuses Are Neither Violinists nor Violators,” American Journal of Bioethics 10, no12 (2010): 53–54, at 53. I am not sure is right that this is the key distinction. Imagine that instead of a burglar, we imagine a homeless man who has accidentally been given your address as a safe house where he can stay (a 9 was put down instead of a 6 in the address on your street). He enters your house through your unlocked door and sets up camp. He, like the fetus, is a moral innocent. And yet that does not give him the right to remain.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regan, D. H., “Rewriting Roe v. Wade,” Michigan Law Review 77, no4 (1979): 1569–1646, at 1601.Google Scholar
See Manninen, , supra note 42, at 42.Google Scholar
Id., at 43.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Fabre, C., Whose Body Is it Anyways? Justice and the Integrity of the Person (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahan, D., “The Secret Ambition of Deterrence,” Harvard Law Review 113, no2 (1999): 413–500, at 415–17.Google Scholar
Model Penal Code § 2.02 (1981).Google Scholar
Bedi, S., “Why a Criminal Prohibition on Sex Selective Abortions Amounts to a Thought Crime,” Criminal Law and Philosophy 5, no3 (2011): 349–360, at 350, 352.Google Scholar
Id., at 350, 352.Google Scholar
Id., at 353.Google Scholar
(citing. Hurd, H. M., “Why Liberals Should Hate ‘Hate Crime Legislation,”’ Law and Philosophy 20, no2 [2001]: 215–32, at 230–231).Google Scholar
Stuart Mill, J., On Liberty (Colli, Stefan ed., Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press 1989) (1859), at 9.Google Scholar
Richards, N. M., “Intellectual Privacy,” Texas Law Review 87 (2009): 387–445, at 409.Google Scholar
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 562 (2003).Google Scholar
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coal., 535 U.S. 234, 253 (2002).Google Scholar
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 482 (1965).Google Scholar
For a good review discussion, see Dillof, A. M., “Punishing Bias: An Examination of the Theoretical Foundations of Bias Crime Statutes,” Northwestern Law Review 91, no3 (1997): 1015–1079.Google Scholar
Steiker, C. S., “Book Review, Hate Crimes: Criminal Law & Identity Politics. by Jacobs, James B. Potter, Kimberly,” Michigan Law Review 97 (1999): 1857–1872;.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
e.g., Marshall v. Hendricks, 307 F.3d 36, 83–84 (3d Cir. 2002) (upholding statute treating the fact that murder was for pecuniary gain as an aggravating factor rendering the convicted individual death-eligible).Google Scholar
Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476, 476 (1993).Google Scholar