This post bring to light a distinction that may become more prominent in the wake of the Supreme Court's abortion ruling, and its one the social conservatives have been angling for.
What is the legal status of a fetus?
I can't recall the last time I heard a pro-lifer say the word "fetus" for an obvious reason. If the "entity" is called a child then it can be subject to protections, notably those guaranteed in the 14th Amendment. To treat a person in utero differently than one that has been born would violate their civil rights. But this could also lead to unforeseen consequences since damages to the fetus/person would carry the same legal weight as that to the rest of us.
A potential legal field day me-thinks.
Showing posts with label 2302-4. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2302-4. Show all posts
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Tragedy and Public Policymaking
When one tries to make sense of existing public policy, especially when it seems confusing, it is worth considering whether the establishment of that policy was motivated by a response to a tragedy or scandal.
Several shocking examples of child abuse decades back led to the child abuse policy. The murder of Laura Smithers led to similar legislation and additional attention to child abduction. The Enron scandal led to Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, and of course 9/11 led to substantive changes in airport security.
It should not be surprising then if the shooting spree in Virgina Tech leads to changes in gun policy, but the fight now seems to be what the nature of that change is likely to be.
Not long after the tragedy began, thanks to the speed of the internet, gun control policy became the dominant policy issue debated. Each side attempted to spin it in a manner beneficial to it's side.
Gun rights advocates claimed that this incident proves that gun laws must be lenient enough to allow people to purchase and conceal weapons that they can use to defend themselves, while gun control advocates stated that this shows that guns are too difficult to obtain. This is called framing--or spin. It has a bad connotation of course, but it is simply a reflection of the complexity of the issues we face.
Now, is this the appropriate time for legislatures to evaluate existing gun control laws, or should they hold off? Is this a time when the inertia built into the American constitutional system impedes the ability of the public to protect itself, or does it slow down the process sensibly so that bad policy is not passed?
Several shocking examples of child abuse decades back led to the child abuse policy. The murder of Laura Smithers led to similar legislation and additional attention to child abduction. The Enron scandal led to Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, and of course 9/11 led to substantive changes in airport security.
It should not be surprising then if the shooting spree in Virgina Tech leads to changes in gun policy, but the fight now seems to be what the nature of that change is likely to be.
Not long after the tragedy began, thanks to the speed of the internet, gun control policy became the dominant policy issue debated. Each side attempted to spin it in a manner beneficial to it's side.
Gun rights advocates claimed that this incident proves that gun laws must be lenient enough to allow people to purchase and conceal weapons that they can use to defend themselves, while gun control advocates stated that this shows that guns are too difficult to obtain. This is called framing--or spin. It has a bad connotation of course, but it is simply a reflection of the complexity of the issues we face.
Now, is this the appropriate time for legislatures to evaluate existing gun control laws, or should they hold off? Is this a time when the inertia built into the American constitutional system impedes the ability of the public to protect itself, or does it slow down the process sensibly so that bad policy is not passed?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)