This has always irked me a little.
As someone who spent years dealing with infertility, it irks me as well.
Laws against injuring a pregnant person to the point where they lose the pregnancy were one of the things cited by the draft majority opinion overturning roe. They go back a long way in US history. Inuring a pregnant person to the point where they lose the pregnancy is a grave offense, it can be an absolutely staggering loss, and should be recognized as severe within the law. Obviously it goes well beyond the physical trauma of losing the pregnancy to include major psychological harm.
I can understand the rationale behind foetal homicide, but why should the law be harsher on those who assault a pregnant person vs those who aren't pregnant? Why should a pregnant person be considered to be more susceptible to psychological damage than, say, someone who suffers from agoraphobia or schizophrenia? Or when considering physical damage, why should it be recognised in law over someone whose pre-existing physical condition worsens as a result of the stress/physical injury from the assault?
I'm not sure that injuring a pregnant woman and causing the loss of the pregnancy is necessarily more injurious than what is possible with other people. But it is, justly, recognized as serious. When tallying the harm that was done, the loss of a pregnancy represents more harm. Similarly for anything else. If someone does not have a finger, that finger cannot be injured. But when tallying the harm done to an individual, inuring their finger represents more harm.
I think, in general, assault treatment varies depending on the circumstances and essentially the vulnerability of the individual, based in part on the ability of the attacker to harm that individual. A weapon (such as fists) can be considered deadly depending upon who uses them and who they are used against, for example. So you'd have an assault with a deadly weapon charge in one case, and you'd lack that charge in another case, even if fists were used in both cases.
It's my understanding that crimes like rape and murder fall under the Necessary And Proper Clause, which grants the ability for laws pertaining to them to be passed at a federal level. Although, even with that what constitutes rape and murder varies from state to state. What might be considered rape in one state might be deemed consensual sex in another just based on the age of the people involved. The same goes for murder, in one state is could be considered manslaughter while in another it's murder, then factor in something like a law enforcement officer committing it and it might be considered "part of the job".
I can agree with this and you do many a good point, Roe did need modification, however, I'm not really sure how you do that other than turfing it to the states to decide. At a federal level, having something codified saying people are entitled to an abortion if the pregnancy is a result of rape or threatening the mother's life should be constitutional. It is complicated though and it ultimately comes down to whether a fetus should have rights or not. I'm of the mindset they don't unless they can survive outside the mother's body. If it still needs to be attached to the mother's body in order to survive, then it's an extension of the mother.
I'm still missing it. It did occur to me that you might be referring to the word evergreen, but I don't know what you're getting at with that.
Briefly I thought this might be a "war on christmas" type of thing.
Are you saying the Texas is blocking the canal of social prosperity or something? I'm reaching here.
www.merriam-webster.com
Edit: Which is to say, in this context, that Texas is in a constant state of denying people their basic rights.
Definition of EVERGREEN
having foliage that remains green and functional through more than one growing season; retaining freshness or interest : perennial; universally and continually relevant : not limited in applicability to a particular event or date… See the full definition
Edit: Which is to say, in this context, that Texas is in a constant state of denying people their basic rights.
