Hulu/YouTube (back) FFRF/Twitter (fore)

It's only been a handful of weeks since Alabama legislators signed into law a bill that criminalizes almost all abortions and a mere couple of months since an Alabama judge heard a case in which a fetus was legally recognized as a co-plaintiff in a "wrongful death" abortion suit.

Opponents warned of the dangerous precedent being set because of what such legal actions could mean for miscarriage or other fetal deaths. Now we're seeing that precedent being played out in real time.

Here's the story:

Marshae Jones, 27, was five months pregnant in December of 2018 when she got into an altercation with Ebony Jemison, 23. The two were allegedly fighting over the father of Jones's baby.

Jones initiated the fight—that part of the story is not in dispute. During the fight, Jemison, reportedly in an act of self-defense, pulled out her gun and shot Jones in the stomach, resulting in the baby in utero's death.

Jemison, the shooter, was not indicted. A grand jury found she was acting in self-defense.


Instead, Jones—the pregnant woman—was indicted for manslaughter. Not assault for fighting with Jemison, but manslaughter for the death of her own fetus.

Just to reiterate, an unarmed, 5-month pregnant woman was shot in the stomach after getting into a fight, lost her baby, and she's the one who was indicted for manslaughter.

That is seriously messed up, Alabama.

But what's even more messed up are the number of people I've seen defending this ruling. "She shouldn't have started a fight," people say. "When you're pregnant, the safety of your baby should be your first priority." "She was being irresponsible and putting her baby at risk."

Here's the problem with those arguments:

There are a million things that can go wrong in a pregnancy without a pregnant person ever doing a darn thing. And there are accidents that can affect a pregnancy without there being any malicious or negligent intent whatsoever. When we start to hold pregnant women legally responsible for the viability of their pregnancies, we start down a terrifying path.


What about the mom who wears socks while walking down her wood steps, slips and falls, and loses her pregnancy? Will she be indicted for manslaughter because of her reckless behavior of wearing socks on a slippery floor?

What about the mom who eats some brie not knowing there's any risk for pregnant women, gets listeria, and loses her baby? Will she be indicted for negligent homicide?

What about the mom who is in an abusive relationship and is too afraid to leave? If her partner beats her up and the baby dies, does she get indicted for manslaughter because she stayed?

What about the mom who gets into a fight with her husband and he shoots her in the stomach? Imagine indicting the mother for manslaughter in that scenario.

How about the mom who keeps getting pregnant despite having multiple miscarriages? Will she be indicted for losing those pregnancies because she knows her body might not be a safe place for a baby?

What's super scary is that I think there are people out there who would answer yes to some or all of those questions. Even if you believe an embryo or fetus is a full-fledged human being deserving of the same rights and liberties as everyone else, making pregnant women legally culpable when they lose a pregnancy, either by accident or at the hands of another person, is asinine.

This indictment should scare the crap out of all of us. No one forced Jemison to fire that gun. She can claim self-defense and avoid being indicted herself, and that's fine. Charge Jones with assault; that's fine too. But to indict a pregnant woman for manslaughter because someone else shot her in the stomach? No. That's just a slippery slope into Handmaid's Tale levels of control over pregnant women that I simply can't comprehend.


The Handmaid's Tale: Season 3 Teaser (Super Bowl Commercial) www.youtube.com

Culture

Kentucky Legislature just became one more in a growing line of states to pass a strict abortion ban.

Last night, the Kentucky state House passed a bill that would ban abortions after six weeks, otherwise known as a "heartbeat bill." What that means is any medical practitioner offering abortions would first have to check for a heartbeat, and if one is detected, they would not be legally allowed to perform an abortion.

As of now, there are only a few exceptions to the ban, for example, if the mother's life is in danger, but if someone is seeking an abortion because of a fetal diagnosis, the ban would stand.

Keep Reading Show less
More

It's been 45 years since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark Roe v. Wade ruling, but somehow, the fight over abortion rages on today.

Far from the settled subject one might be led to believe, abortion remains a contentious issue and a driving force in politics. As president, Donald Trump has led the fight against abortion rights, appointing a number of extremist anti-choice judges to federal courts and delivering remarks at the anti-choice "March for Life."

Still, a majority of Americans believe abortion should be legal — a 2017 Pew survey found that 57% of Americans believe abortion should be legal in "all or most cases," with just 16% of those polled saying they believe it should be made illegal.

Keep Reading Show less
More

In a surprising move, Ohio Gov. John Kasich has vetoed the controversial "heartbeat bill" that recently passed the state's House and Senate.

The bill, which would've been one of the nation's strictest abortion laws if it passed, banned abortion as soon as a physician could detect a heartbeat — as soon as six weeks.

John Kasich during his 2016 presidential campaign. Photo by Sean Rayford/Getty Images.

Keep Reading Show less
More