Moving the goalposts again? I said he wanted to prosecute women and doctors, and I proved as much, not that he has said it in so many words.

And this is my last response to you. I should have learned my lesson from the DNC-abortion matter, where you moved the goalposts a grand total of three times, and twice in a single comment.

This only applies to Paul Ryan. Romney has made some noises, but has been characteristically vague. Right where it states that “all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood” shall be conferred upon any fertilized egg. This is a legal codification of what pro-lifers often state, that abortion is murder. And by giving fertilized eggs the same rights as human beings, it brings that argument to its logical conclusion. If you did not want to treat it as a criminal offense, you fail to confer all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of persons upon the fertilized egg. And if you do treat it as a criminal offense, what is it, other than a mother contracting another to murder her fertilized egg (which pro-lifers often argue).

OK, so it’s no longer Doctors who are “criminalized”, it’s mothers as well . . . Where does it say that? I missed that language…

Well, then let me tell you, there are no relevant constitutional questions involved here, since we are discussing a post-Roe world.

Publius: Can you remind me again when/where Romney and Ryan announced their support for criminalizing abortion and prosecuting Doctors?

I’ve told you many times, the fact that they want to make abortion illegal proves that. As for Ryan, he sponsored the following bill:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.212:

“the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood”

And right there, it criminalizes both mothers and doctors.

Apparently you missed the irony in one of my comments.

Can you remind me again when/where Romney and Ryan announced their support for criminalizing abortion and prosecuting Doctors? A quick citation should do the trick….

You just keep repeating yourself, while ignoring that I pointed out that practicing without a license is in fact a crime. So let me repeat myself, as the argument has gone no further: “For one, practicing medicine without a license is a crime. If you pull a doctor’s license for performing abortions, it’s a de facto criminalization. It’s like requiring licenses for preaching, and then pulling licenses for anyone who preaches Christianity – that’s a de facto criminalization of Christian preaching.” Liquor comparison: “Yet their licenses are never pulled for merely selling liquor. What you propose is comparable to requiring liquor licenses, and then never issuing them – which is patently absurd.”

Publius: (of course there are no constitutional questions involved here)

Ah, you finally realized this? Because you have talked about “constitutional law” – unprompted – at three occasions. Interesting that I “do not understand” something that I did not bring up or talk about. Perhaps you should respond to actual points, not invent some of your own.

Publius: It is also disingenuous to claim “everyone” is contesting what I have written in this exchange, unless by everyone you mean “you.”

You in the plural, yes. Myself, Ray and Michael (whose posts you ignored) – anyone who has bothered to comment in this thread since it has been your mission to deny that criminalization of abortion is your objective.

Publius: If “everyone” out there can support your unsubstantiated claim that Romney and Ryan want to criminalize abortions and prosecute “Doctors,” why haven’t you/everyone pointed to a single statement supporting your claim.

Then do you deny that Romney and Ryan want abortion to be illegal except in cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother (in the case of Romney)? It’s something you earlier acknowledged. But if you now deny it, I will point to a statement supporting this claim.

If you know anything about the law you would never use a phrase like “it’s a de facto criminalization” — it’s either criminal law or it’s not. An administrative or regulatory sanction does not give a “criminal’ record to someone. That kind of claim is another example of your propensity for sweeping generalizations based on a disregard for the facts. Criminal law is different from constitutional law (of course there are no constitutional questions involved here) which is different from administrative law, etc. But you seem to have difficulty making these distinctions.

It is also disingenuous to claim “everyone” is contesting what I have written in this exchange, unless by everyone you mean “you.”

If “everyone” out there can support your unsubstantiated claim that Romney and Ryan want to criminalize abortions and prosecute “Doctors,” why haven’t you/everyone pointed to a single statement supporting your claim. Any takers?

Ah, well, if that’s the comparison, then abortion doctors can simply perform abortions in their own homes, without opening clinics.

Publius: Again, there is whole body of administrative and regulatory law that is NOT criminal.

What everyone is trying to make clear to you, is that it’s impossible to prohibit abortions by using only administrative and regulatory law. For one, practicing medicine without a license is a crime. If you pull a doctor’s license for performing abortions, it’s a de facto criminalization. It’s like requiring licenses for preaching, and then pulling licenses for anyone who preaches Christianity – that’s a de facto criminalization of Christian preaching.

Publius: Liquor licenses fall under the same rubric…. State and local ordinances dictate the hours, locations, etc. Again you can have a license pulled without criminal charges applied for selling to minors or staying open for 24 hours, etc

Yet their licenses are never pulled for merely selling liquor. What you propose is comparable to requiring liquor licenses, and then never issuing them – which is patently absurd.

Publius: You learn this in basic law school courses.

How would you know? You have not given the slightest indication that you are in any way knowledgeable about the law – from starting about zoning laws, to your absurd suggestion that we were discussing “constitutional law”. I suggest that you get your own affairs in order, before you venture to lecture others.

Publius: Romney is in favor of returning the regulatory power to the states over abortion.

And the power of states to criminalize doctors, and even women. But for Roe v. Wade, nothing would prevent a state from jailing women for having abortions, or investigating miscarriages for signs of “murder” on the fetus.

Publius: Licenses would be issued accordingly.

And if a state decides to outlaw abortions entirely, at which Romney would be “delighted”, how then would licenses be issued?