Victims rights amendment: A wolf in sheep's clothing?

The N&O decided to weigh in on my belief that the Victims Rights Amendment would open the door to undermining abortion rights in North Carolina. Their "experts" seem to think that the amendment as proposed would be faithfully implemented by a well-meaning legislature and would have nothing to do with abortion. What the heck are those experts smoking and where can I get some?

This is the first time I've been rated "Pants on Fire" by the gang at the Old Reliable. Though I've been a harsh critic of the paper for more than a decade, I think reporter Andy Specht did a decent job covering the narrow issue of what the amendment literally says. Too bad what the amendment literally says has nothing to do with what the legislature could actually do when they get around to writing implementation language. That's the problem with the article ... it doesn't cast a wide enough net.

Mark my words. This amendment, if it passes, will become a piece of machinery that chips away at abortion rights. Before you know it, some guy somewhere will sue his estranged wife on behalf of their aborted fetus. And that will be part of the great unraveling.

Ah well. I'll take the 15 minutes of fame. And in the meantime, VOTE AGAINST EVERY AMENDMENT. Every one of them, even Marsy's Law, is completely unnecessary. Every one of them, especially Marsy's Law, will undermine the integrity of our state constitution.

Tags: 

Comments

From a Facebook friend

“Under the Constitution and current law, the aborted child is not treated as a victim of a crime,” Wallace continued. “The aborted child therefore would not have any rights under the proposed amendment, nor does the proposed amendment do anything to change current abortion law.”

Obviously. The point that I think you make abundantly clear is, not where does this amendment lead under current law, but where it might lead *if and when the Supreme Court overturned or seriously weakened Roe v Wade*. And in that instance, gosh, would you look at that, the constitutional framework is already in place to outlaw abortion on the basis that it violates the state constitution. How serendipitous.

This article completely ignores that aspect. And since you weren’t writing on the basis of present law, it’s not much of a fact check.

Much like the popularity of the signs,

this fact-check is evidence that your advocacy is having an effect. They don't do this for individuals, it's almost exclusively reserved for politicians, party leaders, or large organizations.