These Georgia DAs Won't Prosecute Women for Violations of New Abortion Law
The state's new law criminalizes abortion after a woman is about six weeks pregnant.
May 16, 2019 at 06:37 PM
6 minute read
Sherry Boston, the DeKalb County district attorney, said Thursday she will not prosecute anyone under Georgia's new law criminalizing abortion after a woman is about six weeks pregnant.
“I believe it is a woman's right to make decisions regarding her own body and medical care, including, but not limited to, seeking an abortion, as upheld by the United States Supreme Court,” Boston said in a statement to the Daily Report.
The newspaper had asked five district attorneys in the Atlanta area whether the new law, which takes effect Jan. 1, allowed prosecution of women for seeking abortions. Criminal defense lawyers came to opposite conclusions on that subject in competing columns in the Daily Report this week.
District attorneys in Gwinnett and Cobb counties said they could not prosecute women seeking abortions but that abortion providers clearly could be pursued for violating the law.
“I don't think it's legally possible” to prosecute women under the new law, Gwinnett County District Attorney Danny Porter said Wednesday.
John Melvin, the acting district attorney in Cobb County, wrote in an email that under case law and the statutory language of House Bill 481, “liability would potentially lie with doctors, nurses, midwifes or pharmacists who perform abortions”—but not with the women who obtained abortions.
A spokesman for Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard said “he would not prosecute women under the new law” but did not elaborate on his reasoning.
Clayton County District Attorney Tracy Graham Lawson was in court Thursday and did not have time to discuss the new law.
The 8,000-member Medical Association of Georgia opposed the bill, arguing in a March letter to a state senator that the bill “criminalizes physicians and creates a private right of action against physicians when physicians care for their patients within their scope of practice.”
The association also said the bill “could undermine efforts to recruit and retain OB-GYN in Georgia, and could further restrict access to health care in rural Georgia.”
Critics, who note that six weeks pregnant is only about two weeks after a woman would miss her period, promised a lawsuit to challenge the law for violating women's privacy rights identified in the Roe v. Wade decision from the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973. Gov. Brian Kemp said when he signed the bill into law, “All life matters, and all life is worthy of protection.”
|Why Women Could Be Prosecuted
State Sen. Jen Jordan, D-Atlanta, drew national attention for her opposition to the bill. In a recent interview with Slate, she noted the bill says women who are prosecuted for undergoing an abortion may argue in court that they “reasonably believed that an abortion was the only way to prevent a medical emergency.”
“It's Criminal Law 101 that you don't need an affirmative defense from criminal prosecution if there is no intent to criminally prosecute someone,” Jordan told Slate. “The inclusion of that affirmative defense is the clearest intent that we have that this was exactly what the Republicans are trying to do.”
Andrew Fleischman, a criminal defense appellate attorney at Ross & Pines in Atlanta, argued in an opinion piece in the Daily Report that the law's expansion of the definition of a “person” to include fetuses with a heartbeat means women could be prosecuted for murder for undergoing an abortion.
“Even people who leave the state to get an abortion may not be exempt because, when you form an agreement to kill a human being and then take substantial steps to do it (like packing your bags and contacting an out-of-state clinic), you have completed the crime of conspiracy to commit murder,” Fleischman wrote.
|Why Women Couldn't Be Prosecuted
Porter, Gwinnett's district attorney, said Wednesday that a woman couldn't be prosecuted for traveling from Georgia to a state where abortion is legal, adding, “I don't know how to establish criminal intent” for those facts.
Matthew Cavedon, a criminal defense attorney in Gainesville, wrote in response to Fleischman that HB 481's defining unborn children to be included in “personhood” was not a “sea change in criminal law.”
“First, note the criminal statutes that are not even arguably changed by HB 481. The law against assaulting an unborn child specifically says that it does not apply to 'conduct relating to an abortion,' or to 'any woman with respect to her unborn child.'”
Melvin, from Cobb County, credited Cavedon's points and added that a woman cannot be subject to felony murder due to an abortion.
Felony murder “applies when someone commits a certain kind of felony and someone else dies in the course of it,” he wrote. “The intent to commit the underlying felony is 'transferred' to the killing. Since women cannot be charged with the underlying felony of abortion there is no 'intent' to transfer.”
|'Ambiguity and Constitutional Concerns'
Boston said doctors, nurses, anesthetists, health care providers, office receptionists—”virtually anyone who either performs or assists in performing or arranging what is currently a legal medical procedure—could potentially be charged under this statute.”
“The bill does not specifically exclude the woman receiving an abortion from criminal liability,” Boston added. “This could have been easily accomplished by inserting a sentence in this law or by amending other statutes, such as Murder, O.C.G.A. sec. 16-5-1, to address HB 481. While analysis of case law and other statutes, such as Feticide, O.C.G.A. sec. 16-5-80, seems to make clear that a woman cannot be prosecuted for obtaining an abortion, this new law muddies the water and may open the door for this type of prosecution. ”
“ As district attorney with charging discretion, I will not prosecute individuals pursuant to HB 481 given its ambiguity and constitutional concerns,” Boston concluded. “As a woman and mother, I am concerned about the passage and attempted passage of laws such as this one in Georgia, Alabama, and other states.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readAm Law 200 Firm to Defend PUMA in Latest Quarrel Over Patented Shoe Technology
Apple Asks Judge to 'Follow the Majority Practice' in Dismissing Patent Dispute Over Night Vision Technology
Who Got the Work: 16 Lawyers Appointed to BioLab Class Action Litigation
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Capital Markets Partners Expect IPO Resurgence During Trump Administration
- 2Chief Assistant District Attorney and Litigator Shortlisted for Paulding County Judgeship
- 3'America's Next Top Model' Contestant Says Ye Assaulted Her
- 4LexisNexis Responds to Canadian Professor’s Criticism of Lexis+ AI
- 5'Everything Leaves a Digital Footprint': How to Navigate the Complexities of Internal Investigations
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250