lawfag here with a summary and analysis of the new AL SC decision declaring a fetus is a human life. Its a LONG and tedious opinion. The majority never mentions Roe v Wade - it comes up in a concurring opinion. I will summarize the case and the legal issues the offer my take on it.

The defendant had a domestic dispute/argument which got out of control and he pulled out a gun and shot her. It was a heat of the moment act and he stated he did not want to kill her. He was unaware that she was less than three months pregnant at the time of the shooting.

The woman and fetus died. He was charged with murder and the charge was later amended to capital murder (death penalty) based on a 2006 AL las known as "The Brody Law" named after a woman who was shot while 8 months preganat and lost the baby.

The relevant text of Brody's Law is pasted below and is very simple - it defines/includes a fetus as a person for purposes of a murder charge. This was the first time the AL court applied the law in a written/reported capital punishment case.

There were many technical legal defense. NONE involved Roe v Wade - that is right - NONE. This case has ZERO to do with abortion anons. It was all about the 2006 AL law declaring a fetus as a person and how it was to be applied in a case for purposes of CAPITAL punishment - because AL law only prescribes death penalty to "aggravated" or "multiple" murders WITH "no mitigating circumstances."

Prosecutor did NOT initially go for capital offense - but amended the indictment before trial - which was one issue on appeal as defense alleged they were prejudiced by the late change.

OK so what issues did the court address? Remember appeals are more or less ONLY about legal issues - the court on appeal does not reweigh the facts found by the jury except ir rare circumstances not applicable here. All the issues revolved around the matter of the defendant's INTENT - aka MENS REA - a state of mind REQUIRED to be present in all criminal cases - but esp. capital cases

1. Ok so the guy didnt know the woman was pregnat so how can he have intent to kill the fetus? The doctrine is "transferred intent" was applied. The Court ruled that since he intended to shoot her that intent is by law "transferred" to the unintended victim - solving the intent problem with a legal device in effect. Think innocent bystander - not new EXCEPT in the fact that this was a fetus.

2. There was also a conflict between the AL murder statute and the Brody act - under the original AL murder statute there was NO death penalty for this crime - however the prosecution claimed that the SECOND murder (the fetus) as specified under the Brody law made it a double murder - hence capital.

1. There was a serious issue of a missing link evidence. The police took a POST MORTEM urine test to prove she was pregnant but messed up and broke the chain of custody. Normally this means that evidence would not be admitted.

1. The jury was told by the prosecutor about evidence of non-statutory aggravating circumstances - not alloewed in capital cases. There was also an claim of failure to instruct the jury on mitigating circumstances - ie the guy didnt know about the fetus.

1. The prosecutor removed all the white jurors.

1. The prosecutor introduced photos of the autopsy which the court found were "gruesome" and the defense alleged were inflammatory and prejudicial. The stated purpose of the phots was to "prove that she was pregnant."

1. The defense claimed that the late amendments to the indictments were wrong and prejudicial - they dealt with the new issues of "transferred intent" and were to support the capital punishment.

1. The defense claimed that improper jury instruction on "advisory" verdict for capital punishment were given which allowed the jury to belive they were not deciding on the death penalty - however they were NOT told their "advisory verdict" was a legal REQUIREMENT for imposition of capital punishment (a rquired finding)

1. The only constitututional defense in the case was 8th amendment - they alleged that "double counting" for the 1st time in legal history (ie counting a fetus in 1st trimester) was not fair to the defendant and constitututed cruel or unreasonable punishment

OK so what habbened? Well the Court ruled against the defendant on each and every one of the above issues and confirmed the conviction and death sentence. Read the opinion and see that every issue was contorted to achieve this result.

THEN came the real reason for the decision - in the concurring opinion - where the judge stated:

SEE PART TWO

>>3537926

PARKER, Justice (concurring specially).

"I concur fully with the Court's rationale that unborn

children are persons entitled to the full and equal

protection of the law. I write specially to expound upon the principles presented in the main opinion and to note the continued legal anomaly and logical fallacy that is Roe v.Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973); I urge the United States Supreme Court to overrule this increasingly isolated exception to the rights of unborn children."

He then goes on to discuss the Brody Act, and notes that

the Roe "viability rule is no longer viable; Alabama no longer relies on it in any context other than when required to do so in the abortion context."

He then goes on to discuss other state statutes which limit or diminish the impact of Roe - under the rubric of "new area developing in the law …" These include laws that expand the protection of fetuses in the following areas os stae law:

penalty enhancements

right to defend a fetus

tort law

wrongful death

property law

guardianship law

health care laws

family law

He concludes with the following statement: "It is my hope and prayer that the United States Supreme Court will take note of the crescendoing chorus of the laws of the states in which unborn children are given full legal protection…

The Roe exception is the last remaining obstacle to the states' ability toprotect the God-given respect and dignity of unborn human life."

OK what to make of all this? IT IS FUCKING AWFUL and it has nothing to do with public policy on abortion. The RED states have taken as many steps as they can to reduce or eliminate the effect of Roe IN THE SAME EXACT WAY the BLUE states have taken as many steps as they can to reduce or eliminate the effect of the second amendment.

The majority opinion went into a series of absurd loops and circles to publish a case that they hope with get them to SCOTUS - this is simply NOT the job of the courts anons.

The concurring opinion makes it crystal clear that the court is cting toward a SOCIAL AND POLITICAL goal - again that is NOT their right. Now I do not care if Roe stays or goes - I see BOTH sides and have no dog in that fight - but I do not want courts dictating public policy - that is the way the NWO/cabal/DEMO-RATS ROLL anons.

AND on top of all that I predict that SCOTUS will find a way to overturn this shitpile. Cuz SCOTUS will never take responsibility for all the unwanted babies that will result any more than Congress will. they will swear to your face that they want to BUT THEY WONT - think mccaskill - they lie to get your vote.

Nuff said