Criminal liability of physicians: an encroachment on the abortion right?

The Supreme Court in 1973 in Roe v. Wade established that decision of first trimester abortion is left to the physician, exercising his best medical judgment, in consultation with the patient. During this period the state may not regulate abortion determination since there is no compelling state interest; therefore a physician performing abortion will be precluded from civil or criminal liability. In second trimester abortion the state has a compelling interest in the health of the mother and may regulate the procedure to protect maternal health; although a previable fetus may be able to survive the abortion, Roe v. Danforth definitively places the woman's right to an abortion above the life of the fetus during the previable stage; therefore the state cannot seek to safeguard the life or health of the fetus during the abortion. Third trimester abortion implies a viable fetus; thus, a compelling state interest in the potential life arises and the state may regulate and proscribe abortion except when necessary for the life and health of the mother. The determination of when viability has been achieved is a matter of judgment resting with the physician who has the choice of techniques and operating procedures which may or may not be fatal to the unborn. It is a question of either termination of pregnancy or destruction of the fetus. In this last case the legal responsibility placed upon the physician is very serious, and involving a risk of civil and criminal liability. Uncertainties as to the boundaries of legal abortion and the threat of criminal liability can only result in a reluctance among physicians to perform second and third trimester abortions, which is against the fundamental right to abortion guaranteed by the Constitution. The Supreme Court will have to elaborate upon the scope of the abortion right, whether it encompasses fetal destruction or only termination of pregnancy, because it directly affects the extent and quality of maternal and fetal care that must be rendered by a physician. If only termination of pregnancy is included the Court must resolve whether the woman's health interests predominate, or whether the physician can be required to enhance fetal survival. Physicians have a right to know the full extent of legal ramifications and implications of legally induced abortion.     

Germany's ‘Right to be forgotten’ – between the freedom of expression and the right to informational self-determination

Although never having defined it explicitly, German law and jurisprudence imparted a right to be forgotten which could be described as a right to delete long ago. Its basis can be found in the constitution where it is torn between the freedom of expression and the right to informational self-determination. Also, German legislature introduced non-constitutional provisions ensuring the deletion of personal data in specific cases that are applied regularly. This article aims to give an overview of the “German” right to be forgotten, its legal framework and its application in court.     

Are self-identified Christian fundamentalists really more supportive of capital punishment? Exploring the relationship between fundamentalism and death penalty attitudes

Christian fundamentalism has often been linked to death penalty support, despite mixed results across more than a decade of empirical studies. More recently, a line of research has emerged that has called for a reconceptualization of fundamentalism as harsh and rigid, instead of being more a multifaceted concept. In the spirit of this call, we investigated the relative importance of Christian fundamentalism on death penalty attitudes when compared with non-religious social attitudes. Using 1,560 respondents from the 2008 General Social Survey data, we found self-identified Christian fundamentalism, though not biblical literalism or religious denomination, remained a significant predictor of death penalty attitudes when attitudes toward LGBT marriage equality were included in the model. Unexpectedly, white women who endorsed LGBT marriage equality were also more likely to support the death penalty. Based on our findings, we discuss implications and areas for future research.