Sutton Abortion Act of 2025 (Makko Oko): Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 25: Line 25:
===Cases===
===Cases===


==== [[Rebecca Holman v. Makko Oko]] ====
==== [[Crown v. Charles Adkins (Makko Oko)|Crown v. Charles Adkins]] ====
After the law was ratified, the NCRU quickly filed a lawsuit against the government to have it stricken down, representing Rebecca Holman, the plaintiff. It was originally filed with the local court in the capital city of Opposh, and was appealed up to the [[Supreme Court of Makko Oko]], who took up the claim in February 2026 after the ruling by the Appellate Court of Appeals. After hearing the case in April, a ruling would not be handed down until July, near the end of the court's term, which failed to rule on it in an equally divisive 2-2-2 vote among the six justices on the bench at the time. The split ended up upholding the Appellate Court of Appeals' original ruling, which decided that the statute abided by the Constitution and furthered the guaranteed right to protection by the state.
Crown v. Charles Adkins was one of the first cases that was tried under this act against a doctor for refusing to perform an abortion on an unnamed minor where it was medically necessary citing religious reasons, leading to the negligent death of said minor and their baby. This case coincided with the civil suit [[Ministry of Justice v. Makko Children's Hospital]] lodged against the hospital's administrators and top staff for their role in Dr. Adkins' illegal conduct. He was convicted of all charges and appealed immediately thereafter, having been heard by the Appellate Court of Appeals two months later. The appellate court ruled partially in favor of Dr. Adkins, overturning some of his convictions but keeping others, with the court saying at the time "These charges lack the proper evidentiary support to be sustained". His sentence ended up getting reduced 30% after the ruling, however, he appealed still to the [[Supreme Court of Makko Oko]], with them taking up his appeal soon thereafter. After hearing the case, the court ruled 4-2 a month later in favor of the state, with the court saying in its majority opinion: "The court understands the weight that religion may bear on the defendant, however, it does not excuse their conduct of which they were convicted. The church has solemnly declared under oath to our fair body that abortion is supported where it is necessary, and where it was necessary was supported by the law. Therefore, this court finds that the conviction of Charles Adkins was legal under the constitutional right to protection by the state, and was duly necessitated by defendants' actions causing such negligence. Lower courts ruling affirmed, case remanded."
 
==== [[State v. Charles Adkins (Makko Oko)|State v. Charles Adkins]] ====
State v. Charles Adkins was one of the first cases that was tried under this act against a doctor for refusing to perform an abortion on an unnamed minor where it was medically necessary citing religious reasons, leading to the negligent death of said minor and their baby. This case coincided with the civil suit [[Ministry of Justice v. Makko Children's Hospital]] lodged against the hospital's administrators and top staff for their role in Dr. Adkins' illegal conduct. He was convicted of all charges and appealed immediately thereafter, having been heard by the Appellate Court of Appeals two months later. The appellate court ruled partially in favor of Dr. Adkins, overturning some of his convictions but keeping others, with the court saying at the time "These charges lack the proper evidentiary support to be sustained". His sentence ended up getting reduced 30% after the ruling, however, he appealed still to the [[Supreme Court of Makko Oko]], with them taking up his appeal soon thereafter. After hearing the case, the court ruled a month later in favor of the state, with the court saying in its majority opinion: "While the court finds fault with the accused's case for the untenable situation they were placed in, we cannot take improper action in ruling for them in a perfectly sound case. The plaintiff agreed to be responsible and to uphold the law when they were awarded their license to practice medicine, and even though their employer failed them, does not absolve them of the liability they caused. The court upholds the lower court's judgement and remands the case back to the original court for processing."


==Sections==
==Sections==

Latest revision as of 05:52, 11 August 2024

Sutton Abortion Act of 2025
Makko Oko Coat Of Arms.png
Citation2025 c. XX
Enacted by4th Session of the Law Council
Date enactedMarch 1st, 2025
Date effectiveMarch 1st, 2025
Status: Current legislation

The Sutton Abortion Act of 2025 (c. XX) is an Act of Council of the 4th Session which was ratified on March 1st, 2025 by Emperor Conall Solis. The act sought to solidify the religious position on abortion within the empire. Prior to the law's ratification, abortion was legal nationally for rape or for medical emergencies only per the National Medical Board. The law led to the full criminalization of abortion except in cases of incest, rape, medical emergencies, being a minor and being impregnated out of wedlock. It put abortion under the SSRC's purview and took it out of the NMB's jurisdiction, which before this law, could have fully legalized abortion because abortion was not specifically prohibited by any statute. The most important provision of the law, the "double murder clause" as it has been dubbed, authorizes prosecutors to prosecute murderers for multiple counts of murder instead of one if they murder a pregnant female should it be proven that at least one baby was still alive at the time of their murder. That clause was widely supported both domestically and internationally.

Legislative History

Cases

Crown v. Charles Adkins

Crown v. Charles Adkins was one of the first cases that was tried under this act against a doctor for refusing to perform an abortion on an unnamed minor where it was medically necessary citing religious reasons, leading to the negligent death of said minor and their baby. This case coincided with the civil suit Ministry of Justice v. Makko Children's Hospital lodged against the hospital's administrators and top staff for their role in Dr. Adkins' illegal conduct. He was convicted of all charges and appealed immediately thereafter, having been heard by the Appellate Court of Appeals two months later. The appellate court ruled partially in favor of Dr. Adkins, overturning some of his convictions but keeping others, with the court saying at the time "These charges lack the proper evidentiary support to be sustained". His sentence ended up getting reduced 30% after the ruling, however, he appealed still to the Supreme Court of Makko Oko, with them taking up his appeal soon thereafter. After hearing the case, the court ruled 4-2 a month later in favor of the state, with the court saying in its majority opinion: "The court understands the weight that religion may bear on the defendant, however, it does not excuse their conduct of which they were convicted. The church has solemnly declared under oath to our fair body that abortion is supported where it is necessary, and where it was necessary was supported by the law. Therefore, this court finds that the conviction of Charles Adkins was legal under the constitutional right to protection by the state, and was duly necessitated by defendants' actions causing such negligence. Lower courts ruling affirmed, case remanded."

Sections

Enforcement

Enforcement of the Sutton Abortion Act varies due to jurisdiction. Doctors are mandated to comply by the SSRC, and the SSRC ensures compliance with this statute. Meanwhile prosecutory discretion is handled by the Ministry of Justice.

Effects

The ratification of the Sutton Abortion Act led to a tenfold increase in added murder charges to citizens suspected in being involved in a pregnant citizen's murder, however, it also led to a decrease in murders of pregnant individuals by about 30% from 2025 to 2026. The government has attributed this decrease to the higher potential and likelihood of capital punishment, brought on by the threat of increased counts of murder being tacked on.

Full Text

SECTION I - DEFINING ABORTION

ARTICLE I - Abortion shall heretofore be defined as the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy.

ARTICLE II - Abortion shall be illegal to perform nationally in all cases except where defined under this statute.

SECTION II - INCEST & RAPE

ARTICLE III - Incest shall be an authorized exception as outlined by Article II and abortions shall be allowed therefore.

ARTICLE IV - Any persons with whom perform consensual incest may be prosecuted as deemed fit by the Ministry of Justice.

ARTICLE V - Rape shall be an authorized exception as outlined by Article II and abortions shall be allowed therefore should the victim of said rape come forward and file a report with law enforcement regarding said rape.

SECTION III - MEDICAL EMERGENCIES & FETAL ABNORMALITIES

ARTICLE VI - Abortions shall be legal for an unavoidable and catastrophic medical emergency or for a major or potentially lethal fetal abnormality.

ARTICLE VII - Doctors shall be mandated to try everything to avoid an abortion prior to invoking Article VI.

SECTION IV - MINOR PREGANCIES

ARTICLE VIII - All pregnant minors of the state shall hereby be mandated to get an abortion as soon as medically feasible.

ARTICLE IX - Should a pregnancy be carried to term under this section, all custodial and guardianship rights over the baby shall transfer to the parents of the pregnant minor in question, and the father, minor or not, shall have their rights revoked.

ARTICLE X - Should the rape clause apply, Article V shall be exempted and Article VIII shall take precedence. The doctor carrying out the abortion shall file a police report as soon as feasible.

SECTION V - FETAL DEATHS

ARTICLE XI - Should a person commit a murder, heinous crime or any other crime that should result in the death of a pregnant person, that person may, at the discretion of the prosecutor, be charged with multiple counts of murder for each fetus that died along with them.

ARTICLE XII - Should a doctor perform an abortion outside of the authorized exceptions, or have abused the exceptions in any way, shape or form, they shall be prosecuted for murder.

ARTICLE XIII - Should a doctor not perform an abortion due to recklessness or carelessness or an inability to perform their duties, they may be prosecuted for negligent homicide should any individual, rather the pregnant citizen or the fetus, die.

SECTION VI - PREGANCIES OUT OF WEDLOCK

ARTICLE XIV - Shall a person become impregnated out of wedlock (marriage), that person shall be able to get an abortion upon the written approval of a Priest, Priest Lord or the Supreme Leader.

ARTICLE XV - The Church shall be able to force a wedlocked pregnancy to be terminated as they deem fit. The order must be approved by a licensed medical professional in order to be carried out.

SECTION VII - REGULATION & ENFORCEMENT

ARTICLE XVI - The SSRC shall such regulate and enforce this law, and abortion shall not be regulated by the NMB.

ARTICLE XVII - The SSRC shall be mandated to hear, solicit and accept advice from the NMB on abortion.

See Also

Retrieved from "https://iiwiki.us/mediawiki/index.php?title=Sutton_Abortion_Act_of_2025_(Makko_Oko)&oldid=829805"