New law in US state lets rapists sue if victims want to have an abortion

The Arkansas law could let rapists sue their victims to block their abortions [Image: PA].

This is so wrong it shames the whole of America.

This is what happens when you have a male president who thinks he knows better than women how to treat their bodies, and is willing to pass laws to that effect; every other male legislator and his donkey think they can do the same.

Your views are requested.

A law has been passed in the US state of Arkansas that will reportedly allow rapists to sue if their victims try to have an abortion.

The new law, which could come into effect as early as this spring, will let family members block a woman’s termination by suing the abortion provider.

And even more worryingly, it doesn’t include an exception for spousal rape or incest – meaning that the foetus’s father could sue even if they had raped the woman.

Act 45 also bans dilation and evacuation procedures – the safest and most common procedure carried out during the second trimester of pregnancy, being used in around 95% of cases.

Now, using the D&E procedure could be punishable by a $10,000 (£8,006) fine or six years in prison.

This effectively blocks abortions after the 14-week mark, as it has criminalised the safest procedure.

Source: Disturbing new law lets rapists sue if victims want to have an abortion

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:


12 thoughts on “New law in US state lets rapists sue if victims want to have an abortion

  1. Christine Bergin

    Are these ‘pro-life'(?) men then rasponsible for the care and responsibility of their putative offspring?

  2. Christine Bergin

    Fancifull thought just occurred. Why dont we neuter all male babies and just keep a few for breeding puposes? hopefully males would then moderate their behavior.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      And then the nasty men might say, “Why don’t we keep all the women in special places – we’ll call them “breeding pens”? We’ll only need to keep the most attractive ones for breeding purposes.”
      No. You don’t make anything better by restricting anybody’s freedoms. Fighting fire with fire just burns us all to a crisp.
      That being said, I hope man AND women stand together to get rid of this legislative oppression.

  3. Barry Davies

    Well this is one state of America, Arkansas, home state of Bill and Hilary Clinton, who as I understand it are Democrats, unlike the current President who is a Republican, not the entire number of the United States of America. Trump may be an obnoxious piece of excrement but it is disingenuous to blame him for other peoples wrong doing.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      You think this would have happened without his precedent? It’s possible.
      You think this doesn’t reflect badly on all of the United States? Think again.

  4. Christine Bergin

    Another errant thought, they have never had a female president and our ‘sainted Margaret’ did a lot of damage to this country and our current leader seems to have ensure we become subservient to USA. No pride some people!

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      I’m wondering what point you’re making with those thoughts. They seem to be pulling in opposite directions.

  5. Joan Edington

    A bit pedantic, I know, but your caption to the photo at the top says that the victim can be sued, whereas it’s the abortion provider that can be sued. Just as bad, and the same effect, but just a minor clarification. These pro-life nutters ought to think of what sort of life the unwanted children might have.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      The source article suggests it’s the victim who would suffer the financial burden. Do you have a good source of information suggesting otherwise, or have I missed a clarification elsewhere in the source material?

      1. Joan Edington

        That is exactly why I said “Juat as bad, same effect”. Maybe clarification was the wrong word. I should have said correction of typo?

Comments are closed.