The ruling sought to clarify the medical exceptions in the state’s bans, and was in a response to a lawsuit from women who were denied abortions despite medical emergencies.
There is a such a thing as an affirmative defense, though. An affirmative defense allows a person to commit an act that would otherwise be illegal under certain circumstances. However, as the name implies, an affirmative defense has to be argued by the defense. The burden is on the defense to prove that they acted under the circumstances permitted.
Consider murder, for instance. Self-defense is usually an affirmative defense. The prosecutor’s only burden is to prove that you killed someone. You have to demonstrate that you were acting in self defense in order to avoid the guilty verdict for murder.
So @vettnerk is asking a good question: will it be assumed that the doctor acted in good faith, or bad faith? Does the defense have to justify the abortion, or does the prosecutor have to demonstrate that it wasn’t necessary?
Does the prosecution hold the burden of proof? Yes
Can a defense attorney technically sit there and say nothing during the entire trial? Well technically yes. Because the burden of proof is on the prosecution.
But the reality is the prosecution can make their evidence state anything they want. That exact quote comes from an attorney that I know personally. Evidence can always be made to say whatever you want in a court case.
So the reality is prosecution they lay out their burden of proof or their quote unquote evidence, another defense have to be able to prove that the prosecution is wrong. OK technically they don’t prove anything they just have to put calls in the other side story. But I say tomato tomatoe. At the end of the day it’s basically the same thing. The doctor is basically going to have to demonstrate why they did what they did. And because there are not clear set rules and clear set guidelines, the end result is a lot of doctors won’t do it.
