Legal Commentary

In an interview broadcast last night, Katie Couric asked Sarah Palin the following question: "If a 15-year-old is raped by her father,you believe it should be illegal for her to get an abortion. Why?" Here's part of Palin's answer (after Couric followed up by repeating the question):

I'm saying that, personally, I would counsel the person to choose life, despite horrific, horrific circumstances that this person would find themselves in. And, um, if you're asking, though, kind of foundationally here, should anyone end up in jail for having an ? abortion, absolutely not. That's nothing I would ever support.

This is an intriguing position for someone whose position has regularly been characterized as opposing the legality of abortion except when the mother's life is at risk. That said, it bears an intriguing resemblance to John McCain's own position from January, 2000:

On ?Meet the Press,? McCain said he had ?come to the conclusion that the exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother are legitimate exceptions? to an outright ban on abortions. ?I don?t claim to be a theologian, but I have my moral beliefs.? If Roe v. Wade is overturned and abortion outlawed, McCain said he believes doctors who performed abortions would be prosecuted. ?But I would not prosecute a woman? who obtained an abortion.

Here's what I'm wondering. A medical (as opposed to self-induced) abortion involves both a doctor and the woman obtaining the abortion. It's not possible for the abortion to occur without the woman's involvement.

1. Given that that involvement is voluntary, my non-lawyer's take is that if performing the abortion is itself a criminal act, then seeking it out and permitting it to occur would seem to involve sort of conspiracy behavior. Is that right?

2. And in any case, how can the same act be a crime for one participant but not the other, especially when there is no question as to the mother's desire to commit the act and awareness of its effects?

3. Are there any other cases of acts that are criminal for one group of participants but not another, given that all groups understand the act's effects and participate voluntarily? (Note: I am not asking whether there are cases in which one party to a crime would not be prosecuted even though another is. That's a totally different issue, obviously.)

Thanks in advance for any info!