We need to seriously consider what is the meaning of government and of laws.
In this time when laws are shifting so radically, not because any fundamental facts have changed, but simply because differently accepted standards in our society have become more prevalent, there is a need to pause and ask ourselves many questions.

Why should there even be laws, and why should we feel obligated to live according to rules made by people who have been dead before any person alive to day was born. If laws based on moral standards get changed or repealed, does that mean morality changes? Does that mean the people who were sent to prison in the past for breaking the old laws become retrospectively innocent citizens who were punished for doing something natural and ok? Do we then owe an obligation to the memory of those people in the past to retroactively pardon them of wrongdoing, if our modern society decides that what they did before we were born never really was wrong in the first place?

If morality is really so flexible that all we have to do is change the law and suddenly what was considered shocking before is now considered completely acceptable, then that should at least make us less willing to rush to the stance of moral indignation toward those who break current laws, knowing that a future act of legislation could reverse the supposed moral outrage just as easily.

The case in which 1845 statute was used is very different than abortion. According to the Eagle Tribune, the child was born only to die 4 days later.

So the question here is, did the young woman see that the live child got medical treatment. It lived for 4 days so it had some kind of viability. If she didn't see that the child got medical attention, then she's guilty of negligent homicide. If she did see that the child got medical attention, then she's not guilty of anything under the law.

As much as I'm pro-life and believe abortion is murder and ought to be illegal, it is currently considered a constitutional right. And that nullifies any old statute that happens to be on the books.

"Just in October in Virginia on the Jackson River a court decided that it was trespassing for a couple of anglers to get out of their boat to wade fish barring them from ever fishing that stretch of river again. This was a civil case where the Plaintiffs claimed they owned not only the land down to the river but the stream bed under the water as well.. This was thanks to 18th century grants from England to the Commonwealth of Virginia." The Defendants simply ran out of money to fight the charges. Mind you; if they simply stayed in their boat and didn't touch the river bottom, they wouldn't have been found to be trespassing. This can obviously pose a huge problem to Virginians who enjoy the outdoors and is another example of a no longer reasonable or applicable law.

By implication you or Rep Rushing are saying that Mitt Romney acted dangerously in 2003. I was annoyed by his actions, but that doesn't make me or Mitt dangerous. Slow news day?

And now for some perspective. All states have out-of-date laws. It's not at all unique to Massachusetts, Roberto. http://www.stupidlaws.katfan.com

J Parker, if you hate the Globe so much why don't you subscribe to the much more conservative Herald? I thought you Republicans believed in a 'free market?'

Not all laws are enforced in Massachusetts, in fact, most aren't. So what will doing away with certain laws do? Nothing.