We have a concept in the US Constitution that doesn't get much discussion, corruption of blood. This came up last year when a GOP member suggested it as a punishment for sanctions busting. That was daft and after a bit of discussion, the idea was shelved. There is a part of US law that does work corruption of blood, that is abortion law, or at least abortion debate. The plain facts are that a majority of the country don't like either principled position that what the Catholic Church calls induced abortion (the medical definition is a bit different) shall be entirely illegal or that abortion shall be fully available in all circumstances on demand. The "hard cases" of rape and incest are the sticking point.
But if you look objectively, you can't get to abortion of a human being without working a corruption of blood. The unborn child (because those who don't like abortion on demand admit to the humanity of the unborn) has committed no crime but certainly the father has. That the child is punished for the sins of the father is the very definition of attainder (the legal term for corruption of blood) and those who want exceptions for rape and incest are never called to explain why attainder is ok in just this one instance. It seems to be a consistent missed opportunity for the pro-life side. Maybe it just doesn't poll well.