Predicto Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 It probably isn't significant because the case is going to split 4-4 and leave the crappy Texas law intact for now. the NEXT case, whatever it may be, could be a doozy, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 Is it all that significant? Treating medical providers as medical providers shouldn't be controversial. Except that isn't really what it's doing. It's trying to slip something through the back door that they couldn't get through the front. But I have a feeling I'm about to get sucked into an abortion debate so I'll just stop now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xameil Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 sucked into an abortion debate so I'll just stop now. There's some off color jokes that could be made here... I'll go with the less tasteless one... So you're aborting your argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 Back door? Did the Dems sneak a hooker into the House again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 There's some off color jokes that could be made here... I'll go with the less tasteless one... So you're aborting your argument? yea I actually had one about "sucked" but I deleted it to avoid a ban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xameil Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 yea I actually had one about "sucked" but I deleted it to avoid a ban. Yeah that was the first one that came to mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 Is it all that significant? Treating medical providers as medical providers shouldn't be controversial. Well, there isn't one standard for all medical providers, there are a bunch, and in this case the abortion clinics are being held to the highest possible standard (where birthing centers are not held to that standard, and actually giving birth, statistics show, is a far more dangerous medical procedure). Well this thread is actually quite old and was just bumped. I suppose if you feel that strongly about it you could start a new thread. Yea i don't feel that strongly, just thought that some bull**** outrage about a minor California law wasn't really on par with the SCOTUS case today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 Well, there isn't one standard for all medical providers, there are a bunch, Like I said...... http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2014/04/13065/ Health Regulations and Roe: The Fifth Circuit got it Right in Planned Parenthood v. Abbott by Josiah Peterson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 Got to say that, regarding the current case, I could see the logic of a ruling along the lines of "the court unanimously rules that this law is a complete lie, written for the sole purpose of preventing access to abortions, with a blatantly dishonest cover story. HOWEVER, it is not the Law of the Land that state legislatures can not pass legislation which has the EFFECT of restricting access to abortions". On the other hand, I could also see a ruling all night the lines of "Umpty-ump years ago, the Roe v. Wade decision ruled that legislation banning abortions, passed under the claim of protecting the mother's health, were unconstitutional, because in the first two trimesters of pregnancy, then-current abortion procedures were actually LESS dangerous than remaining pregnant. That fact has not changed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 Like I said...... http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2014/04/13065/Health Regulations and Roe: The Fifth Circuit got it Right in Planned Parenthood v. Abbott by Josiah Peterson Yea, rule of thumb, never take the opinion of a person named Josiah at face value when religion is involved. Same goes for Jeremiah, Jebediah, Noah, or whatever the Duggar's named their kids. Edit: I was also wondering why that article read like the first draft of a second year law student's law review article. It's even worse. Josiah Peterson is a graduate student and assistant debate coach at St. John’s University in Queens, NY LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 Yea, rule of thumb, never take the opinion of a person named Josiah at face value when religion is involved. Same goes for Jeremiah, Jebediah, Noah, or whatever the Duggar's named their kids. Edit: I was also wondering why that article read like the first draft of a second year law student's law review article. It's even worse. LOL. More importantly, look no further than the Founder and Editor. Ryan T. Anderson, PhD, the William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow in American Principles and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation, and the founder and editor of Public Discourse, the online journal of the Witherspoon Institute of Princeton, New Jersey. The Heritage Foundation At a minimum, I think we can suspect at least a teeeeeeeeny bit of bias in their publications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 More importantly, look no further than the Founder and Editor. At a minimum, I think we can suspect at least a teeeeeeeeny bit of bias in their publications. You'd think the Heritage Institute could hire more accomplished writers than Josiah the college student and assistant debate coach. LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 you would think you would address the argument....but Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 you would think you would address the argument....but I will take that as your admission that your source is, in a few words, comically full of ****. But i'll still address his horrid "arguments" if that makes you happy. After you get though 8 paragraphs of word-salad, here is the basis for his argument: Each of the laws in these cases had a “rational connection” to maternal health, as does H.B.2. According to Dr. John Thorp, H.B. 2’s admitting privileges requirement is designed to ensure physician competence, continuity of care, optimal physician communication and transfer for complication management, and reduce patient abandonment. First, abortions result in a trip to the hospital in a VERY small number of cases, much smaller than, as i mentioned above, birthing clinics (which do not need admitting privileges). Second, if something goes wrong and the patient goes to the hospital, they will get admitted whether the doctor at the abortion clinic has admitting privileges or not. ER's don't turn people away. Therefore, no rational connection to the woman's health. End of discussion. On the other hand, hospitals in Texas WILL NOT GIVE admitting privileges to doctors at abortion clinics, for no other reason than because it is Texas. Therefore, this law is just a slick attempt to shut all abortion clinics down, which is in direct opposition to previous Supreme Court jurisprudence. Happy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 you would think you would address the argument....but They addressed every point that you made, in your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 Ya are outvoted so far by judges.....losers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.