|
ActusRhesus posted:I'm just willing to recognize that people with whom, at the end of the day, I disagree, may have reasons for thinking the way they do that aren't related to being the Vagina boogey man. Yeah but surely that group of reasonable people doesn't include Americans United for Life, the decidedly non-scientific non-medical organization that is authoring these bills from a common template in various states over the objections of credible professional medical organizations right?
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 05:15 |
|
|
Radish posted:It's annoying since everyone, the people making the law, the people supporting the law, and the people opposed to it knows what the goal is. People who are universally opposed to health care for the poor aren't suddenly going to be stricken with the need to protect women in this one very specific circumstance. However everyone has to pretend that the supporters and writers of these sorts of laws aren't trying to pull a fast one because that would be impolite or something. Some are, no doubt. I'm not so sure all are, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah but surely that group of reasonable people doesn't include Americans United for Life, the decidedly non-scientific non-medical organization that is authoring these bills from a common template in various states over the objections of credible professional medical organizations right? I tend not to trust *any* organization involved in the drafting of "model legislation."
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Ad hominems. Now that's compelling. Also, yes...you got me...I created a SA account 7 years ago just to bide my time and wait to troll abortion threads that might come up 7 years in the future. Gimmick account? Really? Look, it's quite simple. Every medical procedure has an appropriate level of safeguards and supervision commensurate to the risk involved. That is not in the least controversial. Medical professionals testified that the restrictions in the bill go far beyond what is prudent and appropriate for this particular procedure. Hence, the court ruled that the point of the bill was not protection of women's health, but merely restricting access to abortions. The excessive standards did nothing to protect women's health beyond previously established standards and were nothing but a smokescreen for restricting constitutional rights.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:What's really amusing me about all of this is that I never once said I agreed with the law. And as you recognized, anyone who's been paying attention should be able to infer that, in fact, I do think the law went too far and there are other, less restrictive means of getting the same public interest met. I'm just willing to recognize that people with whom, at the end of the day, I disagree, may have reasons for thinking the way they do that aren't related to being the Vagina boogey man. And yet, you continue to ignore the fact that regulations already exist and that abortion is not nearly as invasive as you think it is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:And where did I say that? All I said was "The AMA filed an amicus, therefore there are no competent physicians who agree with this law" is a logical fallacy. Because it is. I didn't say there are no physicians anywhere who disagree. Deniers are always going to find someone somewhere that will say whatever. Rejecting the consensus of the scientific community in favor of a few dissenters is not how the scientific method works. That's cool that you found Baby's First Rules of Logic, but it's not an appeal to authority if the authority actually is authoritative, and it's not argument ad populum if the popular majority in question is the overwhelming majority of people who know what the gently caress they're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
45 posts. I thought maybe Scalia died from an overdose of pure evil but nope, just some idiot nitpicking about abortion because they can't grasp that states pass these laws as a direct means of undermining Roe v. Wade and outlawing abortions indirectly.SedanChair posted:Nobody's buying it. It's like the abortion version of "I'm not racist, but..."
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
gatesealer posted:And yet, you continue to ignore the fact that regulations already exist and that abortion is not nearly as invasive as you think it is. depends entirely on what stage of the proceeding you are in, and how you define invasive. I would argue that anything involving a physician going past the cervix is, indeed invasive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I didn't say there are no physicians anywhere who disagree. Deniers are always going to find someone somewhere that will say whatever. Rejecting the consensus of the scientific community in favor of a few dissenters is not how the scientific method works. That's cool that you found Baby's First Rules of Logic, but it's not an appeal to authority if the authority actually is authoritative, and it's not argument ad populum if the popular majority in question is the overwhelming majority of people who know what the gently caress they're talking about. People like you, I suppose?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:People like you, I suppose? No I'm not a medical authority, but you should probably pay attention to which side of the case has briefs from professional medical organizations, and which side has the support of exactly zero of those authoritative organizations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No I'm not a medical authority, but you should probably pay attention to which side of the case has briefs from professional medical organizations, and which side has the support of exactly zero of those authoritative organizations. I tend not to pay attention to any amicus briefs, as they are generally people wanting to hear themselves talk regardless of what side it's on. But that's just me. By the way, little known fact, professional orgs (not just AMA...but any org) do not necessarily have to poll its membership before signing on as amici. This has caused a lot of drama in the ABA. Though that's a side note. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Oct 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Ad hominems. Now that's compelling. Also, yes...you got me...I created a SA account 7 years ago just to bide my time and wait to troll abortion threads that might come up 7 years in the future. Gimmick account? Really? And something making it far in the court system is not evidence of good arguments on both sides (if you need examples of this, you're a moron (I threw that in so you could practice the first part)). That's what's called an appeal to invalid authority, and isn't a valid argument. Since it seems to be the only argument you have, you might want to find something else.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I tend not to pay attention to any amicus briefs, as they are generally people wanting to hear themselves talk regardless of what side it's on. But that's just me. "I tend to not pay attention to the thing that could prove me wrong, but that's just me."
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
eNeMeE posted:If you want to throw around accusations of logical fallacies you might want to learn the difference between an ad hominem argument and an insult. You're right. The dockets of the circuit courts and supreme court are so light, and there are so few petitions for cert that they just hear every case that comes across their desk. There's no scrutiny at all before a case is granted cert. In fact, it's done by coin flip.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
gatesealer posted:"I tend to not pay attention to the thing that could prove me wrong, but that's just me." you still seem to be suffering from the delusion that I agree with the Texas law as drafted. You seem to be missing where I said, on more than one occasion, that the law went too far. My point, in all of this, had been that focusing on THAT point...the fact the law goes further than necessary to meet the state's interest, is a more compelling argument than "Rick Perry wants to control my vagina and all Christians hate women and don't really care about safety." Recognizing that someone with whom I ultimately disagree may have reasonable reasons for thinking the way they do and agreeing with them are not the same thing. There are plenty of reasonable, rational people, with whom, at the end of the day, I can disagree.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I tend not to pay attention to any amicus briefs, as they are generally people wanting to hear themselves talk regardless of what side it's on. But that's just me. By the way, little known fact, professional orgs (not just AMA...but any org) do not necessarily have to poll its membership before signing on as amici. This has caused a lot of drama in the ABA. Though that's a side note. The AMA and the ACOG the probably just recommend whatever to hear themselves talk, bet they don't even look at the evidence or check with any members bout stuff like that, you know? You've got to keep an open mind about the possibility that the Silent Medical Majority secretly agrees with Rick Perry, Laubenburg, and Americans United For Life but that Moral Majority of obgyns is too good and above-it-all to get involved in matters of women's health. ActusRhesus posted:You're right. The dockets of the circuit courts and supreme court are so light, and there are so few petitions for cert that they just hear every case that comes across their desk. There's no scrutiny at all before a case is granted cert. In fact, it's done by coin flip. Courts hear cases about stupid unconstitutional laws all the time when people sue because politicians are enforcing stupid and unconstitutional laws. The Supreme Court didn't even think Texas' suit was likely enough to succeed on the merits to even grant an injunction to let them enforce it in the meantime. ActusRhesus posted:My point, in all of this, had been that focusing on THAT point...the fact the law goes further than necessary to meet the state's interest, is a more compelling argument than "Rick Perry wants to control my vagina and all Christians hate women and don't really care about safety." Recognizing that someone with whom I ultimately disagree may have reasonable reasons for thinking the way they do and agreeing with them are not the same thing Now let me tell you how these professional medical organizations just like to hear themselves talk and don't base their recommendations on anything at all besides a love of their own voices. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Oct 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The AMA and the ACOG the probably just recommend whatever to hear themselves talk, bet they don't even look at the evidence or check with any members bout stuff like that, you know? You've got to keep an open mind about the possibility that the Silent Medical Majority secretly agrees with Rick Perry, Laubenburg, and Americans United For Life but that Moral Majority of obgyns is too good and above-it-all to get involved in matters of women's health. Recommendations =/= amicus briefs. I find the AMAs ethics opinions, for example, a lot more compelling than amicus briefs. Your experiences may vary, but I don't know a single appellate practitioner, appellate clerk, or judge who seriously considers anything in an amicus brief. This is not a dig at the AMA. Additionally, likelihood of success on the merits is only one factor in determining whether to grant an injunction. There's also the potential for irreparable harm to one side or the other. Here the state has a really weak case for harm since the result of the injunction basically maintains the status quo and the impact to people seeking abortions in the areas the clinics are being closed (or would be) is pretty undeniable. Ultimately, I think when this does get to the Supreme Court, the law will be struck down. However, that doesn't make the other side as stupid as people here want to make them out to be. If you want to effectively argue against a position, it's worth it to try and understand their argument. Just saying "May it please the court, they are stupid and hate women" isn't a compelling argument. As someone who, whether people on this forum choose to believe it or not, feels that abortion should be kept both legal and safe, I don't think the pro-choice cause is helped by the "everyone who disagrees with me is stupid" rhetoric. This thread is a perfect example. I never said I supported the law. I simply said that the opposing side may have reasons for making their argument, and was immediately called a troll, a gimmick account, a moron etc. etc. Think about it. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Oct 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Ad hominems. Now that's compelling. Also, yes...you got me...I created a SA account 7 years ago just to bide my time and wait to troll abortion threads that might come up 7 years in the future. Gimmick account? Really? If pretending to be concerned with women's health while smugly championing Texan restrictions isn't a gimmick or a troll, it must just be your natural, disgusting beliefs!
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
I bet medical organizations don't even believe any the things they say when they file a brief. This is a reasonable position. They just kinda write whatever but in reality support the exact opposite.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:You're right. The dockets of the circuit courts and supreme court are so light, and there are so few petitions for cert that they just hear every case that comes across their desk. There's no scrutiny at all before a case is granted cert. In fact, it's done by coin flip. The Supreme Court's docket is objectively historically low
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:So courts accept amicus briefs from "concerned citizens"? News to me. Now you're moving your goalposts. The court would accept one on behalf of any recognized expert commenting on the necessity of the regulations. Hell, you're ignoring what I said in the first place: your argument is garbage (because it's trivially easy to find someone who will agree with anything, which is why we ask a group of experts to tell us whether it's worth considering) and it amounts to low-effort trolling. Anyway, it's not the legislature's job to come up with medical regulations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:Anyway, it's not the legislature's job to come up with medical regulations. On that point, I'm going to disagree. There is *some* place for legislative oversight of the medical field. However, what really I think is the giant red flag on the Texas law is that it wasn't applied uniformly to other in-office procedures. Time magazine did a good article a while back on the need to balance proper regulation of procedures with potentially dangerous complications (e.g. anything involving anesthesia) and over-regulating every dermatologist who wants to remove a wart outside a hospital. I honestly don't have a problem requiring physicians (abortion docs or other) to have hospital practice privileges as it's a good way to let the medical community police its own and make sure the physician isn't a quack. The ambulatory clinic issue? My big problem with it is that a. it seems overkill if we're already requiring a hospital partnership and b. the lack of uniformity suggests it is more intended to shut down abortion clinics. If they had drafted a bill including more types of procedures, lypo, lasik, etc. etc. it would be a lot less suspect. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Oct 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:it must just be your natural, disgusting beliefs! And what beliefs would those be? That it's unwise to dismiss someone out of hand as a moron just because they disagree? Because that's really the only belief I've advocated for here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:You're right. The dockets of the circuit courts and supreme court are so light, and there are so few petitions for cert that they just hear every case that comes across their desk. There's no scrutiny at all before a case is granted cert. In fact, it's done by coin flip. To make it easy for you, appealing to the court's opinion on law is citing a valid authority. Appealing to the court's opinion on the requirements for a medical procedure is citing an invalid authority. Get a new argument, this one is fallacious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:You're right. The dockets of the circuit courts and supreme court are so light, and there are so few petitions for cert that they just hear every case that comes across their desk. There's no scrutiny at all before a case is granted cert. In fact, it's done by coin flip. For someone decrying logical fallacies every other post you sure do appeal to authority a bunch. And no, the conservative 5th Circuit and Supreme Court have never granted cert to bullshit cases to push their political agenda forward. That has never happened ever. The courts are purely rational law deciders that only look purely at the merits of the legal arguments being presented.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
eNeMeE posted:This does absolutely nothing to rebut, or even address, what I said. Once again, you're a moron. Can you tell the difference between an ad hominem and an insult yet? Aren't we talking about whether or not a law regarding a medical procedure is constitutional or not? One would think the court is a valid authority on that. And anyway, as discussed below, my only point in all of this is that there are rational arguments even on the side with which I ultimately disagree. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 18:25 on Oct 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
KIM JONG TRILL posted:For someone decrying logical fallacies every other post you sure do appeal to authority a bunch. How is that an appeal to authority? I never said they were "right" or "wrong". I said there are rational arguments on either side, even the side with which I ultimately disagree.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:You're right. The dockets of the circuit courts and supreme court are so light, and there are so few petitions for cert that they just hear every case that comes across their desk. There's no scrutiny at all before a case is granted cert. In fact, it's done by coin flip. You keep saying that granting cert means both sides have valid points, but it only definitively means the side appealing has a valid point. The other side , in this case the State of Texas, could be doing pretty much anything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:On that point, I'm going to disagree. There is *some* place for legislative oversighthnt of the medical field. However, what really I think is the giant red flag on the Texas law is that it wasn't applied uniformly to other in-office procedures. Time magazine did a good article a while back on the need to balance proper regulation of procedures with potentially dangerous complications (e.g. anything involving anesthesia) and over-regulating every dermatologist who wants to remove a wart outside a hospital. I honestly don't have a problem requiring physicians to have hospital practice privileges as it's a good way to let the medical community police its own and make sure the physician isn't a quack. The ambulatory clinic issue? My big problem with it is that a. it seems overkill if we're already requiring a hospital partnership and b. the lack of uniformity suggests it is more intended to shut down abortion clinics. If they had drafted a bill including more types of procedures, lypo, lasik, etc. etc. it would be a lot less suspect. It's their job to say "here's a group of experts: do what they define as best practices or get sued at best and shut down at worst", not to measure hallway sizes and whatever other crap they were pulling. Having a bunch of lawyers write medical regulations into law is exactly how you get regulations that apply equally to a heart surgeon and a dermatologist who might lance a thing occasionally. Luckily for them, there is a group of experts for (just about?) every recognized specialty that they can point to for that purpose. The only challenge is differentiating the bullshit ones like the one Ron Paul is a member of from the real ones and that tends to be easy as long as you read beyond the name of the group. It's the medical licensing board's job to police doctors. No professional group or industry can be trusted to self-police. E: wrong word Munkeymon fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Oct 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
Model legislation written by Americans United for Life, an organization with the explicit goal of reducing access to abortion nationwide is having the effect of reducing access to abortion in Texas along with other essential medical procedures. Hmm, just some unfortunate overzealous regulation with glaring blind spots and a fixation on one procedure, which is stemming from a genuine concern for women's access to safe and effective health care, gee if only the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists had penned an open letter to the Texas legislature before the bill passed specifically warning about these issues with language like ACOG's Open Letter to the Texas Legislature posted:These bills would also impose a number of requirements for abortion facilities that are touted as necessary to ensure the health of the woman, but are, in fact, unnecessary and unsupported by scientific evidence. These proposed requirements, concerning door width and other irrelevant issues, would only make it extremely difficult or impossible for most clinics, including clinics that primarily provide important non-abortion well-woman health care services such as mammograms and prenatal care to low-income women, to stay open. For example, the bills would require physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles and allow abortions only in clinics that meet surgical clinic standards, imposing government regulations on abortion care that are much stricter than for colonoscopy and other similar low-risk procedures. The fact is that abortion is one of the safest medical procedures, with minimal—less than 0.5%—risk of major complications that might need hospital care. If only we could have known and addressed these issues beforehand as reasonable people acting in good faith, because surely these issues would have been fixed beforehand if only the information had been available. Alas. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Oct 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:You keep saying that granting cert means both sides have valid points, but it only definitively means the side appealing has a valid point. The other side , in this case the State of Texas, could be doing pretty much anything. But having won below, it's arguable that *someone* thought they had a valid point. So one argument was found valid by the lower court, and another was found possibly valid when their cert was granted. By the time it gets to the next stage, both sides have had their position at least somewhat validated *somewhere*. (This of course assumes that cert wasn't granted just to clarify/reword the lower court's ruling...that's also been known to happen) However, in this case, I think at the end of the day, the break down will be "requiring practicing privileges OK (possibly caveated that the geographic radius restriction has to be removed)...requiring ABS facilities not OK."
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
Courts only uphold valid arguments. Corporations are people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Corporations are people. Yes, that is literally correct.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Model legislation written by Americans United for Life, an organization with the explicit goal of reducing access to abortion nationwide is having the effect of reducing access to abortion in Texas along with other essential medical procedures. As stated earlier, any organization that engages in drafting "model legislation" is incredibly suspect. Even if their name wasn't already a red flag, having model legislation templates screams "political agenda" on either side of any issue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
Look the Virginia Supreme Court upheld anti-miscegenation laws so obviously someone thought the other side had valid arguments, how dare you just assume it was a bunch of stupid racist bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Courts only uphold valid arguments. Corporations are people. You act like this is a new thing. Corporate personhood goes back pretty far in US jurisprudence and, while there are times it's a pain in the nuts, there are other times (e.g. class action lawsuits) when it's pretty much a necessity. Hard to split hairs and say "you're a person for purposes of jurisdiction when we want to sue your rear end or tax you" but not for other purposes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Please show me where I said I supported the law. ActusRhesus posted:This is great news. Requiring facilities that conduct invasive medical procedures to adhere to set medical standards would be detrimental to women's health. You were sad that it was struck down. You did not literally type the words "I support this law." but you're assuming we're loving morons to not have the ability to infer that typing the sarcastic version of "I think it was dumb that this law was struck down" is implicit support for it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Look the Virginia Supreme Court upheld anti-miscegenation laws so obviously someone thought the other side had valid arguments, how dare you just assume it was a bunch of stupid racist bullshit. Really? By your logic Roe v. Wade is wrongly decided because the Supreme Court also authored Dredd Scott. The courts, and even the Supreme Court, has gotten things wrong. I never said they didn't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
Lemming posted:You were sad that it was struck down. You did not literally type the words "I support this law." but you're assuming we're loving morons to not have the ability to infer that typing the sarcastic version of "I think it was dumb that this law was struck down" is implicit support for it. Please...tell me more about my emotional responses to court opinions. My point was, and remains, that there are rational arguments in support of the law, even if at the end of the day, the law will be largely found unconstitutional. And there is a middle ground to be found here that acknowledges that abortion is a medical procedure and there is a state's interest in overseeing medical procedures in a way that is not a de facto ban on abortion for anyone outside the greater dallas ft. worth area. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Oct 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 05:15 |
|
|
I hope the court injects itself into the election some how despite no evidence to suggest they will.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 18:47
|
|
