|
Obdicut posted:We are attempting to talk about legal subjects, and the effect these legalities have. It's easier when there isn't someone loving around and 'stirring the pot' disingenuously. The problem is mostly that Actus raised a set of issues and a set of posters, including you, constructed her into the sort of target you're more comfortable dealing with, using forms of conversation you feel safer using.
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 22:02 |
|
|
Obdicut posted:We are attempting to talk about legal subjects, and the effect these legalities have. It's easier when there isn't someone loving around and 'stirring the pot' disingenuously. We're long past legal subject discussion. It's a gang pile on one poster who pissed everyone off.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The problem is mostly that Actus raised a set of issues and a set of posters, including you, constructed her into the sort of target you're more comfortable dealing with, using forms of conversation you feel safer using. You don't think "who is a competent authority to testify whether a law addresses the essential aspects of the legitimate government interest at issue" is a pertinent question?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You don't think "who is a competent authority to testify whether a law addresses the essential aspects of the legitimate government interest at issue" is a pertinent question? Not in the way you're using it, no.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The problem is mostly that Actus raised a set of issues and a set of posters, including you, constructed her into the sort of target you're more comfortable dealing with, using forms of conversation you feel safer using. That's not what happened. Actus came out of the gate 'stirring the pot', bounced back and forth between talking about the regulations in terms of their effects and their legal status, and then sanctimoniously tried to claim she was only interested in the legal argument. Among the 'set of issues' she raised was that some regulation of abortion clinics was necessary, a position that nobody was against. She conflated the regulations having legal and regulatory merit, and generally shitted up the thread. If all she had done was talk about the legal aspects of the case, nobody would have given a poo poo. But she didn't, and I have no clue why you want to pretend she did. spoon daddy posted:We're long past legal subject discussion. It's a gang pile on one poster who pissed everyone off. Weird, the person who concern-trolled and 'stirred the pot' pissed of a lot of people who are annoyed at her for disingenuous posting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You don't think "who is a competent authority to testify whether a law addresses the essential aspects of the legitimate government interest at issue" is a pertinent question? Geeze Vital, you just have to be more Civil to the concern troll.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
There's a beautiful symmetry here between the structure of an accusation of concern trolling and making the improper purpose argument.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:There's a beautiful symmetry here between the structure of an accusation of concern trolling and making the improper purpose argument. You're right. It's really obvious to everyone taking even a brief glance, that the people pushing these abortion regulations have an improper purpose. It's really obvious to everyone taking even a brief glance that she's concern trolling. But proving either legalistically would be difficult.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The problem is mostly that Actus raised a set of issues and a set of posters, including you, constructed her into the sort of target you're more comfortable dealing with, using forms of conversation you feel safer using. Maybe when you guys (the minority of posters who are actually trained lawyers) want to argue pure law in front of a bunch of laymen you could mark the posts as such so we don't conflate "there are some real substantive arguments on both sides if I pretend I'm a trial judge who has to pretend everyone is acting in good faith" with "there are some real substantive arguments here on both sides  ". Because it sounds like that could have cleared this whole thing up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:Maybe when you guys (the minority of posters who are actually trained lawyers) want to argue pure law in front of a bunch of laymen you could mark the posts as such so we don't conflate "there are some real substantive arguments on both sides if I pretend I'm a trial judge who has to pretend everyone is acting in good faith" with "there are some real substantive arguments here on both sides If the legal context/framework they have been posting within wasn't obvious to you, you maybe shouldn't speak authoritatively in a D&D SCOTUS thread, or walk while chewing gum. That was basic Totenberg levels of analysis.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
fosborb posted:If the legal context/framework they have been posting within wasn't obvious to you Let's see: 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. Yeah, obvious legal context/framework and not sarcasm for effect.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:You're right. It might help you here to think why the legal system is constructed this way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
The point of the post that had the wrong procedure listed was that elective abortion isn't just 14 times safer than pregnancy. Its much safer than that. Our first problem here is that "abortion" is a political rather than medical term. There is no medical procedure called "abortion". There are a wide variety of medical procedures that terminate a pregnancy from Suction Aspiration to Cesarian Section - each one with its own risk profile. Lumping them into one statistic for political reasons is dumb. Writing any regs for "abortion" instead of a given method is even dumber. Regulating a nurse with a skype line to a doctor and a box of pills with the same law that covers anesthetizing someone and slicing open their abdomen to remove a 6lb dead fetus before it starts decomposing inside them ... Oye. And that's not even touching the fact that a C-Section is the same medical procedure whether done at 7 months or mid-delivery but only counted as "abortion" some of the time. Anyone actually interested in maternal safety would be breaking abortions out by method first and making rules on a per-method basis. I'm completely pro choice and completely in favor of requiring the laproscopic abortion of an ectopic pregnancy happen in a surgical theatre for example. Like refusal to grandfather existing facilities with impeccable safety records, talking about "abortion" instead of any particular medical procedure is drat good evidence that the speaker is not motivated by maternal safety.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Let's see: That was both  but in case it wasn't obvious that a comment which only made sense by acknowledging the facts of the case was, in turn, rooted in the legal framework of those facts..... every other shred of context immediately after that post (including her avatar and username and legalese and implied professional associations) point to the same conclusion. I mean disagree with the content if you want, but if you needed a large "laywer arguments here" sign after the last 5 pages I'm not really sure how to help you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
fosborb posted:but in case it wasn't obvious that a comment which only made sense by acknowledging the facts of the case Wait, the facts of the case were that abortion providers in Texas weren't required to adhere to set medical standards before HB2? And now the Supreme Court's injunction has barred set medical standards from Texas? This is news to me, and frankly whatever the content of the bill we can all agree that it must be better than the dangerous anarchy which held sway before.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
fosborb posted:That was both Still doubt it, and the last five pages were a response to it which I think we could have avoided if it had been clear they're cosposting their oral arguments as the defendant's representation in front of SCOTUS rather than concern trolling, which happen to be indistinguishable in this case because the law itself was concern trolling. Hope that helps!
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:There's a beautiful symmetry here between the structure of an accusation of concern trolling and making the improper purpose argument. You win.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:You win. Every once in a while, I am reminded why we keep Discendo around.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It might help you here to think why the legal system is constructed this way. Again, these posts of yours where you indicate you could say more but don't are annoying, lovely, and add no value. I do understand why the legal system is constructed this way. I have no objections to the legal system being constructed this way. I am not saying that a bad intent should be easier to prove. What I was pointing out is that Actus shifted back and forth between strict legal analysis and not whenever it suited her, while criticizing others for departing from legal analysis. What about that do you not understand?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:these posts of yours are annoying, lovely, and add no value. Weren't you the one whining that there wasn't lay discussion in posts that pretty much boiled down to "gently caress you I'm not a lawyer stop using big words"? Now you are upset there was (allegedly) lay discussion. Which is it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Weren't you the one whining that there wasn't lay discussion in posts that pretty much boiled down to "gently caress you I'm not a lawyer stop using big words"? Now you are upset there was (allegedly) lay discussion. Which is it? I'm not saying that the posts are lovely because they're lay discussion, I'm saying they're lovely because they're a half-assed version of the Socratic method. Instead of saying "It might help you here to think why the legal system is constructed this way.", a useful post would say "The legal system is constructed this way because of X". Actually, that would actually still be lovely, just less so, because at no point has anyone said that intent should be easier to legally attack. What I am criticizing you far is your blatant, obnoxious hypocrisy in talking plenty about the non-legalistic aspects of the law, and then criticizing others for talking about the non-legalistic aspects of the law. For example, you have this long post about how malpractice is so bad and why regluation of abortion clinics is important (as if they weren't already regulated, but never mind that) for the moment. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3590854&userid=124707&perpage=40&pagenumber=1#post436303680 And then later, you decide that nobody gives a gently caress what you think: quote:c. Rule 1 of appellate advocacy. No one gives a gently caress what you think. What does the law say and how does the law apply to the case? If you were just a legal pedant, nobody would have a problem with you. It's that you are smugly happy to talk about why this is an important issue and why you think regulation is necessary, and then hop over to sanctimony town to proclaim nobody gives a poo poo about what you think.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I do understand why the legal system is constructed this way. I have no objections to the legal system being constructed this way. I am not saying that a bad intent should be easier to prove. The legal system is structured this way with regard to intent arguments because they aren't easy to prove. Saying someone is concern trolling is a way of ignoring the content of their arguments based on an unprovable and untestable assertion. Unless you have direct evidence that ActusRhesus is concern trolling, that shouldn't be a basis for criticizing her position. Attack the content, not the intent. Attacking the intent strips your argument of its value.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:If you were just a legal pedant, nobody would have a problem with you. It's that you are smugly happy to talk about why this is an important issue and why you think regulation is necessary, and then hop over to sanctimony town to proclaim nobody gives a poo poo about what you think. It's the editorial "you". Courts don't give a gently caress what I think either. They care about the record and how the law applies to the record...and in this case the record they're stuck with is "the law was passed in furtherance of a state interest in protecting health" because the plaintiffs seem to have failed to challenge that presumption at the trial level (again based on the 5th circuit's write up...would need to see transcript to see if that's a clearly erroneous finding or not.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The legal system is structured this way with regard to intent arguments because they aren't easy to prove. Saying someone is concern trolling is a way of ignoring the content of their arguments based on an unprovable and untestable assertion. Unless you have direct evidence that ActusRhesus is concern trolling, that shouldn't be a basis for criticizing her position. The only way to properly defeat bad faith arguments is to recognize that they are made in bad faith. If you engage them as if they were made in good faith you are ceding rhetorical ground precisely along the lines they seek to exploit. Those wishing to be perceived as arguing in good faith should avoid the appearance of bad faith in their arguments, and address those concerns in a straightforward manner. Just because intent is hard to prove does not make it an improper target for attack. It just makes concern trolling easier to execute because it is rhetorically difficult to engage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:It's the editorial "you". Courts don't give a gently caress what I think either. Yes, I understand that. Did you actually not understand my post? It kind of seems that way. The problem is not giving your "Oh regulation is so important guys because of a malpractice suit I was on once" argument, nor is it you saying "Courts don't give a gently caress what you think". It's doing both of those things, that's where you're an obnoxious hypocrite. Discendo Vox posted:The legal system is structured this way with regard to intent arguments because they aren't easy to prove. Did you miss the bit where I said that I understand why the legal system is set up this way or something? quote:Saying someone is concern trolling is a way of ignoring the content of their arguments based on an unprovable and untestable assertion. Unless you have direct evidence that ActusRhesus is concern trolling, that shouldn't be a basis for criticizing her position. Yeah, I have attacked the content, though, as have plenty of others, along with attacking the 'intent'. Also, we're not actually in a courtroom, so we get to use common sense, too, as well as direct evidence. Ain't that nifty? Like, for example, when Warsawa said: quote:The system is pretty racist. Not sure how you, the ground, or any quantity of air molecules relate to it. When I talk about understanding the opinions and the underlying politics, I mean that when one side of the argument involves any attempt to consider ameliorating racial discrimination, you can be sure you'll find Chief Justice Roberts on the other side of it. it's totally fine, even though he's even asserting something that's unprovable--that Justice Roberts is always going to be on the racist side of an argument.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:Maybe when you guys (the minority of posters who are actually trained lawyers) want to argue pure law in front of a bunch of laymen you could mark the posts as such so we don't conflate "there are some real substantive arguments on both sides if I pretend I'm a trial judge who has to pretend everyone is acting in good faith" with "there are some real substantive arguments here on both sides Better yet, trigger warnings. A couple of trigger warnings and the whole competitive circle jerk would instead have been a chain of convivial reach arounds.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
I'm not being sufficiently direct here: an accusation of concern trolling is meaningless and rhetorical. It adds nothing. The reason that intent arguments fail in the legal system are why accusations of concern trolling should be discounted in other discourses- they allow a baseless attack on any critical position you don't like.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
On the topic of motive ... I went and re-read the majority opinion on Roe because I remembered a big part of it being what motives were allowable for reproductive legislation at all. And I hit pay dirt (link to full text of majority opinion) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=410&invol=113 My stupid phone is not letting me copy paste but it is in section X the paragraph starting "with respect to the states legitimate and compelling interest in the health of the mother". Basically the court broke pregnancy into three phases based on medical knowledge at the time. The most important phase for the legality of abortion is the "viability" phase wherein the fetus could survive removal. At that point any method of terminating the pregnancy that ends fetal life can be outlawed if a state wishes because it is allowed to legislate in the interests of a viable fetus. Methods of ending the pregnancy that don't harm the fetus such as c-section and induced labor, however, presumably cannot/have not been. But there where two other phases. There was the period in which aborting is safer than pregnancy and the period in which aborting is more dangerous than pregnancy. Roe grants states the option of passing legislation (licensing, building codes, etc) for the purpose of maternal safety only after the point where aborting is as or more dangerous than pregnancy itself. Prior to that point states aren't allowed to pass laws with a rational based in maternal safety, " this is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above in 149, that until [that point] mortality in abortion [is] less than mortality in normal childbirth". So even if these concern trolling assholes were sincere, it shouldn't loving matter. Texas isn't allowed to pass laws with that stated motive until the procedure in question is racking up a higher body count than pregnancy. So, can we pass a law requiring hand washing before an abortion? Yes! Lack of hand washing makes abortion more lethal than pregnancy. Lack of admitting privileges, however, doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
McAlister posted:On the topic of motive ... I went and re-read the majority opinion on Roe because I remembered a big part of it being what motives were allowable for reproductive legislation at all. And I hit pay dirt (link to full text of majority opinion) 1) Roe's not the case you want to cite to on this. There's subsequent caselaw on these issues. 2) Even based on Roe, the standard is specific to regulation of the trimester timing of the procedure, not the mortality rate. The mortality rate's the rationale for the ruling, not the ruling. 3) It's also an example of the problems of the initial criticisms of Actus's position- you'd need to see which clinics were performing which procedures to determine the overbreadth of the regulation at issue. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Oct 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
Pretty sure Casey overturned a bunch of that amid furious handwaving about how they weren't really overturning anything.Planned Parenthood v Casey posted:The woman's liberty is not so unlimited, however, that, from the outset, the State cannot show its concern for the life of the unborn and, at a later point in fetal development, the State's interest in life has sufficient force so that the right of the woman to terminate the pregnancy can be restricted. Mmmm yeah, that's the stuff. Casey posted:The trimester framework no doubt was erected to ensure that the woman's right to choose not become so subordinate to the State's interest in promoting fetal life that her choice exists in theory, but not in fact. We do not agree, however, that the trimester approach is necessary to accomplish this objective. A framework of this rigidity was unnecessary, and, in its later interpretation, sometimes contradicted the State's permissible exercise of its powers. And so on and so forth. Sorry McAlister, this decision is why states are getting away with ultrasound wands/required ultrasound viewings/a scarlet A upon the breast of a woman who dares to abort her baby/etc VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Oct 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 22:06
|
|
)
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'm not being sufficiently direct here: ftfy But seriously, do you believe that arguments in bad faith cannot be detected, and should not be countered on those grounds if they are detected? Identification of a bad faith interlocutor doesn't mean you don't have to address the substance of their arguments, it just changes your methods in addressing them. If you suspect somebody of concern trolling, then asking them point blank about their motivations can clear things up pretty quickly. But if somebody is actually in fact concern trolling and you never bother to question intent they can blow so much smoke that the entire discussion will be derailed. Isn't doing this a real legal tactic?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'm not being sufficiently direct here: an accusation of concern trolling is meaningless and rhetorical. It adds nothing. The reason that intent arguments fail in the legal system are why accusations of concern trolling should be discounted in other discourses- they allow a baseless attack on any critical position you don't like. And if people had just said "She's concern trolling", then what you're saying here might have some merit. Instead, what has happened is that people have cited a lot of evidence of the concern trolling, from her opening post to her shift between whether or not we're talking in strictly legal terms or also explaining our thoughts and feelings, from her ignorance about admitting privileges to her refusal to explain what she'd accept as an authoritative professional recommendation if the AMA doesn't cut it. People didn't just say 'concern troll, lol'. So while simply saying 'concern troll' may indeed allow a baseless attack on any critical position you don't like, that's not what has occurred. To move to actually SCOTUS-Y stuff, I got to go to a lunch with Sheila Birnbaum. She talked about her most recent Supreme Court case, and said that the SC is weird and nervous-making for a large number of reasons, even when it isn't your first trip there. One of the things she said was that even though you know that being asked fewer questions is actually better, you've done so much preparation that it can feel like you're 'losing' when your opponent is being asked questions, even critical questions. She talked a lot without interruption, and while she intellectually knew that was good simply because it was unusual it made her nervous.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:ftfy No. Obdicut posted:And if people had just said "She's concern trolling", then what you're saying here might have some merit. Instead, what has happened is that people have cited a lot of evidence of the concern trolling, from her opening post to her shift between whether or not we're talking in strictly legal terms or also explaining our thoughts and feelings, from her ignorance about admitting privileges to her refusal to explain what she'd accept as an authoritative professional recommendation if the AMA doesn't cut it. People didn't just say 'concern troll, lol'. You didn't actually demonstrate the invalidity of her asserted argument, and most of your claims against it relied on either 1) not knowing what was going on legally or 2) not seeing how the different parts of the argument worked. By assuming bad intent and working from that point forward, your response wasn't to her arguments, but to the arguments of a concern troll position you constructed in her place. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Oct 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
whoops, quote/=edit
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:No. Which asserted argument? She made a bunch, hopping from one the next whenever it suited her. I spent most of my time talking about her "There should be some regulation" argument, which was really easily shown to be invalid by the whole "There already is regulation" fact. quote:By assuming bad intent and working from that point forward, your response wasn't to her arguments, but to the arguments of a concern troll position you constructed in her place. Except I didn't. I read what she said and concluded bad intent from the hypocrisy, shifting goalposts, ignorance, etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Which asserted argument? She made a bunch, hopping from one the next whenever it suited her. I spent most of my time talking about her "There should be some regulation" argument, which was really easily shown to be invalid by the whole "There already is regulation" fact. OK, we talked about this. The way to respond to "there should be some regulation" is not "There already is regulation". That assumes all regulation is commutative, and that there's some sort of ideal binary or quantity of regulation. Part of the reason I'm having trouble with the accusations against the structure of her arguments is you and other members of the eboladogpile kept showing you don't understand them very well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:OK, we talked about this. The way to respond to "there should be some regulation" is not "There already is regulation". Yes, it is, if the argument is that we need to treat this new regulation as though it's coming from a vacuum, which is what she effectively did. quote:That assumes all regulation is commutative, and that there's some sort of ideal binary or quantity of regulation. No, it doesn't. It just assumes that there is some regulation already, which is what the person said was necessary. It does not make any appeal to a quantity of regulation. if anything, the statement "There should be some regulation" is the stupidly binary argument. quote:Part of the reason I'm having trouble with the accusations against the structure of her arguments is you and other members of the eboladogpile kept showing you don't understand them very well. And I think that you fill in all of the gaps, pave over all of the cracks, and ignore all of the flaws in her 'argument', especially ignoring that she didn't just make one argument, but several, including, as you completely refuse to deal with, strongly stating we should just be talking about the legalities but not, herself, simply talking about the legalities. This has gotten incredibly boring, and you're not showing any signs of even attempting to understand anyone else's position, so I'm going to stop talking to you about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
Discendo Vox is showing that he's understanding everything perfectly, it is just the entire thread other than some shitposter backpedaling that don't understand. If only you knew the secrets of law such as stating your immense knowledge without bothering to impart any of it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'm not being sufficiently direct here: an accusation of concern trolling is meaningless and rhetorical. It adds nothing. The reason that intent arguments fail in the legal system are why accusations of concern trolling should be discounted in other discourses- they allow a baseless attack on any critical position you don't like. It's vastly easier to concern troll internet forums than it is a court so I don't see any reason an internet forum should even attempt to use the same standard and just assume arguments are in good faith. Discendo Vox posted:OK, we talked about this. The way to respond to "there should be some regulation" is not "There already is regulation". That assumes all regulation is commutative, and that there's some sort of ideal binary or quantity of regulation. Please don't pretend ActusRhesus didn't sound flippant and dismissive in the post that started this whole mess. "There should be some regulation" was not what started this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 22:02 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Pretty sure Casey overturned a bunch of that amid furious handwaving about how they weren't really overturning anything. Just read Casey. Roe outlined the logic of the three phases and also set time periods for each. This was dumb. It should have just outlined the rational of competing interests and whose interests win when. Casey directly throws out the framework of specific dates set by roe while explicitly affirming the logic behind them (section g near the top) States may put the fetus first when it is viable and doing so doesn't endanger the mother. States may put maternal safety first when a danger is greater than pregnancy itself. Casey addressed one situation that roe didn't - minor children. This added a player to the equation that roe didn't consider as it spells out nothing about the rights of parents or guardians. And it mildly weakened the roe standard of no legitimate interest in fetal well being prior to viability at all to, ok, some legit interest but not allowed to hold that interest over maternal rights because prior to viability maternal rights trump Casey was the state wanting to proselytize its citizens to reconsider and various attempts to enlist the help of other citizens to pressure the woman into changing her mind. You must tell your gaurdians, you must tell your husband. The informed consent stuff was irrelevant - I have to listen to a spiel about what they are going to do and sign off on it at my dentist even though I don't want to because visualizing the drill cutting into my tooth is almost as bad as the actual procedure. It didn't deal with maternal safety at all so how would it overturn that aspect of roe? Which again, it explicitly affirmed in the section where it noted that medical advances had shifted the windows but the logic behind them remained sound.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 22:51
|
|