|
Evil Fluffy posted:and the Hobby Lobby case has made it clear there's no chance in hell of them ever being forced to do so either. I'm not sure that is accurate. It's been a while since I read Hobby Lobby, but I think there were some pretty staunch restrictions on what types of businesses were covered. It was a pretty narrow holding.
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 07:07 |
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Again: admitting privileges is an indirect means of banning abortions in a state and if it's allowed then the remaining clinics will simply be hit with even more requirements until they can't meet them all and the state ends up with zero providers. http://www.npr.org/2014/05/06/310100755/abortion-opponents-find-winning-strategy-in-ohio quote:Ohio law requires clinics to have patient transfer agreements in place with nearby hospitals. Last year, it barred public hospitals from entering into such agreements. Admitting privileges are essential to protect women's health so they're required oh and also illegal because a public hospital admitting an abortionist is taxpayer-funded abortioning, can't have that! http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/04/05/ohio-shows-how-an-admitting-privileges-requirement-can-become-a-backdoor-abortion-ban/ quote:A recent example of how easy it is for abortion opponents to cut off abortion providers by targeting a hospital can be seen in Ohio, where Ohio Right to Life is trying to get the University of Toledo Medical Center to revoke its transfer agreement with Capital Care, a Toledo abortion provider. There are only two clinics in Toledo, which, because of their location, also serve a large portion of southern Michigan and northeast Indiana. Just protecting women's health. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Oct 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
That's pretty hosed up. I can't see any reason for denying admission. Even if you don't want tax dollars to go towards funding abortion, at the point of a hospital admission, it's not an abortion...it's a medical emergency from a failed medical procedure. Logically that's like saying "our state doesn't support gang related violence, so if someone gets shot in a gang dispute, they can't come to the hospital." Do no harm etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:That's pretty hosed up. I can't see any reason for denying admission. Even if you don't want tax dollars to go towards funding abortion, at the point of a hospital admission, it's not an abortion...it's a medical emergency from a failed medical procedure. Logically that's like saying "our state doesn't support gang related violence, so if someone gets shot in a gang dispute, they can't come to the hospital." Do no harm etc. What kind of legal argument is that?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:What kind of legal argument is that? I thought you didn't want jargon. Ok, I can think of no compelling state interest advanced by barring hospitals from admitting abortion patients in the event of medical emergency. In fact, it appears counter to every stated state interest in protecting women's health. Assuming the state could formulate such an argument, the restrictions do not seem reasonably tailored to advance that interest (whatever it is). Per Roe v. Wade and its progeny, "we don't want abortion" is not a compelling state interest. and PS...I (presumably) agree with you here. Why are you arguing?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I thought you didn't want jargon. Ok, I can think of no compelling state interest advanced by barring hospitals from admitting abortion patients in the event of medical emergency. In fact, it appears counter to every stated state interest in protecting women's health. Assuming the state could formulate such an argument, the restrictions do not seem reasonably tailored to advance that interest (whatever it is). Per Roe v. Wade and its progeny, "we don't want abortion" is not a compelling state interest. For someone who likes to banter about correct definitions of terminology, you seem to have the wrong definition of "admitting privileges", which reading any of the articles linked about the question would have given you. It's not about whether or not the patients can be admitted, it's whether or not their doctor can perform an admission on their behalf via the privileges granted at the hospital's whim. Barring admitting privileges doesn't stop a patient from getting care (and requiring them doesn't ensure it!) - it's, again, only a part of the TRAP strategy that's been outlined in detail for you in this very thread, speaking to intent. The simple fact of the matter is that there is no compelling state interest being furthered by requiring that abortion providers have admitting privileges, because it does not provide in any meaningful way for the care of the patient.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
Ok, I went to an engineering college and am friends with lots of civil engineers. They know something relevant to the Texas abortion law that I would like to relate. Ready? Most hospitals aren't up to code. Codes can change every year. The building codes for hospitals are immensely detailed as we learn from mistakes in the past and discover things like that hallways need to be wide enough for two gurneys to pass in opposite directions. But most building code changes for hospitals - and all code changes for most other buildings - do not apply to existing structures because that would be ex post facto making them illegal which article 1 of the constitution forbids. Now for places like hospitals we sometimes kind of ignore this and say "holy poo poo, you all have to do this within a reasonable amount of time or else" because we learned something really really important. Like say that Ebola is in Texas. State of emergency stuff. But the normal state of affairs is you leave existing medical facilities alone and the new requirements are only for new facilities. In this way we work towards improving our medical infrastructure without interrupting continuity of service. You do not shut down existing medical facilities unless they are wracking up a butchers bill. And then you do it because they are wracking up a butchers bill. So right off the bat, any legislation that would close existing clinics for any reason other than demonstrable harm to patients should be tossed into the shredder post haste - because that is how it works for every other medical facility. The discussion of undue burden/overbroad/pointless regs should be entirely about whether it is these things for future clinics - which should by the only clinics this law could apply to. You see the same thing in safety regs for all sorts of infrastructure that can't easily change to new rules. All those legacy coal plants, for example, that don't conform to EPA guidelines and limits because they were built before those rules. New coal plants must conform, but not the old ones etc. I personally find this deviation from the normal process by which infrastructure is improved to be proof that the authors have deep malice to this part of our medical infrastructure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:For someone who likes to banter about correct definitions of terminology, you seem to have the wrong definition of "admitting privileges", which reading any of the articles linked about the question would have given you. It's not about whether or not the patients can be admitted, it's whether or not their doctor can perform an admission on their behalf via the privileges granted at the hospital's whim. Barring admitting privileges doesn't stop a patient from getting care (and requiring them doesn't ensure it!) - it's, again, only a part of the TRAP strategy that's been outlined in detail for you in this very thread, speaking to intent. No, I'm aware of that. But I would think there is a difference in the speed and access with which one can get care where a physician can "phone it in" allowing the patient to bypass triage vice having to go through general ER admission. (I could be wrong on this, I'm not a physician and have never had to admit anyone to anything) In any event, there's two different issues getting co-mingled here. (1) should a physician performing procedures have practice privileges (arguments to be made on both sides, and has been upheld by at least some circuits, and I'm guessing will also be upheld by SCOTUS, but I could be wrong) and (2) should a state bar public hospitals from granting an otherwise qualified physician privileges based on one aspect of their practice? (Can't see a valid argument for this at all)
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 03:43
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:and PS...I (presumably) agree with you here. Why are you arguing? Why do you secretly hate women?
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
McAlister posted:But most building code changes for hospitals - and all code changes for most other buildings - do not apply to existing structures because that would be ex post facto making them illegal which article 1 of the constitution forbids. That's not how ex post facto works. It only applies first to criminal statutes, and second only if the law is being applied retroactively to criminalize past legal behavior, rather than acting solely on criminal behavior going forward from the enactment of the statute. The only reason a building code would not apply to an existing structure is if there is a grandfathering clause, and many of them are finicky things that can end the grandfathered part upon so much as performing maintenance on it. EDIT: ActusRhesus, you said "admitting patients", which is not the matter at hand. I've already linked you at least one article (and there are tons more) about why requiring admitting privileges doesn't actually do anything but serve as an end-run around allowing abortion, not least of which is because it only serves the patient's interest if they have a complication while at the clinic and are taken to the hospital at which the doctor has privileges. Even Right to Life groups admit that many if not most common complications from abortion don't present while the patient is in the clinic. Kugyou no Tenshi fucked around with this message at 03:48 on Oct 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
McAlister posted:Ok, I went to an engineering college and am friends with lots of civil engineers. They know something relevant to the Texas abortion law that I would like to relate. Agree completely. (with the caveat that poster above is right ex post facto is criminal. techincally this would go into a rational basis or undue burden analysis, but it's still a valid claim) I seem to recall that there were some similar cases that came down to this exact issue. No changes to existing clinics. Changes needed for future clinics. And it's likely this will come up in this case as well when it's actually addressed on its merits. The stay decision did not really go into the merits of the case very deeply. The problem, though is, as posted above, this would be a really valid and compelling argument for an as-applied challenge...which the plaintiffs seemed to forgo in favor of a straight facial challenge. This is counter-intuitive, but the focus was too much on the impact on patients (which is a logical position, as ultimately any abortion case ultimately comes down to women and health care) and not enough on the impact on specific existing clinics. Part of the 5th circuit ruling was that they couldn't raise an as-applied challenge because they didn't raise it below. I can't say if that's a valid conclusion or not because I haven't been able to find copies of the transcripts or trial briefs. But if the 5th circuit is right, then they're screwed. As for evidence of malice...you're right. It does raise an eyebrow (along with the fact that there didn't seem to be much talk of other types of in-office procedures, although conveniently the state later claimed the bill had no exceptions for other types of ambulatory care). However, to argue that on appeal, they would have needed to get a specific finding of fact at the trial level that there was an improper purpose. For a case of this magnitude that was almost certainly going to end up at SCOTUS regardless of who won, neither they, nor the district judge really did much in the way of protecting the record.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Why do you secretly hate women? Secretly? ActusRhesus posted:No, I'm aware of that. But I would think there is a difference in the speed and access with which one can get care where a physician can "phone it in" allowing the patient to bypass triage vice having to go through general ER admission. (I could be wrong on this, I'm not a physician and have never had to admit anyone to anything) In any event, there's two different issues getting co-mingled here. (1) should a physician performing procedures have practice privileges (arguments to be made on both sides, and has been upheld by at least some circuits, and I'm guessing will also be upheld by SCOTUS, but I could be wrong) and (2) should a state bar public hospitals from granting an otherwise qualified physician privileges based on one aspect of their practice? (Can't see a valid argument for this at all) For like the zillionth time these regulations don't exist except as a way to force your views on abortion on women. Unless something goes insanely wrong, like one in a million wrong, most any issues that come up from the procedure (in itself a rare thing to happen) aren't instant, there's almost no situation where the clinic has to emergency transfer someone to a hospital. Your two questions aren't a factor in this because it literally doesn't happen except to be used as a way to hurt abortion rights.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
My friends said it was ex-post and that is why all building codes everywhere work that way - they only apply to future buildings. Their teacher told them that though he was an engineer not a lawyer so - /shrug. The building was legal and to-code at time of construction. All inspections are done to the code for the year the building was built unless it was substantially renovated at which point it must come into compliance with the new codes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:ActusRhesus, you said "admitting patients", which is not the matter at hand. I've already linked you at least one article (and there are tons more) about why requiring admitting privileges doesn't actually do anything but serve as an end-run around allowing abortion, not least of which is because it only serves the patient's interest if they have a complication while at the clinic and are taken to the hospital at which the doctor has privileges. Even Right to Life groups admit that many if not most common complications from abortion don't present while the patient is in the clinic. I apologize, my medical terminology will be admittedly imprecise, as I'm not a doctor. Sorry for the confusion. As to the rest, that's the argument they need to make. I really...REALLY would like to read the trial transcripts and trial briefs to see what framework they're stuck with. Reading the 5th circuit opinion, there appear to be some issues, (and they are going to lose on this point at the 5th circuit level b/c of res judicata, but the Supreme Court can still say they got it wrong) Would be curious to see what if anything will be kicked on procedural default (and generally state AG litigators do an excellent job of getting things tossed procedurally) so if you know where the transcripts/trial briefs live, please link.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:No, I'm aware of that. But I would think there is a difference in the speed and access with which one can get care where a physician can "phone it in" allowing the patient to bypass triage vice having to go through general ER admission. "I would think". Stunning legal analysis. The AMA's brief I linked earlier that you said you already read posted:H.B.2 is also inconsistent with prevailing medical practices, which are focused on ensuring prompt medical care and do not require that each individual abortion provider have admitting privileges. Therefore, it is important that the provider's facility have a plan to provide prompt emergency services and (if needed) transfer to a nearby emergency facility if complications occur, something that Texas law already requires. Indeed, in the rare instance when a woman experiences a complication after abortion and seeks hospital-based care, under the prevailing medical practice, she is, and can be, appropriately treated by a trained emergency room physician or, if necessary, the hospital's on-call specialist. Emergency room physicians are trained to handle the rare complications from abortion the same way they are trained to handle complications arising from any other medical procedure. Thus, as the lower court recognized, the care a woman receives at the emergency room is independent of, and not contingent on, her abortion provider having admitting privileges. TLDR; Texas law already required clinics to have a plan for transfer to a nearby emergency facility ("phoning it in"), it's common for outpatient providers to hand off patients to the ER doctor anyway regardless of whether they have admitting privileges, the care a woman receives is independent of her provider having these privileges, and it's unlikely that the hospital nearest a woman's home is the one where her provider has admitting privileges so women who experience complications at home are going through the ER anyway. Edit: Oh yeah AMA posted:Indeed, H.B.2 acknowledges that the prevailing practice is for a patient to receive emergency care at a facility near her home. (requiring that women be given "the name and telephone number of the nearest hospital to the home of the pregnant woman at which an emergency arising from the abortion would be treated"). Well which is it, is the ER good enough or not? Why aren't women required to stay in the clinic for however long if it's so vitally important that the abortion provider get her in with his super-slick admitting privileges? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:14 on Oct 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
Also to address that 0.2x per 100,000 figure for deaths from abortion. That's misleading. It includes all methods of abortion and mixes elective and medical emergency abortions. So a woman with an ectopic pregnancy that has to have actual surgery and anesthesia done is being lumped in with a simple D&C which just inserts a tiny suction tube in an existing hole (that's big enough to shove a baby through) and sucks out the uterine lining which is made to detach and does so every 28 days on its own mostly. One of these things is much more dangerous and invasive than the other. Edit : D&E - dialation and evacuation. McAlister fucked around with this message at 05:52 on Oct 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
McAlister posted:My friends said it was ex-post and that is why all building codes everywhere work that way - they only apply to future buildings. Their teacher told them that though he was an engineer not a lawyer so - /shrug. but as was pointed out above "renovation" can be a somewhat flexible term if people want to be dicks. However, "look it was legal when we built it and will cost X to change it" is a valid point to raise under a rational basis analysis, and an even more valid point in a strict scrutiny analysis...especially on the abortion topic because the framework there is just really freaking murky.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
McAlister posted:Also to address that 0.2x per 100,000 figure for deaths from abortion. That's misleading. It includes all methods of abortion and mixes elective and medical emergency abortions. Incidentally, the AMA recommends against D&C. http://www.ama-assn.org/ad-com/polfind/Hlth-Ethics.pdf
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
McAlister posted:My friends said it was ex-post and that is why all building codes everywhere work that way - they only apply to future buildings. Their teacher told them that though he was an engineer not a lawyer so - /shrug.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
twodot posted:I think there would be a due process problem with declaring an existing building suddenly illegal. I don't see any due process problem with declaring an existing business suddenly illegal since people can stop doing business at any moment, but buildings can't immediately conform to building codes instantaneously. But a hospital can stop doing business at any moment, so if the only reason the building is illegal is because a hospital is operating there, then it seems like there's no problem. Hallways have to now be 8 feet wide, operating a hospital in the building is now illegal, but the building is perfectly legal again if the hospital ceases operating. Yet mysteriously, we don't require hospitals to instantly shut down or renovate without a very good reason like people will die if we don't...yet despite there being zero maternal deaths from abortion complications in Texas since that started being tracked, it was super important that clinics become ambulatory surgical centers with 8-foot wide hallways within a year or stop operating. Hmmmm...
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But a hospital can stop doing business at any moment, so if the only reason the building is illegal is because a hospital is operating there, then it seems like there's no problem. Hallways have to now be 8 feet wide, operating a hospital in the building is now illegal, but the building is perfectly legal again if the hospital ceases operating. Yeah, and that was my major point (that I forgot to make) about grandfathering. There are very generous grandfathering clauses for all kinds of poo poo, but for some reason this situation required zero grandfathering - how much you want to bet that the next time Texas changes the regs on actual ASCs, they grandfather as much as possible (and for a side bet: how much you want to bet they wouldn't have done so in the case of abortion clinics)?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Incidentally, the AMA recommends against D&C. Corrected, D&E ... Dialation and evacuation. But I was still wrong because I thought D&E was the first 12 week method but that is Suction Aspiration (SA). D&E is SA plus pokey bits while base SA is just the suction tube and is how 89% of elective abortions happen. http://m.lovejoysurgicenter.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flovejoysurgicenter.com%2Fabortion-services%2Fabortion-5-12-weeks#2804 McAlister fucked around with this message at 06:03 on Oct 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:That's pretty hosed up. I can't see any reason for denying admission. Even if you don't want tax dollars to go towards funding abortion, at the point of a hospital admission, it's not an abortion...it's a medical emergency from a failed medical procedure. Logically that's like saying "our state doesn't support gang related violence, so if someone gets shot in a gang dispute, they can't come to the hospital." Do no harm etc. I think you might be starting to get it. The people who created these laws literally do not care about womens' health. They just want to stop abortions. They try to craft legal fig leaves that let them do so. When you approach the situation with the understanding that one party is actually factually not doing anything in good faith, then it helps you understand what's going on. It sounds like hyperbole, but the Republicans are for real mustache-twirling cartoon villains, at the very least in this case. I'm not anything close to being a lawyer so all the legal jargon is stuff that I have to either look up the definition for or nod my head and assuming that the people know what they're talking about, but I know enough about the politics of the situation that I can comfortably be happy when anything is done to stop a law that ultimately has the effect of restricting abortion for women as a means to control their bodies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 06:28
|
|
Lemming posted:I think you might be starting to get it. The people who created these laws literally do not care about womens' health. They just want to stop abortions. They try to craft legal fig leaves that let them do so. ActusRhesus is fully aware of this. The problem is that the good faith of the parties doesn't matter in court.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:ActusRhesus is fully aware of this. The problem is that the good faith of the parties doesn't matter in court. ^This. (unless you can prove improper purpose...which is a high burden and in this case the plaintiffs appear not to even bothered to put on evidence in support...I assume from the 5th circuit write up. Would need to see actual transcripts to confirm)
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 12:01
|
|
|
Lemming posted:I think you might be starting to get it. The people who created these laws literally do not care about womens' health. They just want to stop abortions. They try to craft legal fig leaves that let them do so. Lemming, in all honesty, accusations of trolling, gimmicking, and being a secret-prolifer aside, I do get it. I have gotten it from the get-go. The breakdown and disconnect here is that some people are addressing this in a moral context (this is being done for a bad reason...and I don't doubt that at least *some* if not a majority of the people involved were politically motivated...again, anytime a group drops in with "model legislation" on ANY topic you need to give them some serious side-eye) while a smaller number are addressing it in a legal context. In a legal context you are stuck with the facts as they were found by the trial court unless you can prove them clearly erroneous (which is almost impossible) The facts are what the record says they are on appeal. Here the plaintiffs did not put in evidence of improper motive, so they are stuck with the facts they created: which is that the court has to defer to the stated "women's health issues." On appeal, that position will get deference. So rather than banging the drum of "Rick Perry hates women" (and for the record, I think Rick Perry is a douche, made only more ridiculous by the inclusion of hipster glasses) a more rational an potentially successful approach, at least for purposes of legal appeal, is to say "OK, these people have a legitimate state interest (even though I don't necessarily believe it) and are well-meaning people with good intentions (even though I may not believe it...though honestly, I think some probably are) but the law they wrote does not address that interest in a constitutionally valid way for the following reasons..." This is a legal issue now as well as a moral and political one...but when talking about it in the context of a court opinion, yeah, I frame it more in the legal sense. I know this seems like a lot of incomprehensible double speak, but there's a reason issues get framed the way they do on appeal, and a lot of it has to do with how bad of a record you stuck yourself with. I don't practice in the 5th circuit/Texas so I'm not super versed in the local rules, but in my jurisdiction we have what's called a motion for articulation. If the trial court leaves something out of their opinion that's going to be important to you on appeal, you can ask them to essentially amend the opinion. I'm scratching my head trying to figure out why this wasn't done here re: improper purpose as that's obviously a factual finding that was important to them on appeal (and shot down because the record isn't adequate for review on this point). Remember...record in the appellate court doesn't necessarily mean "reality" it means whatever is in the transcript, the opinion, the exhibits etc. etc. You'll note through all this, I have never once said I think the law will be upheld in total. There are constitutional issues here. Pretty big ones, actually. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 12:16 on Oct 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 12:13
|
|
|
I don't think there's a valid argument in claiming a road, rhetorically, is functionally improved by the laying of a double-row of jersey barriers across its width.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 12:31
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:
But you don't. You happily skip between talking about it as a legal issue and as a practical issue, whenever it suits your 'pot-stirring' purposes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 12:44
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I don't think there's a valid argument in claiming a road, rhetorically, is functionally improved by the laying of a double-row of jersey barriers across its width. Right. So argue that. It's a valid argument that the means do not actually serve the stated goal. And it's the argument that will probably carry the day at scotus. But right now too many are arguing "there is no valid motive" and, while it may very well be true, it's not a claim you can make in appeal on this record. (Probably. Would need to see transcript to confirm) Especially since the opponent here is a state government. Government lawyers are generally very good at getting things blocked on procedure. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 13:11 on Oct 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 13:07
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:But you don't. You happily skip between talking about it as a legal issue and as a practical issue, whenever it suits your 'pot-stirring' purposes. Let's not forget the "No, I understand that the thing I'm talking about means something different than what I said it does, I was just arguing some legal issue that you don't understand, and we agree (except for when I said that thing at the outset that made everyone collapse on me like the world's most vengeful Jenga tower), so why are we arguing?" ActusRhesus posted:But right now too many are arguing "there is no valid motive" and, while it may very well be true, it's not a claim you can make in appeal on this record. Oh my loving god the person who has been wrong on how many of the actual medical issues at hand is bitching at us because our arguments aren't good enough for appeal? The reason we are arguing that the motive isn't valid is because none of their claimed regulations actually further their goals, we all know that the intent is using TRAP to reduce access to abortions in any way possible, and we aren't loving attorneys trying to prepare our briefs for the Court of Appeals. We were discussing the ethical and medical issues at hand before you came in literally claiming that this somehow prevented abortion clinics from being held to set medical standards. I'd call you a pedant, but pedants occasionally check to see if they're right before they start making wild claims of fact.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 13:50
|
|
|
Oh man, 200 hundred posts in the SCOTUS thread? John Roberts must have struck down disparate impact in housing! Sam Alito was finally caught murdering minorities at Princeton! Oh, nope. Just pages and pages of concern trolling
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Incidentally, the AMA recommends against D&C. The fact that you know this strongly hints that you are the anti-choice version of a climate change denier for hire; you selectively engage with the literature in order to throw up roadblocks and fake concerns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Incidentally, the AMA recommends against D&C. Incidentally, McAlister was referring to what the AMA calls a D&E, not a D&X. Incidentally, the AMA does not support banning D&X, but leaves it up to the doctor's discretion. Incidentally, the most stringent regulation that could be said to be supported by the AMA statement would be that a doctor performing a D&X in contravention of standards of good medical practice should face some sort of liability. Incidentally, gently caress you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:The fact that you know this strongly hints that you are the anti-choice version of a climate change denier for hire; you selectively engage with the literature in order to throw up roadblocks and fake concerns. Wasn't I the one saying earlier that just because the AMA argues a position does not, by itself, make that argument dispositive?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
McAlister posted:My friends said it was ex-post and that is why all building codes everywhere work that way - they only apply to future buildings. Their teacher told them that though he was an engineer not a lawyer so - /shrug. your comment interested me. been mulling over what he may have meant. Perhaps he was referring to the rules against legislation geared towards a specific person/entity? There's some civil bans on that but I can't recall off-hand whether it's a due process/takings/equal protection argument or what...but I do recall there being a civil loose equivalent.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
It's been a page or two since you hinted at being a lawyer you're overdue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Wasn't I the one saying earlier that just because the AMA argues a position does not, by itself, make that argument dispositive? It doesn't matter what you say when you're not flacking.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Wasn't I the one saying earlier that just because the AMA argues a position does not, by itself, make that argument dispositive? What do you consider dispositive, out of curiosity? The AMA explains why HB2 does not make women safer, so that pretty much kills any claim that the contents of the bill rationally relate to the state's legitimate interest in regulatory oversight to safeguard patients. So if the AMA and the ACOG isn't enough for you, then what does it take? A petition signed by every doctor in the world? Solely the wide-eyed good intentions of Americans United for Life? The pope speaking ex cathedra in his role as the voice of the full magisterium of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ on Earth?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
I really miss talking about legal subjects in this thread. Warsazawa, where have you gone?
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 07:07 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I really miss talking about legal subjects in this thread. Warsazawa, where have you gone? 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. Why do you think there's some sort of problem, in the SCOTUS thread, in talking about the politics surrounding a case, or the effects of the case?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 18:14
|
|