• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Face, meet leopard. Leopard, meet face.

Emily's Cat said:
Explain to me, in your own words, how you think the doctors were applying the law exactly as written by initially denying, and then hesitating to perform a perfectly and explicitly legal service?
Click to expand...
The florida law does allow for abortions done "to save the pregnant woman's life or avert a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment".

But, here is the problem... Medical circumstances are not always black-and-white. This also becomes problematic when, in the case of a trial involving abortion, the case gets argued in a trial in front of lay-jurors who have limited or no medical knowledge.

Imagine being a Florida doctor with a patient who's pregnancy is not viable and, in your opinion, carrying the child to term could cause the mother's death. So you call in another doctor, get a second opinion, everything is signed off, and the procedure is performed. Everything is A-Ok at that point, or it should be.

Now imagine you get some gung-ho prosecutor trying to make a name for himself. He is a hard-core christian who thinks "All abortions are wrong", so he prosecutes the doctor. He brings in an "expert" with sketchy credentials who says "yeah I've seen plenty of women under the same circumstances who gave birth successfully". If the jury is gulliable then the doctor could look at being found guilty even though they followed the law. And even if the jury finds the doctor not guilty, they would still have their names dragged through the mud and were subjected to weeks/months of a trial.

And THAT is why a doctor would be justified in not wanting to perform an abortion, even if the woman's life were at risk.
 
Segnosaur said:
The florida law does allow for abortions done "to save the pregnant woman's life or avert a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment".

But, here is the problem... Medical circumstances are not always black-and-white. This also becomes problematic when, in the case of a trial involving abortion, the case gets argued in a trial in front of lay-jurors who have limited or no medical knowledge.

Imagine being a Florida doctor with a patient who's pregnancy is not viable and, in your opinion, carrying the child to term could cause the mother's death. So you call in another doctor, get a second opinion, everything is signed off, and the procedure is performed. Everything is A-Ok at that point, or it should be.

Now imagine you get some gung-ho prosecutor trying to make a name for himself. He is a hard-core christian who thinks "All abortions are wrong", so he prosecutes the doctor. He brings in an "expert" with sketchy credentials who says "yeah I've seen plenty of women under the same circumstances who gave birth successfully". If the jury is gulliable then the doctor could look at being found guilty even though they followed the law. And even if the jury finds the doctor not guilty, they would still have their names dragged through the mud and were subjected to weeks/months of a trial.

And THAT is why a doctor would be justified in not wanting to perform an abortion, even if the woman's life were at risk.
Click to expand...

Excellent post.

The only commentary I would add is that you don't actually have to imagine the prosecutor you're describing, because that is exactly what is happening and it is all by design.

Women prosecuted for miscarriages at record levels since Roe overturned

Looking forward to Emily's Cat to blame this on anyone but the Republicans directly responsible for it.
 
Part of the problem here might be in the term "malicious compliance." We usually hear it connected with rules in the corporate and social world, where a person complies with a rule when the person who thoughtlessly made it expects them to bend it. Both the malice and the compliance are in such a case optional. That is not the case with legislation. Legislators should be held to a higher standard when they make laws, especially laws that can result in dire punishments, as is the case here. The very existence of the law, not to mention its explicit content, makes it clear that the State's interest is religious and not medical. An ambiguity in the law, any doubt of whether it will be applied fairly or rationally, any instance in which medical judgment must be weighed against even the remote possibility of religious excess or ignorance at the cost of imprisonment and delicensure is the fault of the law.

If you support a law that explicitly usurps medical judgment you simply have no business criticizing the caution of those doing the judging, and that is the case whether or not the judgment they reach is the right one, or whether or not its religious overseers would have allowed it. Where laws are concerned, malice is optional but compliance is not.
 
bruto said:
I don't buy the idea that this is the fault of the liberals.
Click to expand...
The fault doesn't lie exclusively with liberals. The fault lies with 1) politicians of all types who refuse to work toward a common goal and who use every possible topic as a lever for gamesmanship and 2) non-politicians who allow their politics to infest their non-political work. Both the right and the left, both politicians and citizens, are at fault for this.
 
Darat said:
Again we have no other evidence that this happened as described than her recounting. I am always suspicious of unverifiable stories that politicians use that just so happens to support their political views, especially when in the same article the politician admits to lying regarding such issues.
Click to expand...
It didn't read as "just so" to me. Yes, they mentioned fearmongering and laid that at the feet of the left, but they also mentioned this being a problem of both sides of the house not working together in a reasonable way.
 
Emily's Cat said:
"I don't want to go to jail for illegally amputating a healthy limb, therefore I refuse to amputate your gangrenous limb."
Click to expand...
Look if they wanted to they should have just done the legally recognized procedure and moved the fetus from the fallopian tube to the womb. That is the legally mandated action medical science just needs to figure it out.
 
Segnosaur said:
The florida law does allow for abortions done "to save the pregnant woman's life or avert a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment".

But, here is the problem... Medical circumstances are not always black-and-white. This also becomes problematic when, in the case of a trial involving abortion, the case gets argued in a trial in front of lay-jurors who have limited or no medical knowledge.

Imagine being a Florida doctor with a patient who's pregnancy is not viable and, in your opinion, carrying the child to term could cause the mother's death. So you call in another doctor, get a second opinion, everything is signed off, and the procedure is performed. Everything is A-Ok at that point, or it should be.

Now imagine you get some gung-ho prosecutor trying to make a name for himself. He is a hard-core christian who thinks "All abortions are wrong", so he prosecutes the doctor. He brings in an "expert" with sketchy credentials who says "yeah I've seen plenty of women under the same circumstances who gave birth successfully". If the jury is gulliable then the doctor could look at being found guilty even though they followed the law. And even if the jury finds the doctor not guilty, they would still have their names dragged through the mud and were subjected to weeks/months of a trial.

And THAT is why a doctor would be justified in not wanting to perform an abortion, even if the woman's life were at risk.
Click to expand...
You're banking on both the judge and the jury to be corrupt, as well as all reporting media being corrupt pro-life idiots all the way around. And that risk of everyone involved being corrupt justifies the doctors not doing their jobs to you?

See - THAT is fearmongering.
 
Emily's Cat said:
You're banking on both the judge and the jury to be corrupt, as well as all reporting media being corrupt pro-life idiots all the way around. And that risk of everyone involved being corrupt justifies the doctors not doing their jobs to you?

See - THAT is fearmongering.
Click to expand...
So you would happily put yourself in the risk of life in prison so she can get her abortion a bit sooner?
 
Emily's Cat said:
"I don't want to go to jail for illegally amputating a healthy limb, therefore I refuse to amputate your gangrenous limb."
Click to expand...
If there were religious nut-jobs who managed to pass laws that could send doctors to jail for amputating limbs except under extremely strict conditions, then doctors would be justified in wanting to avoid amputations just in case some zealous prosecutor decided to prosecute a doctor because "amputees make baby jesus cry".

The fault doesn't lie exclusively with liberals.
Click to expand...
Actually it doesn't lie at ALL with the Liberals. This is a problem caused ENTIRELY by republicans/conservatives/the religious right.

...they also mentioned this being a problem of both sides of the house not working together
Click to expand...
First of all, the idea that a woman's body should be under control AT ALL by the government is not something that should be negotiated away.

Secondly, even if "the left won't negotiate to give away women's rights" was really a thing, why should it matter? It should have been obvious to anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together what would happen when the republicans signed their "abortions make baby jesus cry" laws. They should have been able write their laws to handle these types of situations even without input from the left.
 
Emily's Cat said:
The florida law does allow for abortions done "to save the pregnant woman's life or avert a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment".

But, here is the problem... Medical circumstances are not always black-and-white. This also becomes problematic when, in the case of a trial involving abortion, the case gets argued in a trial in front of lay-jurors who have limited or no medical knowledge.

Imagine being a Florida doctor with a patient who's pregnancy is not viable and, in your opinion, carrying the child to term could cause the mother's death. So you call in another doctor, get a second opinion, everything is signed off, and the procedure is performed. Everything is A-Ok at that point, or it should be.

Now imagine you get some gung-ho prosecutor trying to make a name for himself. He is a hard-core christian who thinks "All abortions are wrong", so he prosecutes the doctor. He brings in an "expert" with sketchy credentials who says "yeah I've seen plenty of women under the same circumstances who gave birth successfully". If the jury is gulliable then the doctor could look at being found guilty even though they followed the law. And even if the jury finds the doctor not guilty, they would still have their names dragged through the mud and were subjected to weeks/months of a trial.
Click to expand...
You're banking on both the judge and the jury to be corrupt
Click to expand...
Lets take a look at all the things wrong with that particular statement, shall we?

First of all, I suspect even a decent judge will be hesitant to "throw out" a case, preferring to "let the jury decide".

Secondly, nobody has to be "corrupt". I specifically said GULLIBLE.

Lastly, as I pointed out, even if the charges are dismissed and/or the person is found not guilty, the doctor STILL has had to spend time and money to defend themselves over the charges.
as well as all reporting media being corrupt pro-life idiots all the way around.
Click to expand...
Why exactly is "all reporting media" relevant? Even if the media is completely sympathetic to the doctor in this case, it does not make the legal case vanish.

Plus, even if mainstream media is sympathetic to the doctor, there is still social media that the doctor would have to contend with.
See - THAT is fearmongering.
Click to expand...
Nope, not really.
 
Segnosaur said:
Lets take a look at all the things wrong with that particular statement, shall we?

First of all, I suspect even a decent judge will be hesitant to "throw out" a case, preferring to "let the jury decide".

Secondly, nobody has to be "corrupt". I specifically said GULLIBLE.

Lastly, as I pointed out, even if the charges are dismissed and/or the person is found not guilty, the doctor STILL has had to spend time and money to defend themselves over the charges.

Why exactly is "all reporting media" relevant? Even if the media is completely sympathetic to the doctor in this case, it does not make the legal case vanish.

Plus, even if mainstream media is sympathetic to the doctor, there is still social media that the doctor would have to contend with.

Nope, not really.
Click to expand...
It's really weird that this poster on one hand "strongly disapprove(s) of the bans that have been put in place", yet on the other does all she can to shift blame away from those bans for the problems they are obviously causing.
 
Last edited:
Reformed Offlian said:
Birthright citizenship is the grant of citizenship to anyone born in the United States, as defined in the 14th Amendment. I don't know which other countries have it, nor do I see how it is relevant.
Click to expand...
To expand on this a little.
Whether birthright citizenship is a good idea or not is a distinct issue from Trump trying to get rid of it.

The merits of the policy are debatable. The correct way to address this if you are against it is to propose an amendment changing the policy and then making the case to get enough support for it to pass. Trying to change it by executive order (not even legislation) is the problem.

Sometimes the how is as important as the what and the why.
 
Reformed Offlian said:
Birthright citizenship is the grant of citizenship to anyone born in the United States, as defined in the 14th Amendment.
I don't know which other countries have it, nor do I see how it is relevant. Tell me about the left-leaning moderate rationale for wanting to revoke it.
Click to expand...

If I had to guess, it would eventually lead to some variation of the classic "You Liberals think Europe is so wonderful and the US should be like them, but they don't support (something being argued for)/they support (something being argued against). Is that really what you want?"
 
Reformed Offlian said:
Birthright citizenship is the grant of citizenship to anyone born in the United States, as defined in the 14th Amendment. I don't know which other countries have it, nor do I see how it is relevant. Tell me about the left-leaning moderate rationale for wanting to revoke it.
Click to expand...
Most countries don't have it.

The intent of the 14th amendment was to extend full and uncontestable citizenship to the children of legal immigrants, especially the children of former slaves. In the time since then, however, it has been used by illegal immigrants as well as people on travel visas as a means to gain citizenship for their children and to bypass the immigration process for themselves.

Wanting to alter that in order to close a loophole that allows exploitation isn't left leaning, but it's not right leaning either. It's rational, and it would bring the US into alignment with all most other developed nations.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom