• 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.

What are the odds that this delay had nothing to do with the anti abortion laws and it was just a catholic hospital and they refuse to use abortion as a treatment for things like ectopic pregnancies?
 
bruto said:
I'm all for malicious compliance. Malice is the eye of the beholder, and it's baked into many laws. When people like her are not the victims, they're liable to shuck it off with "the law's the law," and so it is. The obverse of malicious compliance is selective privilege. If any patient is denied vital care because of the law, then they are pawns already to the lawmakers' agenda. If any collateral damage from compliance with the law occurs, let it be to her. As my sweet old grandmother used to say, "tough luck. She's got no kick coming."
Click to expand...
You're perfectly happy to make people suffer and risk death, by supporting malicious compliance that plays games like this?

That's an appalling perspective, bruto.
 
bruto said:
So basically she's blaming the people who spread fear that the law will be enforced in the way it's written by the ignorant religious bigots who wrote it? And she's bitching because the delay was so long....hours!
Click to expand...
The way the law is written allows for terminations in the case of incest, rape, or risk to the mother's health or life. The law was NOT being enforced the way it's written. It was being enforced (either through needless fear or through zealotry) in an extremist fashion, far beyond the law - and in a way the puts females in actual medical emergencies in danger...

Do you support sacrificing female's lives so you can make political points?
 
Emily's Cat said:
The way the law is written allows for terminations in the case of incest, rape, or risk to the mother's health or life. The law was NOT being enforced the way it's written. It was being enforced (either through needless fear or through zealotry) in an extremist fashion, far beyond the law - and in a way the puts females in actual medical emergencies in danger...

Do you support sacrificing female's lives so you can make political points?
Click to expand...
The law was applied EXACTLY as written. If it was badly written, or poorly conceived, is your problem.
 
This is absurd.

Well, officer, yes I did have a licensed and loaded pistol in my hand. But you see, I had to let that robber beat my neighbors and their and children to death in a long-drawn-out and grisly fashion, because it's illegal to kill people. Yes, I know that self defense or the defense of another is allowed, but the law still says it's illegal to kill people, and I couldn't be absolutely completely certain that my actions would be viewed as defense, so I decided I had to comply with the law.

What? Oh, yes, I do support the abolition of the second amendment. Why do you ask?
 
Emily's Cat said:
This is absurd.

Well, officer, yes I did have a licensed and loaded pistol in my hand. But you see, I had to let that robber beat my neighbors and their and children to death in a long-drawn-out and grisly fashion, because it's illegal to kill people. Yes, I know that self defense or the defense of another is allowed, but the law still says it's illegal to kill people, and I couldn't be absolutely completely certain that my actions would be viewed as defense, so I decided I had to comply with the law.

What? Oh, yes, I do support the abolition of the second amendment. Why do you ask?
Click to expand...
False equivalence much?

Republicans have purposefully created an atmosphere of fear, slut-shaming, and fundie nonsense around their abortion laws. Doctors are covering themselves legally at the expense of patients, because Republicans have forced them to.

Now go ahead and blame the doctors rather than the malicious instigators.
 
Emily's Cat said:
This is absurd.

Well, officer, yes I did have a licensed and loaded pistol in my hand. But you see, I had to let that robber beat my neighbors and their and children to death in a long-drawn-out and grisly fashion, because it's illegal to kill people. Yes, I know that self defense or the defense of another is allowed, but the law still says it's illegal to kill people, and I couldn't be absolutely completely certain that my actions would be viewed as defense, so I decided I had to comply with the law.
Click to expand...

Use of copyrighted IP for parody purposes is also allowed. Go see what happens if you use Mickey Mouse in such a parody. Sometimes "allowed" means "you can win a court case brought against you for doing it, on the stated principle, if you can afford hundreds of thousands in legal fees and don't mind spending several years of your life, possibly in prison, fighting your case."

Do you have any idea how much trouble you can get into, in the real world, shooting a criminal to defend a neighbor? Especially after the robber's grieving relatives insist their loved one didn't have a violent bone in his body and only intended a harmless prank, and sue you for everything you have for his lifetime medical care because your shots paralyzed him. That's assuming the local DA hadn't already plea-bargained the robber down to trespassing (because your gunshots prevented any robbery or battery from happening) and then hauled your ass to jail because re-election is coming up and defense of others is an abstract principle while you paralyzing an unarmed man is a provable fact.

That's exactly the kind of chilling effect that Republican anti-women's-health laws intended to cause and do cause. Why should an obstetrician have to take a chance that politicians or police officers might disagree with their medical opinion, when their livelihood and freedom could be at stake? Why should one even be willing to practice in a state with such laws?
 
Emily's Cat said:
The way the law is written allows for terminations in the case of incest, rape, or risk to the mother's health or life. The law was NOT being enforced the way it's written. It was being enforced (either through needless fear or through zealotry) in an extremist fashion, far beyond the law - and in a way the puts females in actual medical emergencies in danger...

Do you support sacrificing female's lives so you can make political points?
Click to expand...
I don't support the law at all, so of course I don't support sacrificing anyone's life, and it was not done in this case anyway. She's whining because the law she supported caused her doctors to exert more caution than she thought ought to apply to her. If the law is as clear and unambigouous as she, in her political rather than medical wisdom asserts, then she has grounds to sue. Otherwise, it's worth considering that it's a bad law badly written.

Sure the law allows for terminations, which is exactly what she got. But the law also allows for the prosecution and punishment of doctors for exercising judgment that disagrees with non-medical moral scolds with the power to legislate, prosecute, and worse, and whether you like it or not, that means that any case which is ambiguous or uncertain must, prudently, be considered and weighed against the possible consequences. In that atmosphere you'd better be more than pretty sure, you'd better be damned sure, that the pregnancy is really ectopic, and that the heartbeat is really absent, not just undetectable. The law does not specifically define or name ectopic pregnancy, according to the article, nor does it appear to be specific as to the options for termination. In a world where even an IUD is under attack as an abortifacient, and where some ignorant politicians have even proposed that ectopic embryos should be replanted, methotrexate might be an iffy option. Compliance with the law is mandatory. It's malicious only for those who believe the law to be stupid or unjust, and who know that the makers of the law do not expect it to apply to themselves.

So sure, I'd rather nobody suffer, and I'm glad this case ended without anyone dying, but if a bad law causes someone distress, I'd certainly much rather that distress come to one of its supporters rather than one of its opponents.
 
Last edited:
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...
Their jobs and staying out of jail. Which means they would no longer be providing medical care at all. If the patient had been black or Hispanic, do you think they would have proceeded? And what would have been the legal consequences if they had?
 
Last edited:
Norman Alexander said:
Their jobs and staying out of jail. Which means they would no longer be providing medical care at all. If the patient had been black or Hispanic, do you think they would have proceeded? And what would have been the legal consequences if they had?
Click to expand...
It seems to be the fashion these days for right wing governments to pass legislation they know will not hold up in court, and might even be unconstitutional. But it's worth a chance with the courts these days, and if you can keep the uncertainty and threat level up you'll get pre-emptive compliance from a lot of providers. The worst case is a short period of threat, pre-emptive firing, and financial drain that can occur even if you lose the case or even have to tone down the law. Set up a law like that in Texas where anyone has standing, and the State can wash its hands. We can call it malicious compliance for convenience and a little schadenfreude but a bad law maliciously prosecuted pretty much requires it. I don't buy the idea that this is the fault of the liberals. The very core of the law is unreasoned, and the people implementing it untrustworthy. In this case good judgment would seem obvious, but you'd be a fool to rely on it being applied.
 
Emily's Cat said:
You're perfectly happy to make people suffer and risk death, by supporting malicious compliance that plays games like this?

That's an appalling perspective, bruto.
Click to expand...
Look they wrote a law that bans abortion in cases of fetal death, waiting for the mothers life to be in danger is SOP because of the law why should a republican get special treatment? Blame the law
 
Emily's Cat said:
The way the law is written allows for terminations in the case of incest, rape, or risk to the mother's health or life. The law was NOT being enforced the way it's written. It was being enforced (either through needless fear or through zealotry) in an extremist fashion, far beyond the law - and in a way the puts females in actual medical emergencies in danger...

Do you support sacrificing female's lives so you can make political points?
Click to expand...

Once again, it must be noted that you have expressed zero scorn for the Republicans who wrote and passed the law. I’m starting to sense a pattern.
 
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...

They were forced to wait for the mother’s life to be sufficiently at risk before administering treatment because of a poorly written and dangerous law written and passed by Republicans you refuse to hold accountable for the situation they created.

This isn’t actually that difficult to figure out. It only becomes difficult when you refuse to acknowledge the truth.
 
johnny karate said:
They were forced to wait for the mother’s life to be sufficiently at risk before administering treatment because of a poorly written and dangerous law written and passed by Republicans you refuse to hold accountable for the situation they created.

This isn’t actually that difficult to figure out. It only becomes difficult when you refuse to acknowledge the truth.
Click to expand...

I find it more than a little suspect that someone who is "totally a centrist" and a claimed feminist conveniently doesn't take issue with a law that puts women's lives at risk. Instead deciding to, as you've pointed out, blame the doctors, the hospital, pretty much everyone but the party she absolutely claims to not be apart of. By suspect, I mean hilarious that one will simply sell out their values for a political party they claim not to be apart of.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom