Serious question for Pro Life folks

[GuyDatHoo]

There’s a reason the Dobbs dissent focused entirely on SDP and hurt feelings and melodrama (what can you expect when the liberal females are writing it)?

The right to privacy argument for Roe is so bunk they didn’t even try to touch it. No effort made in Roe to even try and interpret the writers intent. Literally anything done outside of public view could be covered by the 14th amendment based on the Roe decision.

 

[TMFT]

There’s a reason the Dobbs dissent focused entirely on SDP and hurt feelings and melodrama (what can you expect when the liberal females are writing it)?

The right to privacy argument for Roe is so bunk they didn’t even try to touch it. No effort made in Roe to even try and interpret the writers intent. Literally anything done outside of public view could be covered by the 14th amendment based on the Roe decision.

Right to privacy is within SDP. So how can they have focused entirely on it and not touched it?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

There’s a reason the Dobbs dissent focused entirely on SDP and hurt feelings and melodrama (what can you expect when the liberal females are writing it)?

The right to privacy argument for Roe is so bunk they didn’t even try to touch it. No effort made in Roe to even try and interpret the writers intent. Literally anything done outside of public view could be covered by the 14th amendment based on the Roe decision.

"What can you expect" of "liberal females?" Your juvenile side is showing.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Right to privacy is within SDP. So how can they have focused entirely on it and not touched it?

Farva obviously either didn't read the dissent, or he isn't equipped to actually read legal writing (which isn't unusual, this may not be a physics paper, but it's expert writing, nonetheless). My guess is he is just regurgitating what he heard some hack saying about it on TV or the radio.

 

[HoosierJimbo89]

Literally anything done outside of public view could be covered by the 14th amendment based on the Roe decision.

States tend to not criminalize playing Nintendo, watching movies, etc. or pass "moral" legislation about them. SDP analysis carved out a pretty limited area of privacy: I'm not aware of any SCOTUS cases on the right to play Nintendo, watch movies, etc.

The Bill of Rights enumerates rights people have against the government, and some address privacy: 1A, 3A, 4A.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

States tend to not criminalize playing Nintendo, watching movies, etc. or pass "moral" legislation about them. SDP analysis carved out a pretty limited area of privacy: I'm not aware of any SCOTUS cases on the right to play Nintendo, watch movies, etc.

The Bill of Rights enumerates rights people have against the government, and some address privacy: 1A, 3A, 4A.

There's a West Wing episode (@Marvin the Martian) where Barlet is interviewing a SCOTUS candidate specifically regarding the right to privacy, and asks him if he'd object to a law that outlawed the use of cream in coffee. The candidate says that he'd object very much, since he likes coffee in his cream, but he would not be able to overturn the law, since there is no constitutional right to use cream.

Now, this thinking is not exactly correct. Even when things are not protected by the constitution, the government is still required to at least show some reason for passing a law. Laws can't be entirely arbitrary. But the thinking of this fictional character is very similar to what you see from Alito, and also Thomas.

The problem with Alito's opinion is that he follows the great tradition of so many jurists before him of rejecting an argument on every ground possible. He could have just said, "Roe was wrong, because one of the interests is that of a potential life, and this interest is so strong that it overcomes other competing interests." But he didn't. He said that, but then he also said, "Plus, Roe was wrong because there's no traditional right to abortion." And so on. Every concievable defense of Roe, he rejected. In short, Alito put forward a legal theory of the right to privacy that doesn't only justify the banning of abortion; it also justifies the banning of cream in coffee.

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

Wow

My children wouldn't pay much attention to the deranged rants of incels whose emotional development stopped somewhere around puberty.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

There's a West Wing episode (@Marvin the Martian) where Barlet is interviewing a SCOTUS candidate specifically regarding the right to privacy, and asks him if he'd object to a law that outlawed the use of cream in coffee. The candidate says that he'd object very much, since he likes coffee in his cream, but he would not be able to overturn the law, since there is no constitutional right to use cream.

Now, this thinking is not exactly correct. Even when things are not protected by the constitution, the government is still required to at least show some reason for passing a law. Laws can't be entirely arbitrary. But the thinking of this fictional character is very similar to what you see from Alito, and also Thomas.

The problem with Alito's opinion is that he follows the great tradition of so many jurists before him of rejecting an argument on every ground possible. He could have just said, "Roe was wrong, because one of the interests is that of a potential life, and this interest is so strong that it overcomes other competing interests." But he didn't. He said that, but then he also said, "Plus, Roe was wrong because there's no traditional right to abortion." And so on. Every concievable defense of Roe, he rejected. In short, Alito put forward a legal theory of the right to privacy that doesn't only justify the banning of abortion; it also justifies the banning of cream in coffee.

I have used the cream in coffee argument before. There is nothing in the strict reading that says the right exists as neither cream nor coffee are mentioned.

The bill of rights have become a problem, too many believe we only have those rights. Some at the time feared that would happen. As you note, it is incumbent on the government to show cause. I may disagree with Dobbs but I have no doubt case can be shown abortion is not a right. Just because I do not believe a fetus, especially pre-viability, is not necessarily guaranteed rights does not mean I do not get why someone like Crazy believes the opposite.

But as you note, Alito strikes down Row for every conceivable reason. He did not stop at the fetus argument. So while he claims it does not apply to anything else, one wonders why he bothered with the rest of the argument as all the rest most certainly can be applied.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I have used the cream in coffee argument before. There is nothing in the strict reading that says the right exists as neither cream nor coffee are mentioned.

The bill of rights have become a problem, too many believe we only have those rights. Some at the time feared that would happen. As you note, it is incumbent on the government to show cause. I may disagree with Dobbs but I have no doubt case can be shown abortion is not a right. Just because I do not believe a fetus, especially pre-viability, is not necessarily guaranteed rights does not mean I do not get why someone like Crazy believes the opposite.

But as you note, Alito strikes down Row for every conceivable reason. He did not stop at the fetus argument. So while he claims it does not apply to anything else, one wonders why he bothered with the rest of the argument as all the rest most certainly can be applied.

Exactly. Alito's opinion is well-written and perhaps even legally correct. It's a very strong argument. But the weakest part is his insistence that it only applies to abortion. Thomas' concurrence is far more accurate than the opinion of the court on this point.

 

[BCCHoosier]

Good deal.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong when you grasp at stories that support your anti-Biden message?

Is "good deal" your version of a Still clean up?

 

[zeke4ahs]

There’s a reason the Dobbs dissent focused entirely on SDP and hurt feelings and melodrama (what can you expect when the liberal females are writing it)?

The right to privacy argument for Roe is so bunk they didn’t even try to touch it. No effort made in Roe to even try and interpret the writers intent. Literally anything done outside of public view could be covered by the 14th amendment based on the Roe decision.

Your misogyny is showing. Oops

 

[stollcpa]

Do you ever get tired of being wrong when you grasp at stories that support your anti-Biden message?

Is "good deal" your version of Still clean up?

Doubt seriously when Biden repeated the story that he had any proof.

Hope the guy that did it gets maximum punishment. Hopefully it’s not a woke democrat prosecutor or the guy might walk.

Stories? What STORIES you talking about?

 

[zeke4ahs]

Indiana Ag Todd Rokita now says they are looking into the dr who performed the abortion on the 10 year old. On Fox this evening...

 

[HoosierJimbo89]

Indiana Ag Todd Rokita now says they are looking into the dr who performed the abortion on the 10 year old. On Fox this evening...

"When I dream about the moonlight on the Wabash, then I long for my Indiana home."

 

[BCCHoosier]

Doubt seriously when Biden repeated the story that he had any proof.

Hope the guy that did it gets maximum punishment. Hopefully it’s not a woke democrat prosecutor or the guy might walk.

Stories? What STORIES you talking about?

Meaning your propensity for linking stories and tweets that are at best unverified. You are not as bad as Dan or DBM, but you still do it. And frankly it bugs me as I know you aren't stupid.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Doubt seriously when Biden repeated the story that he had any proof.

Hope the guy that did it gets maximum punishment. Hopefully it’s not a woke democrat prosecutor or the guy might walk.

Stories? What STORIES you talking about?

So the story ended up being true, and you still want to criticize Biden for sharing it?

Criticize him for making political hay out of a tragedy if you must, but at least have the manhood to admit you were wrong and the story was very real.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

Indiana Ag Todd Rokita now says they are looking into the dr who performed the abortion on the 10 year old. On Fox this evening...

From what I can gather, the Ohio law shouldn’t have prevented this girl from getting an abortion.

It doesn’t make exceptions for rape or incest but it does if the mothers life is in danger. I would think a 10 year old girl would qualify for that.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

From what I can gather, the Ohio law shouldn’t have prevented this girl from getting an abortion.

It doesn’t make exceptions for rape or incest but it does if the mothers life is in danger. I would think a 10 year old girl would qualify for that.

"You would think" isn't a legal reason. That's one of the problems with these laws. We have to figure out what they actually require. Probably, this needed a doctor willing to say under penalty of perjury that the pregnancy was a threat.

 

[zeke4ahs]

From what I can gather, the Ohio law shouldn’t have prevented this girl from getting an abortion.

It doesn’t make exceptions for rape or incest but it does if the mothers life is in danger. I would think a 10 year old girl would qualify for that.

And that is the problem and what many medical doctors are afraid is going to happen. I heard one speak on it this evening. It’s broad and how and exactly when do you prove the woman or in this case child’s life is in danger.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

"You would think" isn't a legal reason. That's one of the problems with these laws. We have to figure out what they actually require. Probably, this needed a doctor willing to say under penalty of perjury that the pregnancy was a threat.

There’s no threat of perjury here, though. A ten year old is not developed enough to give birth. That’s just reality. There’s no way a doctor could say that and be anything other than truthful.

Look, I agree that these laws need to be clearly defined. And I think we’ll figure it out.

But this case, this child, is being used to stir outrage. There’s no reason she shouldn’t have been able to get an abortion in Ohio.

 

[stollcpa]

So the story ended up being true, and you still want to criticize Biden for sharing it?

Criticize him for making political hay out of a tragedy if you must, but at least have the manhood to admit you were wrong and the story was very real.

It turned out true. I already said that. Did he know it was true when he repeated it? Seems there was uncertainty out there.

There’s nothing out of bounds for politicians playing on tragedies, therefore Biden gets a pass on that.

The tragedy shows the Roe ruling isn’t going to stop abortions. And before savaging me I don’t believe an abortion in this situation should be unlawful.

 

[stollcpa]

And that is the problem and what many medical doctors are afraid is going to happen. I heard one speak on it this evening. It’s broad and how and exactly when do you prove the woman or in this case child’s life is in danger.

In this case if politicians weren’t trying to score points, the operation would have been completed with no issues for the doctor.

I wonder if the parents of the young child gave permission for the operation being disclosed?

 

[LifelongIU]

I just have to ask....wtf is a "birthing person"?....ps...it's rhetorical

 

[TMFT]

It turned out true. I already said that. Did he know it was true when he repeated it? Seems there was uncertainty out there.

There wasn’t any uncertainty until opponents tried to create some. Eg, the Ohio AG saying he doubted the veracity because he hadn’t heard of it when in fact it had been reported weeks before.

For some of us it harkens to the “false flag” claims every time there’s a mass shooting. Some people are so reticent to accept that horrible things happen that they’ll reflexively discount anything that challenges their assumptions so they can stay woke (which has apparently been redefined on the board as someone that is certain they’re right).

 

[IUCrazy2]

Indiana Ag Todd Rokita now says they are looking into the dr who performed the abortion on the 10 year old. On Fox this evening...

They should. She is someone who has a legal responsibility to report the rape of a 10 year old to the state. She has a history of failing to report things like this in a proper fashion. Leaving forms blank, reporting well after the legally required timeframe, etc. Based on that history alone, she should be on the brink of losing her medical license in the state.

 

[IUCrazy2]

The guy with the 10 year old was here illegally. Perhaps letting millions of people we know nothing about continue to cross our southern border with barely any resistance is a bad idea.

He admitted he did it so frankly, I think he should be castrated, have "child rapist" tattooed on his forehead in English and Spanish, and then be thrown into the Rio Grande and told to start swimming south.

That's just me.

 

[TMFT]

They should. She is someone who has a legal responsibility to report the rape of a 10 year old to the state. She has a history of failing to report things like this in a proper fashion. Leaving forms blank, reporting well after the legally required timeframe, etc. Based on that history alone, she should be on the brink of losing her medical license in the state.

I’m just curious where you’ve heard your information about her history of failing to report?

And she doesn’t have a duty to report if a report has already been made to the best of her belief, which it had been reported to Ohio police weeks before (if in fact she didn’t report to local authorities, which none of us know for sure). Otherwise, every doctor that ever comes in contact with her would have to report for years to come.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Not really. And just another Republican way to whip up the masses with their silly non-issues.

Don't you pay attention to mainstream news like the Washington Post, NYT, and CNN? I do, so I know things like our newest Justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, who Biden nominated after pledging to nominate a black woman, said she was unable to define "woman" in her confirmation hearings. The President's FY22 budget proposal used the term "birthing people" instead of "mothers" or "women." Our "squad" Representatives, AOC and Booker, use the term "birthing parent" rather than "mother" or "woman" repeatedly, as do several other Democratic politicians. James Carville specifically criticized Democrats for using such "woke" terminology like "birthing person" rather than "women" or "mothers." Since overturning Roe, Democrats have rediscovered the word "woman" and that's a good thing for Democrats. It's a silver lining.

 

[IUCrazy2]

I’m just curious where you’ve heard your information about her history of failing to report?

And she doesn’t have a duty to report if a report has already been made to the best of her belief, which it had been reported to Ohio police weeks before (if in fact she didn’t report to local authorities, which none of us know for sure). Otherwise, every doctor that ever comes in contact with her would have to report for years to come.

Her name was identified back in 2018 along with 8 other doctors as being someone who was being looked at for failure to report.

On the second paragraph, that would be why the AG would do an investigation. It apparently appears that the state has some questions as to how she handled this case. So they should look into her. Particularly since this is not her first complaint.

When you Google her name most of the reporting is newer. You can find the prior complaint but the source that is easiest for me to grab is one that won't be accepted so I am not going to bother.

It is public record though that she has had complaints in the past about at the very least her record keeping.

 

[TMFT]

Her name was identified back in 2018 along with 8 other doctors as being someone who was being looked at for failure to report.

On the second paragraph, that would be why the AG would do an investigation. It apparently appears that the state has some questions as to how she handled this case. So they should look into her. Particularly since this is not her first complaint.

When you Google her name most of the reporting is newer. You can find the prior complaint but the source that is easiest for me to grab is one that won't be accepted so I am not going to bother.

It is public record though that she has had complaints in the past about at the very least her record keeping.

So you're telling me that Indiana Right to Life filed complaints against abortion providers? Well knock me over with a feather.

I can find the press release from RtL, but I can't find anything about what the outcome of those were. Or, in the words of the right in response to Dr. Bernards accurate report that she was accused of making up, I can find no evidence that the claims by RtL are true.

The AG doesn't have questions, he has aspirations.

 

[IUCrazy2]

So you're telling me that Indiana Right to Life filed complaints against abortion providers? Well knock me over with a feather.

I can find the press release from RtL, but I can't find anything about what the outcome of those were. Or, in the words of the right in response to Dr. Bernards accurate report that she was accused of making up, I can find no evidence that the claims by RtL are true.

The AG doesn't have questions, he has aspirations.

Annnnd that went exactly how I said it would.

 

[TMFT]

Annnnd that went exactly how I said it would.

They were the ones who made the complaints? Who was I supposed to look up?

You know how you think Cheney & Kinzinger have an ax to grind and the 1/6 hearings are a farce........

 

[IUCrazy2]

They were the ones who made the complaints? Who was I supposed to look up?

You know how you think Cheney & Kinzinger have an ax to grind and the 1/6 hearings are a farce........

They definitely have an axe to grind, doesn't mean that what they alleged was false. They said there may have been an issue because the doctors were not keeping proper records.

In this case, she went to the Indystar with her story because she also has a point to push. Was she aware that this had been reported to the authorities in Ohio? Did she report to the authorities in Indiana (something she is compelled to do? We don't know. The AG should look into something like that because it is a pretty big deal. Yeah, Rokita has aspirations. So does the doctor.

The thing you always see get brought up when someone says, hey I want this looked at is "where's your proof?" I don't have it, I have a bunch of circumstantial things and facts that make it look like something is off here and that is why I want it looked at. The burden of proof that always gets requested on the message boards is just something that we are never going to have. I am never going to dig further than the first page of a Google search for "proof" because it isn't worth the time. FWIW, I don't expect more than that of anyone else here. We're all basically Lt. Dan yelling at the storm.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

"You would think" isn't a legal reason. That's one of the problems with these laws. We have to figure out what they actually require. Probably, this needed a doctor willing to say under penalty of perjury that the pregnancy was a threat.

And that is the problem and what many medical doctors are afraid is going to happen. I heard one speak on it this evening. It’s broad and how and exactly when do you prove the woman or in this case child’s life is in danger.

You prove it with expert opinion. We have elaborate rules of evidence and a plethora of judicial opinions discussing the use of expert opinion as evidence. People go to jail based on expert opinion in criminal cases and millions of dollars are awarded in civil cases based on expert opinion.

And Goat, you should know that “under penalty of perjury” has no application to expert opinion evidence,

 

[CO. Hoosier]

"What can you expect" of "liberal females?" Your juvenile side is showing.

He’s right. The liberal female dissents in Dobbs and West Virginia are loaded with emotional policy discussions. If the justices want to use those things as a basis for deciding things, they should run for congress. Judges have different rules.

 

[outside shooter]

You prove it with expert opinion. We have elaborate rules of evidence and a plethora of judicial opinions discussing the use of expert opinion as evidence.

But the doctor, or more likely the hospital administrators, have to make the call as to whether to accept the non-zero risk of losing such an argument and going to jail. The default position, confirmed at least for many hospitals and clinics in Texas, has been to turn the woman away, because "we don't know for sure and just can't risk doing it".

I have given scientific expert opinions in court, 8 or so times. Sometimes the judge does not know enough or dig deeply enough to identify the expert who is shading the truth by merely reciting the script that the lawyers wrote. Which is something I never do. It is always in my retainer that I write my reports and opinions, from beginning to end. If my lawyers don't like my opinion, they find a new expert. Yes, that's happened many times. I won't shade even a smidgeon of my opinions away from the truth.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

But the doctor, or more likely the hospital administrators, have to make the call as to whether to accept the non-zero risk of losing such an argument and going to jail. The default position, confirmed at least for many hospitals and clinics in Texas, has been to turn the woman away, because "we don't know for sure and just can't risk doing it".

I have given scientific expert opinions in court, 8 or so times. Sometimes the judge does not know enough or dig deeply enough to identify the expert who is shading the truth by merely reciting the script that the lawyers wrote. Which is something I never do. It is always in my retainer that I write my reports and opinions, from beginning to end. If my lawyers don't like my opinion, they find a new expert. Yes, that's happened many times. I won't shade even a smidgeon of my opinions away from the truth.

Being correct is not the test. The test is whether the provider was reasonable.

Too many decisions are controlled by people wanting a zero risk life. And then they blame the lawyers for being too litigious.

Thise who understand risk and assume some risk are the ones who are the real contributors to society.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Being correct is not the test. The test is whether the provider was reasonable.

Too many decisions are controlled by people wanting a zero risk life. And then they blame the lawyers for being too litigious.

Thise who understand risk and assume some risk are the ones who are the real contributors to society.

That may be the test for a conviction, the threat of facing a court case is enough to alter behavior.

As an example, I have a buddy who sales railroad paraphernalia, he received a cease and desist from Union Pacific. He talked to his lawyer who was absolutely certain he would win in court as he had legally acquired the product he was selling. The lawyer said that if UP pursued it, it would cost him at least $30,000. No way it was worth it for him to pursue that even knowing he would win.

Even if a doctor knew they would win, there was a real risk (far more than non-zero) of a cost that most people would choose to avoid.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Don't you pay attention to mainstream news like the Washington Post, NYT, and CNN? I do, so I know things like our newest Justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, who Biden nominated after pledging to nominate a black woman, said she was unable to define "woman" in her confirmation hearings. The President's FY22 budget proposal used the term "birthing people" instead of "mothers" or "women." Our "squad" Representatives, AOC and Booker, use the term "birthing parent" rather than "mother" or "woman" repeatedly, as do several other Democratic politicians. James Carville specifically criticized Democrats for using such "woke" terminology like "birthing person" rather than "women" or "mothers." Since overturning Roe, Democrats have rediscovered the word "woman" and that's a good thing for Democrats. It's a silver lining.

Of course I do, as you well know. I’m not falling in the trap , and I’m surprised frankly you are, of being outraged by the definition of a woman. It’s nonserious when there are way too many serious things going on.

 

[outside shooter]

This is just nuts