ADVERTISEMENT

Serious question for Pro Life folks

Words have no meaning anymore. So when Zeke is asking up above with CoH why the definition of a woman matters, this is why.

The witness will say that for the sake of the law, what they meant is that this would not be considered an illegal abortion. And therefore it is not an abortion.

"Well that is not what that word means...." Kind of hard to walk that shit back now isn't it?
 
Here is a link

Well that’s not going to keep the Toddler in the news. Gonna have to find something else I suppose.

He’s truly a poor excuse for a human being.
 
Well that’s not going to keep the Toddler in the news. Gonna have to find something else I suppose.

He’s truly a poor excuse for a human being.
And I’ll add that he needs to watch himself. He’s getting really close to violating prosecutorial ethics on commenting on a case/suspect as well as approaching defamation and maybe malicious prosecution.
 
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.
Does the government have the right to tell you by statute or court opinion not to wear a purple shirt?

It's not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution or The Federalist Papers. It doesn't involve speech, religion or assembly or the right to bear rapid fire weapons. It's not mentioned in Scalia's personal papers or the liners of Kavanagh's high school yearbook (which found room to promote drunken parties and other First Amendment-protected behavior).

That covers all of them I can think of. So, I guess the originalists, textualists and other opponents of Substantive Due Process must agree that the government can intrude in our lives even to the extent of banning purple shirts.
 
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.
He claimed it doesn't apply to anything else because he thinks it does but doesn't want to be honest.

It's like Supreme Court nominees saying Roe v. Wade is the established law of the land while knowing they intend to vote to overturn it just as soon as they get confirmed to be on the Supreme Court.
 
This poor kid is being used by both sides.
I don’t think the right is using her at all and I only think the left is using her situation as illustrative (which the situation facts would’ve come out anyway when the guy got charged).

I do think the right is so surprised that extremely horrible things like this do happen (hopefully rarely) that they’re trying their level best to make it not have happened. First, it wasn’t true. Then it was true but the doctor didn’t report. Then it was true and the doctor reported but it’s Biden’s open borders. I highly suspect that If it comes out that the suspect crossed the border in 2017, there will be something else.
 
I don’t think the right is using her at all and I only think the left is using her situation as illustrative (which the situation facts would’ve come out anyway when the guy got charged).

I do think the right is so surprised that extremely horrible things like this do happen (hopefully rarely) that they’re trying their level best to make it not have happened. First, it wasn’t true. Then it was true but the doctor didn’t report. Then it was true and the doctor reported but it’s Biden’s open borders. I highly suspect that If it comes out that the suspect crossed the border in 2017, there will be something else.
The kid could have gotten an abortion in Ohio. No reasonable interpretation of the Ohio law would have prevented it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe_Hoopsier
A document obtained by The New York Times shows that the Indiana obstetrician who provided abortion care to a 10-year-old rape victim reported the child’s abortion to the state, contrary to the assertions of Indiana’s attorney general.

Edit: reported earlier, channel 59
 
The kid could have gotten an abortion in Ohio. No reasonable interpretation of the Ohio law would have prevented it.
No exceptions for rape or incest, life of the mother exception was undefined and could reasonably be interpreted to mean risk of imminent death, which was not the case. So a 10 year old, probably with baby teeth and still playing with dolls, was forced to flee the state. It's a fact.
 
If there was a doctor willing to do it, don't you think they would have? She was supposedly from Columbus. Literally anywhere in Ohio would have been closer than Indy.
I don’t think they actually tried to find a doctor and I don’t think you do either.

I refuse to believe that any decent doctor would have sent this girl to a completely different state because they were afraid of what would happen to them if they gave her an abortion. That’s ridiculous.

Ohio law permits an abortion if the mothers life is in danger and there’s no way a 10 year old girl can give birth without being in danger in the process.

Come on, goat. This was a purely political stunt and you know it. Stop being disingenuous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crayfish57
No exceptions for rape or incest, life of the mother exception was undefined and could reasonably be interpreted to mean risk of imminent death, which was not the case. So a 10 year old, probably with baby teeth and still playing with dolls, was forced to flee the state. It's a fact.
This is the response I expect from you.

I give goat and others here more credit than that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crayfish57
I don’t think they actually tried to find a doctor and I don’t think you do either.

I refuse to believe that any decent doctor would have sent this girl to a completely different state because they were afraid of what would happen to them if they gave her an abortion. That’s ridiculous.

Ohio law permits an abortion if the mothers life is in danger and there’s no way a 10 year old girl can give birth without being in danger in the process.

Come on, goat. This was a purely political stunt and you know it. Stop being disingenuous.
You think the parents of a 10-year-old rape victim decided on the spur of the moment to use their daughter's fresh tragedy to make a political point? Jesus, dude, I appreciate some healthy cynicism, but that's over the top.
 
  • Like
Reactions: larsIU
You think the parents of a 10-year-old rape victim decided on the spur of the moment to use their daughter's fresh tragedy to make a political point? Jesus, dude, I appreciate some healthy cynicism, but that's over the top.
You think the parents of this kid searched the entire state and couldn’t find a doctor who was willing to help them?

And you say MY cynicism is over the top?
 
I don’t think they actually tried to find a doctor and I don’t think you do either.

I refuse to believe that any decent doctor would have sent this girl to a completely different state because they were afraid of what would happen to them if they gave her an abortion. That’s ridiculous.

Ohio law permits an abortion if the mothers life is in danger and there’s no way a 10 year old girl can give birth without being in danger in the process.

Come on, goat. This was a purely political stunt and you know it. Stop being disingenuous.
I have talked with several doctors who are extremely concerned about how the law will be interpreted. I can’t imagine her parents would let her be a part of a political stunt.
 


Yeah....because they were trying to cover up what Mom's boyfriend was doing....

This story breaking like it did probably blew up their little arrangement.
The report from the doctor to the State of Indiana gave his approximate age as being like 17. So probably not mom’s boyfriend.
 
I have talked with several doctors who are extremely concerned about how the law will be interpreted. I can’t imagine her parents would let her be a part of a political stunt.
Doctors interpret the law in a case by case basis. All they need to do is to honestly apply their professional judgement and not fudge their opinion in favor of their politics.
 
Doctors interpret the law in a case by case basis. All they need to do is to honestly apply their professional judgement and not fudge their opinion in favor of their politics.
Hospitals and clinics typically establish blanket policies for all of their affiliated doctors. Whether it is "no elective surgeries until this COVID surge is over" or "no abortions, whatsoever, until we understand our liability". It is usually not done on a case-by-case basis.
 
Last edited:
Doctors interpret the law in a case by case basis. All they need to do is to honestly apply their professional judgement and not fudge their opinion in favor of their politics.
That is categorically false.

If there is potential felony repercussions if they apply their judgment incorrectly in the view of the prosecuting attorney and/or a jury then they have a whole new wildcard at play. If performing an abortion comes with only a 10% chance of resulting in a charge that will require an expensive defense and a 1% chance of conviction and the loss of their livelihood, they will certainly think twice. It is certainly not as simple as them saying they thought they were correct in their professional judgment.
 
A document obtained by The New York Times shows that the Indiana obstetrician who provided abortion care to a 10-year-old rape victim reported the child’s abortion to the state, contrary to the assertions of Indiana’s attorney general.

Edit: reported earlier, channel 59
Did she also report to the proper authorities that a rape of 9/10 year old had been committed? Indiana has a mandatory law regarding reporting child abuse. It would have been mandatory for her to report it to Indiana CPS immediately. Failure to do so is a Class B misdemeanor with up to 180 days in jail and a fine of up to $1,000.00. What did she file and with whom?

Additionally, the rape of a 9/10 year old child should have been immediately reported to the police. The doctor had knowledge that a serious crime had been committed. what action did she take to report it?
 
That is categorically false.

If there is potential felony repercussions if they apply their judgment incorrectly in the view of the prosecuting attorney and/or a jury then they have a whole new wildcard at play. If performing an abortion comes with only a 10% chance of resulting in a charge that will require an expensive defense and a 1% chance of conviction and the loss of their livelihood, they will certainly think twice. It is certainly not as simple as them saying they thought they were correct in their professional judgment.
Mens rea.

I guess I won’t refer any clients to you.

If all the prosecution proves is applying judgment incorrectly the case gets tossed and the prosecution should be sanctioned.
 
Did she also report to the proper authorities that a rape of 9/10 year old had been committed?
Yes, she absolutely did:

The terminated pregnancy report, obtained by FOX59’s Angela Ganote, shows that Caitlin Bernard, an Indiana obstetrician-gynecologist, reported the abortion on July 2, two days after the abortion was performed and within the three days required for terminations to be reported.

It was submitted to both the Department of Child Services and the Indiana Department of Health.

In the report, Bernard indicated that the child suffered abuse, which is why the report also went to the Department of Child Services, as per state protocol.

 
Last edited:
Doctors interpret the law in a case by case basis. All they need to do is to honestly apply their professional judgement and not fudge their opinion in favor of their politics.
CoH, seems to me doctors have a difficult enough time weighing the desires of patients with what they think is a proper medical course of action without trying to decide the legal ramifications. Hard enough to practice medicine without also trying to interpret laws which have not been tested.

Given this, I can see obstetricians and gynecologists simply not accepting some patients and/or closing up their shop. Rural areas which didn't have too many doctors specializing in "female problems" will have even fewer of these specialists.

It will take a long time before all the new state laws concerning female medicine becomes settled. Hopefully the positives of all the changes will exceed the negatives as these laws are passed and ultimately refined.
 
Mens rea.

I guess I won’t refer any clients to you.

If all the prosecution proves is applying judgment incorrectly the case gets tossed and the prosecution should be sanctioned.
Do you do criminal law?

The Ohio statute says: "No person shall knowingly and purposefully perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of the unborn human individual the pregnant woman is carrying and whose fetal heartbeat has been detected."

The mens rea for that crime is the Knowing or Purposeful performance of an abortion with specific intent to terminate a pregnancy.

The exception at play says: "(This) does not apply to a physician who performs a medical procedure that, in the physician's reasonable medical judgment, is designed or intended to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to prevent a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman."

In EVERY case in which an abortion is performed, there will be a concession that the doctor committed the act. The ONLY QUESTION will be whether their medical judgment was "reasonable." That's the ballgame.
 
Doctors interpret the law in a case by case basis. All they need to do is to honestly apply their professional judgement and not fudge their opinion in favor of their politics.
Uh huh. That’s how it should work. We all know that’s not how it will work.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT