Yes, that’s true.
But if that is truly your view, then perhaps you’d care to identify any posts in this thread that have laid out any arguments, period.
You will of course apply the same exacting standard as to form and structure, I trust.
OK. What we have here is a failure to agree on basic premises. You seem to suggest that the only substantive difference between IMHO and GD is the presence of politics or religion (or, presumably, any other offensive or unpleasant topics). I believe that the underlying expectations of each forum are different. In GD, one is expected to provide citation to authority - an unsupported opinion is not welcome; a gratuitous assertion may be equally gratuitously denied. In IMHO, on the other hand, opinions unsupported by evidence are solicited and encouraged, and there is no opprobrium for the poster who posts an opinion without factual support.
People have been presenting informal arguments. Pretty much what one would expect on an internet message board.
And the arguments I cited earlier were informal legal arguments.
First of all, it’s completely irrelevant if it “violates existing law”, because laws override older laws all the time. That’d only be relevant at all if the existing law in question is the Constitution (either of the state or the nation). Second, as Bricker has pointed out, it’s quite possible for a law to be Constitutional and yet be a bad idea. Third, the question of whether this specific law is good or bad is not inseparably tied to whether abortion in general is good or bad: I, for one, am opposed to abortion (at least, abortions at the stage at which this law would be relevant), and I still think that this is a really stupid way to try to address the problem.
What is an informal legal argument? There are only 4 hits on google, and none are informative. Formal legal argument, on the other hand, yields an ample bounty and some pretty good definitions.
Of couse, and I understand that the conceived reasons doesn’t have to be what the legislature was actually thinking. (Just as well, for that way madness lies.) However, I’m wondering if “encourage ultrasounds” could even count as a rational basis for the liability shield law, given that another law requires ultrasounds. And if not, can we think of any other rational basis for the law?
Objection! Relevance!
That and GD discussions are long-running and there is far more back-and-forth. We actually argue about things. Arguing in IMHO gets it bounced down here. The substantive differences concern the length of discussion and the tolerance for opposing points of view. I hesitate to comment on the formal qualities of the arguments themselves.
I don’t disagree with either of you about the relevance of legal arguments on this matter. As a non-lawyer, I am in fact interested to read them. But they are not the only thing worth discussing here, as Oakminster clearly implied by disparaging the non-legal comments (“mean anti-abortion people, dumb, stupid, icky-poo”) in the post that to which I originally responded. Just because a law is passed somewhere doesn’t mean debate about the matter is settled. And just because a debate involves laws doesn’t mean that non-legal aspects are not interesting and/or relevant. I didn’t think that would be a controversial viewpoint, but this is GD, I guess 
The Casey case, which I have cited, is existing law. From a plaintiff’s point of view, she has the right to obtain an abortion without having to overcome an undue burden. The Casey court held that “informed consent” was not an undue burden, and thus allowed the applicable provision of Pennsylvania law to stand. The question in this thread is whether or not the ultrasound requirement poses an undue burden, and thus violates the Constitution as interpreted in Casey and other relevant caselaw.
A potentially winning argument in an attempt to strike down the ultrasound law must convince the current SCOTUS that the law at issue here goes beyond requiring informed consent, which was allowed under Casey, and somehow poses an undue burden. Other cases applying the undue burden test may or may not lend support to Plaintiff’s cause. I’d like to see some of them cited and discussed.
Don’t the two laws seem to work against each other also?
Law #1 Requires the patient to have informed consent.
Law #2 Says the doctor doesn’t need to give the patient the information.
Oklahoma resident here: After asking at least a dozen strangers in a grocery store today, not one of them was aware of the new law that is being discussed here. I got some strange looks when asking, but most of the people were seemingly somewhat shocked at what they learned from me. Some even called me a liar trying to make trouble and got kinda mad I would suggest such a thing happening, and I said they could call the Gov who did try to veto it (thx, Brad!). I live in a little po-dunk town and certainly did not get an accurate ‘survey’/population cross-section by any means. I’m saying this for those folks that think that most of ‘us’ support this - most do not even know it is happening, from what I can tell at the moment anyways. Ignorance is bliss, right?!
I’m wondering if the licensing entities of physicians (AMA, DEA, and/or State agencies) will tolerate a physician possibly causing harm to a patient by intentionally not telling what would otherwise be mandated. That Hippocratic thing is not taken lightly, I hear.
I stand corrected.
The reason I asked is because my wife has undergone extensive fertility treatments, eventually leading to a full term pregnancy, and in the course of that has had many transvaginal ultrasounds. For quite a few things they give the best view. In fact, it wasn’t until the fetus was a few months along that the regular ultrasound could see anything.
While I agree that it is horrible to legally protect doctors for lying to their patients I don’t think the pro-life movement is ultimately a hate movement against women. Isn’t it possible that some people think that fetuses are human?
I think the idea is that a lot of women cope with abortion by pretending that the child growing inside of them is not alive.
I think its emotional coercion to require women to see the baby that they might be eliminating but that is probably the premise.
I know a womn who had an abortion when she were young and now has several children and are better able to provide for those children because she was able to finish college and start a career. Its a tough issue, if it were anywhere near as simple as Der Trihs would have you believe, the debate would have been over before it started.
You ever hear of adoption?
Interesting post, Oakminster; thank you for clarifying the issue of Casey, particularly as it pertains to “informed consent” and “undue burden.”
In regard to the liability shield for not notifying the patient about prenatal findings, ISTM that this would tend to prevent a prospective parent from exercising informed consent when deciding to continue a pregnancy. Is this really a wise reason for the State to step between the physicians it licenses and accountability for their errors?
Don’t things start6 to get identifiable in the second trimester?
So now every woman has a probe struck up her butt?
I don’t like the probe ultrasound because if you need a probe its probably not developed enough for ultrasound pictures to change your mind. Having to go thorugh the probe ultrasound seems like an undue burden.