Yes, but they shouldn’t be able to lie.
Yes, I would. Anyone wanna take the other side.
Transvaginal does give a much clearer view, which is exactly why you’d want it for monitoring a problematic but wanted pregnancy, and exactly why you wouldn’t be bothered with it when all you want to do is determine gestational age of a fetus that’s about to be aborted.
I mean, I’m sure that some places do routinely use a transvaginal ultrasound before an abortion because they happen to have it on hand. And frankly I don’t believe that having the ultrasound transvaginally is hugely invasive, given the procedure to follow. Again, it’s not the ultrasound itself, it’s the fact that they’re using the ultrasound as a tool to harass these women.
Garbage; they consistently act like people who hate women, and like people who don’t care in the slightest about the “babies” they supposedly want to save. It’s the people who insist that it just isn’t possible that they hate women (because hate groups are such a bizarre and unknown concept:rolleyes:) in the face of their consistently anti-woman behavior who are being ridiculous.
But they can’t get away with that anymore; they CAN get away with this law.
Then they’d act like it. Instead they do everything they can to hurt the woman, and show no concern for the health of the fetus, or of the child they force to be born, or even of whether or not their actions lower the amount of abortions. They don’t care about abortion or about fetuses, except as far as they can be used as a weapon against women.
baby killer.
smiley 
Hell no, it isn’t wise. For that matter, as I posted earlier, I think it either violates medical ethics, or it should. The problem is that an unwise law is not necessarily unconstitutional. To strike the shield law, a plaintiff would have to show that it somehow infringes upon a Constitutionally protected interest. I haven’t seen anyone identify such a right or interest allegedly violated by the shield law.
Bullshit. Broad brush attacks on everyone who disagrees with you is not persuasive, nor does it fight ignorance. It is, in fact, possible to take a principled stand against abortion without hating women. Some of the people that do so ARE women. This is true now, it was true yesterday, and it will continue to be true tomorrow.
I’m no lawyer, but wouldn’t a reasonably comptetent one be able to craft an argument that the constitution protects a person’s right to petition the courts for relief against tortious injuries? I know you’ve mentioned that legislatures frequently carve out exceptions for various torts but, ISTM that this is a pretty big one.
Is “rational basis” (no matter how speculatively flimsy) an absolute trump against potential harm?*
Missed the edit window:
'Cos in that circumstance “rational basis” strikes me equating to “fig leaf,” and that’s roughly as abhorrent to me as “fishing expedition” in other types of cases. IfyouknowwhatImean.
*BTW, I’m not sure that “potential harm” is le mot juste that I’m looking for, but I’m blanking on whatever is. Please bear with me.
Perhaps, but this law doesn’t remove all tort claims. This law eliminates one potential tort claim–malpractice for failure to disclose birth defects.
Let’s say a doctor chooses to rely on this law, and refuses to disclose birth defects. He also commits one or more other acts of professional malpractice–botches the delivery, leaves surgical instruments in the woman’s body, gives a bad prescription, or otherwise violates the applicable standard of care. He’s still gonna get sued, and held liable on multiple theories…just not for withholding the information about the birth defect.
What if the doctor doesn’t commit any other acts of professional malpractice; just refuses to disclose a birth defect that would have been correctable via prenatal surgery. The pregnancy progresses toward an otherwise uneventful birth. Is the doctor liable for having effectively prevented the parents from seeking the corrective surgery?
ET: I note that your response does not address my question about the absolute primacy with which “rational basis” is regarded.
Which means that a doctor could fail to follow up and inform prospective parents about a blood test that revealed the foetus had Down’s Syndrome, right? Because he felt there was a likelihood the parents were going to elect to terminate?
I’m curious as to why OB-GYNs need this special liability shield. Why don’t we follow this up to shield doctors from lawsuits resulting from “failing to disclose” the results of pap smears, general blood tests, STD status, oncology reports and the like? Why stop here?
Speaking so broadly about the motivations of such a diverse group of people is what is garbage.
Irrelevant, unless they actually DO take an anti-abortion behavior for a “principled” reason, and few if any do. They simply don’t act like it. Their behavior contradicts their supposed principles, which are vile principles anyway.
So it would also be garbage to call all the people who supported the enslavement of blacks racist?
This is a standard defense of right wing behavior; you aren’t supposed to condemn it unless you judge each and every person individually; which, conveniently for the Right is impossible.
Absolutely, I don’t disagree with you here.
The bolding is mine. The bolded phrase is a factual assertion. I would like a cite for the proposition that “few if any” abortion opponents have principled reasons for their position on the issue.
Their behavior. For example, they pass a law forbidding a particular kind of late term abortion with their so-called “partial birth abortion ban”. That didn’t reduce the number of late term abortions; it just outlawed the safest kind. The only effect it had was to endanger women - which of course was the point.
Where is the big push for adoptions of unwanted children? Pre-natal care? Anything that shows that they actually care about the “babies” they make speeches about? There is no such big push, because they don’t actually care.
And for that matter here’s an old thought experiment. Suppose you had the choice of saving one child, or a canister full of a thousand frozen embryos. You can only save one; which do you save? Someone who actually believed the nonsense that an embryo is a person would save the canister, but good luck finding an anti-abortionist who will take that position. They don’t actually take their own claims seriously; it’s just an excuse for their crusade against women.
That’s not a cite. That’s your opinion.
Waiting is.
Foundational.
An informal legal argument is a term I have crafted by analogy to your earlier posts. It is to a formal legal argument as an informal argument is to a formal argument.
Is that supposed to be an analogy? To call it a “bad” one would be an understatement. I guess it could have been worse if you compared it to Hitler…
No, it’s going to be true of many political positions, whether left or right, when we’re literally talking about 10s of millions of people.
You add nothing to this debate by throwing around unsupported accusations of hate motivated behavior. Nothing.