Ok. It may be a decent analogy, but it doesn’t seem to have any independent existence outside of that.
I will just make sure to point out in some political discussion in the future that the only relevant point of view is that of a political theorist using the jargon and methods of political theory. That sort of thing always goes down real well.
There may well be such a discussion in the future.
In this discussion – or more accurately, in the portion of this discussion that involves people arguing that the law should be overturned by judicial action – the relevant expertise is in the legal field.
Naturally, it’s perfectly possible to argue, as many have here, that this is bad policy. But when a rhetor adds to that general claim the specifc argument that the law should or will be overturned by the courts, we leave the realm of general moral and public policy wisdom and enter the courtroom, of necessity.
Ok. I suppose I just read something like, “such and such a law should be overturned” as shorthand for “I really hope such and such will be overturned because I think it’s terrible”. A rhetor could just as easily say, “such a law should be vetoed” or “the legislature should be kicked in the kidney by God”. Overturning is just perhaps the most convenient way to dispose of laws one doesn’t like in this context, so that’s what people assert.
I agree that arguments about actual legal content require actual legal expertise. I just suppose that the word overturned itself, for example, doesn’t necessarily plunge one into strictly legal discourse. Perhaps I am just attributing too much of Oakminster’s point of view to you. If I am wrong about this, then I don’t think we disagree all that much and I will cheerfully end my side of the hijack.
No, I’m basically on board with Oakminster on that aspect; I think the examples I quoted go beyond shorthand into what is fairly described as a legal conclusion. I’ll grant that maybe saying “civil rights” may be shorthand for a non-technical assertion, but surely the use of “legitimate state interest” in a discussion about the rational basis test, when that is the exact term of art used in rational basis analysis, cannot be anything other than a legal claim.
I think you are applying a pretty broad brush to everyone who is against abortion based on the actions and sentiments of a few anti-abortionists. You didn’t say that some anti-abortionists hate women, you said that the movement was a hate movement. I agreee this particular law is pretty bad and supports your view of the anti-abortion movement but I’m not a big fan of abortions and I think this is a horrible law. I’m really torn on abortion. On the one hand, its got to be one of the toughest decisions anyone ever makes in their life, on the other hand, if the pregnancy is far enough along, it really seems like we are engaging in infanticide.
This is what I was replying to:
We aren’t trying to strike down the law here. I agree that if you make an explicitly legal claim it needs to be backed up with legal reasoning, but really, it is not likely that anyone on the SDMB is going to be in much of a pivotal position to strike this law down. Ethical, medical, and political lines of argument are perfectly reasonable. As is “this law is icky poo”.
I am very sensitive to misuse of terms of art. After all, my discipline has saddled itself with “rational” as a term of art, which has done nothing but cause confusion since 1947. If I were looking to crack down on people making economic claims without economic reasoning or misusing terms of art, I’d have another day job.
If I go to the doctor specifically for an ultrasound to see how my baby is, how is the doctor not in the wrong by withholding information that I’m paying them to provide? Their job is not to just tell you the good news. It’s to tell you the bad, too. That is why we call them doctors, and not charlantans who only tell you what they think you want to hear.
Not only does this law undermine the medical profession (if it passes, why should any pregnant woman trust that her OBN isn’t lying to her about how healthy her baby is?), it so ridiculously epitomizes Big Brotherism that it’s a wonder that so-called conservatives aren’t rioting over this. In a truely rational world, everyone would.
Then there’s no conflict. Oakminster’s comments referred to the discussion about striking the law down; your comments don’t. He’s right insofar as discussion about striking the law down, and I’m confident he would acknowledge that there’s plenty to say about the lack of wisdom in this law unrelated to striking it down.
Florida Senate passes amendment requiring women to pay for ultrasounds when seeking to obtain a first trimester abortion. New republican anti-abortion strategy?
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/florida/sfl-florida-senate-abortions-ultrasounds,0,3941908.story
Ironically, there was another amendment to the same bill “that says government can’t compel Floridians to purchase health services.”
True. My quoted comment was intended as an invitation for someone to layout the basic legal arguments in favor of striking the laws, and not to stifle discussion.
I’d love to see a medical professional discuss the ethical problems with the malpractice shield, if any. I think there are ethical problems there, or if not, there should be, but (Dammit, Jim) I’m a lawyer, not a doctor…
The right to privacy is violated, without a state interest.
And what cases do you cite for that proposition?
Fuck doctor-ethics, I’d rather you explain to me exactly why a doctor merits escaping malpractice litigation for refusing to disclose the results of medical tests to his patients based on his “religious” sentiments. If my gynecologist conducted a pap that showed I had HPV, would you support him not disclosing to the results to me and allowing an elevation of the risk of my developing cervical cancer because his religion dictates to him that I’m a godless whore for having pre-marital sex and that I deserve to die? What about an evangelical doctor refusing to disclose HIV status because he believes the patient deserves to die and go to hell?
If I wanted to go to a witch-doctor, I would. I actually agree with Bricker that the transvaginal ultrasound is a red herring. This liability shield insulates ob-gyn’s from malicious and deliberate non-disclosure of medical information pertinent to their patients and that could seriously impact their healt. IAL but not an ambulance chaser (sorry), so I haven’t the faintest clue or desire to internet lawyer this-but it’s basically a bill that allows full-on retards who crawl into the medical profession from the Oral Roberts School of Medicine and Such an opportunity to fuck up a patient’s physical and mental health based on bible-thumpery.
If we’re going to extend this shield to screw up ob-gyn practice, I vote we extend it to the entire medical field, so they can just give us whatever test results suit their whimsy.
If you’d read the thread before ranting at me, you’d know what my position is, as I’ve clearly indicated it at least 4 times.
If you’d read the post of mine you quoted, you’d see that I said the non-disclosure either is or should be considered unethical, which would strongly imply I would not support it.
Sadly, you apparently did neither. Instead, you ranted at a guy that actually opposes the laws in question.
Right, you’re against it on the principal of “ethics” but you think it’s constitutional for doctors to violate my right to determine the course of basical medical care. There are court cases that say there’s a constitutional fucking right to have children and constitutional rights that allow for 50,000 fucking adminstrative hearings before you turn off the social security drip but you think there’s no violation of a constitutional privacy right by allowing doctors to deliberately and maliciously fail to disclose test results that might result in a patient’s death?
Sorry, I’m not one of those lawyers that needs to prance around on the internet nitpicking about whether or not doctors are constitutionally allowed to kill their fucking patients to disprove/prove someone’s Google-fu. This is a law that gives carte blance to religious nutjob doctors to fail to disclose birth defects/high-risk pregnancies that might kill or severely injure women. Use your common fucking sense-doctors should not be shielded deliberately CAUSING THEIR PATIENT’S DEATHS. Laws that allow people to kill based on their whimsy do not need an extensive constitutional analysis-they’re criminal.
Soooo…I don’t like a law, and have expressed interest in representing plaintiffs challenging that law, but recognize that it appears to be constitutional.
You find this a distasteful position to hold, but can’t be bothered to cite anything in support of your position that the law is unconstitutional, on some unspecified legal theory?
Does that sum it up?
Note: Of course, the law does not actually allow killing.
Oakminster, I appreciate the fine line you’re attempting to walk here. I’ll stipulate that [ul][li]You do not like the law,[/li]
[li]You would be interested in representing plaintiffs challenging the law,[/li]
[li]As far as you are able to determine, the law is constitutional.[/ul][/li]
So, let’s say Plaintiff X comes to you, having undergone the experience I outlined in this post. You agree to represent the client, and head to court to challenge the law (I recognize that I’m skipping a step or two in this narrative). On what basis are you challenging the validity of the law?
:rolleyes: Review your texts on the topic of substantive due process and it will become clear.
If it’s clear already, and you wish simply to argue for the fun of it, we’re already done.
It would be an interesting scenario to have an ultrasound ‘recording’ (easily done and is part of the actual med-record, afaik) of a fetus with major defects, and have the physician’s voice/written documentation saying something else entirely, such as “perfectly normal fetus with has zero future issues - why abort such a thing, you silly silly girl who knows nothing about medicine/life?!”. Using such discrepancies could show that the physician cannot ever be depended upon to be ethical/truthful/~‘of good character’ (required by all licensures, afaik), and imho, that could (would??) immediately suspend the ability to prescribe medicine (DEA license) and/or perform any patient care (State licensures, etc). I see a really slippery slope here, myself.
I could also see a very, very upset patient/family-member who was lied to by a physician causing bodily harm (murder??) to such deceitful physicians. Its not uncommon for the human-animal to react as such, and I bet it would not take long for a person severely affected by medical deceit to take such action(s), and do it in a very visible manner so as to make a statement. Who is the worse person - the liar-physician or the person pushed to such extremes by professional deceit and laws that encourage such behavior?
Right, then, no need to hear from the defense. Judgment for the plaintiff.
As much as I oppose this law, I kinda wish that counsel for the inevitable plaintiff thinks this is the appropriate method of argument. Heaven knows what your complaint would be then. “Stupid fucker! he lost! He did exactly what I said to do and of course he lost! How could he be such an idiot?!?”