It violates the Doctor’s 1st Amendment rights by requiring them to endorse a state religious position.
No, Roe is just about abortion, not privacy generally. I can’t use Roe as precedent in a wiretapping case very effectively.
I don’t think this is the same thing as beating women with clubs before she gets an abortion. It seems different to me.
The legal theory of the Roe decision is that it violated a woman’s privacy. Many of the legal objections to it, at the time and later, is whether there is in fact a constitutional right to privacy.
And the answer is, since the Supreme Court says there is… there is.
You may recall that there was a good deal of pundit chuckling about Donald Trumps answers about abortion and privacy, because he had no idea there was any link between the two. And the right to an abortion is rooted in the right to privacy.
I’m pretty sure that you can’t distinguish between Christianity and Scientology as long as you recognize Scientology as a religion.
I believe that there is some controversy among scientists about whether a fetus feels pain in the second trimester.
No, I don’t think the government should force doctors to profess when life begins (contrary to their own deeply held personal beliefs) but I believe that they probably can. You get into questions about defining life. But pain seems to be much easier to define and while the evidence is not conclusive either way, it doesn’t seem as offensive to force doctors to say that a fetus “CAN” feel pain in the second trimester. WOuld you prefer if they changed the word to “may” instead of “can”?
People didn’t seem to have a problem with the conclusion (at the end of a prior thread) that states can force pharmacists to dispense birth control pills as a condition of their license but now that the shoe is on the other foot, it is suddenly unfair. I warned you guys that turnabout can happen and now that it has, you are getting all grumpy.
http://www.dailymail.com/policebrfs/201104041127
there seem to be at least some cases where we treat a fetus as something more than an appendage of the mother.
You don’t see a difference between mandating that professionals fulfill their professional obligations, and forcing them to dispense information written by the legislature with very dubious scientific validity (at best) and certainly no medical necessity?
I have a pretty high degree of confidence that this mandatory little speech will be determined to be a violation of privacy, if not as an establishment of religion.
I don’t think the ability to feel pain carries a whole lot of significance. I was trying to address the OP.
A yummy veal calf can feel pain but its not sentient.
Well, that makes them hypocrites. I am personally pro-choice during the first trimester and pro-life during the last trimester (with the standard exceptions for rape, medical necessity and severe deformity), the second trimester I leave to the states.
I agree, there is no reputable science that pain can be felt during the first trimester and at that point the state is clearly treading on the doctor’s rights.
I can’t think of a mandatory pro bono requirement anywhere, it has always been aspirational (as in a lawyer “should” do pro bono not a lawyer MUST do pro bono). There are places that pressure you to perform pro bono or donate to the legal aid society but I can’t think of a place where pro bono is required.
Beside, aside from Rand Rover, I can’t think of many people who have moral objection to pro bono legal work as opposed to a “I got better things to do with my time” opposition to it.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about any more. How are drug laws subjective? Or divorce laws for that matter?
The base scenario is one in which there is no law regarding the refusal to dispense birth control drugs.
If you’re asking whether I think a pharmacist can refuse to dispense viagra, I suppose I think they can.
You provide the cites I asked for first.
My point is that once you say that someone who provides a service must provide all services to all comers then how do you except priests performing gay marriages if religious conviction is not a basis for doing so?
I’m not libertarian at all but I do believe that you shouldn’t force people to act contrary to their beliefs just because it would make life more convenient for you.
Like I said that is one option. One that I support.
If the ONLY conscience that is being protected is pro-life sensibilities then it seems like the laws are stepping over the line.
I didn’t know that Roe was a first amendment case.
And no its not forcing a doctor to endorse a religion no matter how much easier it makes your argument.
Yeah but the “penumbra right” that was being protected wasn’t general privacy rights, it was procreative rights. It was taliking about abortion and ONLY about abortion. In the 40 years since Roe, has anyone successfully taken this “privacy right” and expanded it beyond abortion? The opinion reads like its talking only about abortion and while it uses privacy as the hook to substantiate a right to abortion, its not a case about privacy rights.
I see the differences, do you see the similarities?
I don’t see how you could possibly have any confidence in that at all.
FYI, according to this summary by the “National Conference of State Legislatures” as of Feb 2011, 12 states with some form of medical professional “conscience laws”. 6 apparently limit conscience protection to cases of abortion and contraception.
Because drug prohibitions like the prohibition of marijuana are based on someone’s subjective belief that marijuana is harmful enough to society that it should be banned, despite the fact there are other legal drugs that are demonstrably more harmful. That is a lack of fairness. Divorce laws are unfair for a variety of reasons, but primarily because they are tied to marriage laws which are based on religious grounds. Marriage and divorce can be fairly based on contract law, but instead they are based on the idea of some magical property of a relationship between only certain kinds of people, without any necessity to even establish that magical quality between the participants.
I didn’t get off the subject, I’ve been trying to respond to the questions you asked. I see you are responding to a lot of people in this thread, and I understand it can be difficult to maintain individual conversations under those circumstances.
I’ll go back to my original point, this law is based on morality. It allows pharmacists to ignore a persons request to fill a prescription based on the pharmacists own concience. The government is the arbiter of the laws they create, and there is no way to resolve whether a pharmacist is acting based on their concience, or for some other reason. It implies (quite conclusively) that there are moral objections to providing medications that are prescribed as necessary by a doctor.
I haven’t yet seen the text of this law, but let me ask you, does it even provide for consistency on the part of the pharmacist? Could a pharmacist object to providing medication to one individual based on concience, but not another? What if person needs medication to stay alive, but his concience wouldn’t allow him to provide because he felt deeply that the person should die? This whole concept of the law recognizing concience is a mess.
You said Roe v Wade was not decided on privacy. However you want to twist it, it was in fact decided almost exclusively on privacy.
Other cases on privacy:
Griswold v Connecticut – right to acquire contraceptives.
Eisenstadt v. Baird – right to provide information about contraceptives
Loving v. Virginia – right to interracial marriage
Lawrence v. Texas – right to have gay sex