BTW, doctor/patient confidentiality is controlled by legislation, not the constitution.
What right is being intruded on? The right not to hear your doctor say “The legislature of this state has determined that human physical life begins at conception, and I am required by law to inform you of that determination.”? No such right exists unless it constitutes an undue burden on the part of the women. *Casey *rules here.
Privacy.
Except *Casey *tells us that right is not violated unless an undue burden is placed on the woman. This is not an undue burden, since *Casey *also tells us that “informed consent” and a 24-hour waiting period are not undue.
There is no “undue burden” exception to the right to privacy.
From Casey:
Emphasis added.
That’s not about the right to privacy. Casey doesn’t even mention the right to privacy.
OK. There is no “undue burden” exception to the right to privacy except as it applies to abortion, per Casey.
Unless you want to agree that *Casey *overruled *Roe *wrt “abortion being derived from a right to privacy”.
In any case, the current precedent is that states can place restrictions on early term abortions as long as those restrictions do not place an undue burden on the woman. This law does not do so.
Unless they say that “this is of course wrong” it is an attempt to deceive the woman and a violation of medical ethics - calling it “not a lie” is just word games.
Of course, 24 hours is an undue burden; that’s the point of the delay, after all, to “burden” and humiliate women. Just like “ceremonial deism” the courts rule otherwise because they are full of Christian bigots; woman hating Christian bigots, in this case.
Of course it does; this is a legally mandated effort to deceive women out of getting an abortion. . You could use the same logic to claim that a requirement she be beaten with clubs before an abortion doesn’t count as an “undue burden” since she’s not actually being stopped.
It’s not “wrong”, in the sense that there is a right answer to the question. There are any number of arguments one can make about when “human physical life” begins, and none of them is objectively right.
Your issue is with the SCOTUS court, not me. I’m just quoting precedent, since we are arguing how the court will rule.
See above.
Oh, please. “Human life begins at conception” is an idea that has no other function than to justify outlawing abortion. It doesn’t fit with the other definitions of when someone is a legal person deserving of rights; the law is being inconsistent by allowing this law to stand.
I have no idea what point you are trying to make with that post. “Human life begins at conception” needn’t have any “function” at all. It’s a belief that many people have from which the derive their position on abortion. So what?
You might as well say that “human life does not begin at conception” has no other function than to justify the legalization of abortion.
The “so what” is that it’s a religious belief which the govrenment has no right to force anybody to say. If a state forced doctors to tell women that a fetus wasn’t a baby, the right wing in the US would lose their minds, but the statements are empirically equivalent.
It can be a religious belief, but it needn’t be one.
I agree, especially since we see the left wing losing its mind in this thread.
There’s no way for it not to be. All belief in magic is religious belief.
And both sides would be right to lose their minds in each respective case. The govrenment simply has no business forcing people to either accept or reject religious beliefs.
There is nothing magical about two sets of chromosomes fusing to form a unique set of chromosomes. I don’t call that a “human physical life”, but I can’t objectively say that it isn’t, either.
Now, if the doctor had to say that the fertilized egg had a soul, that would be talking about magic.
Science doesn’t tell us when “human physical life” begins, so we must look to the other fields. Sometimes those fields will be religious and sometimes they will be just plain old philosophy and ethics.
So a scientologist pharmacists can keep his jobs if he refuses to dispense anti-depressants or any medication proscribed for mental health. Really? Most reasonable people would think that guy should be fired and lose his license.
Also, studies suggest fetuses most likely can’t feel pain until the third trimester. The law is forcing doctors to disseminate both misleading and outright false information.
IOW, you think that it is fine for the government to allow licensed professionals in one profession to not do their job based on unreasonable supernatural beliefs, yet you think it is also fine for the government to force another professional to do his/her job improperly based on supernatural beliefs.
Nonsense. It’s a position taken to justify outlawing abortion, not the other way around. It’s a position manufactured for the purpose, and contradicts both the way we treat human life in the rest of society as well as the historical view of the matter.
More nonsense. “Human life doesn’t begin at conception” is consistent with the way we treat human life everywhere else but abortion.
(snipped)
Is that your yardstick? Feeling pain?
Does it apply to adults too?
That’s an interesting conspiracy theory. Pro-life people don’t really believe that that human life begins at conception, they just pretend to do so in order to outlaw abortion. Go it.
Of course it is because that is what we base our laws on. If you mix up cause and effect in one case to create a conspiracy theory, then I get to do the same for the other case.
I’m correcting Damuri Ajashi’s post with the recent literature. He/she mentioned pain first. But yes, since the ability to feel pain and suffering is a good yardstick for some form of sentience, it’s reasonable. I’m assuming that’s what Damuri Ajashi was getting at. Same could apply for those in a persistent vegetative state (not a coma).