TL:DR When come back, bring pi plus delta squared e to the nth power divided by itself minus 1.
At this point your opposition to the Pitting sounds a little bit like the following: “This is a terrible bill, but you are opposing it for the wrong reasons. Rather than opposing it on the grounds that it could increase investigation of miscarriages which will never happen, you should oppose it because it purports to ban abortion which will never happen.” A little nitpicky, in my opinion. Either way, this legislator plays for your team, so I don’t really care what the exact reasons he is shown to be a lunatic and a bit of a fascist. I do think that highlighting the fact that investigation of miscarriages is a foreseeable consequence of recognizing fetal personhood is a valid argumentative tactic to try convince people who would be otherwise okay with banning abortion.
See, this is why you are the law talkin’ dude and I’m not. I would foolishly think that there is some difference between an inquiry by the medical examiner and a criminal investigation. Apparently, however, these are one and the same.
See that tiny dot waaaaay over there?
That’s the point, which you have spectacularly failed to understand.
“..the police-state brutality of forcing women who’ve been through a recent trauma and are in no way suspected of a crime to have strangers poring over their personal lives in search of wrongdoing…”
Yes. Except that as Ihave pointed out: THIS LAW DOESN’T DO THAT.
Did you read any of that, or just skip over those inconvenient parts?
THIS LAW DOESN’T DO THAT! How much simpler can I get?
You’re entirely correct, except for the part that when a miscarriage occurs and a physician wasn’t present, someone has to determine if a murder was committed. Apart from that minor detail…
I see that you are spectacularly idiotic.
What amazes me is why you feel comfortable coming to this board, of all places, advertising that you don’t understand something, and expect to be greeted with praise.
What I said had a very specific meaning. Epsilon refers to a very tiny, positive value. Paul Erdős used it (jokingly) to refer to children for this reason.
But you are too fucking stupid to understand the reference, and rather than saying, “What does that mean?” you simply assume it’s babble, and, like a drooling simian, try to repeat it.
What an ass.
You seem to have blinders on about what the meaning of the filed police report is. It is already a big government fantasy, one where we’re somehow required to disclose private medical facts to THE MAN, but the reason for filing those police reports is so they can investigate. Just like every other police report you file.
Why do you ignore “After birth but before seven years of age if the death is unexpected or unexplained?”
That says, specifically, that only AFTER BIRTH is the requirement triggered.
Did you forget that?
Oh, I know what epsilon is. I was mocking you for your puny attempts to sound smart. Unfortunately your little nugget of math added nothing to the emptiness of the rhetorical flourish.
The part about filing police reports is ALREADY GEORGIA LAW. That isn’t a new proposal; it’s already enshrined in law. I agree it’s unnecessarily intrusive, and said so above. I DISagree that we may criticize the new bill because of this, because IT’S ALREADY THE LAW OF GEORGIA.
Oh my god he uses Wikipedia AND Lexus Nexus. He must be some kind of genius.
Yes, suuuuure you know. Which is why you threw out all that babble, instead of making a comment that showed you knew it. Suuuure.
The difference is that the bill could pass. The “ban abortion” will never happen because that ban conflicts with federal caselaw.
But the “investigation of miscarriage” claim simply isn’t a part of the bill.
So both claims “will never happen,” but they are of different categories of fiction. The bill DOES, by its plain text, “ban abortion.” It does NOT require investigation of miscarriages.
“Valid?” Why? It’s a classic scare tactic, akin to death panels. In fact, that’s an excellent analogy. The institution of “death panels” are at least as foreseeable as the investigation of misscarriages. But using that highly unlikely scenario as a reason to oppose UHC is not a valid tactic.
You keep pointing to the language of the “Georgia Death Investigation Act”. I know I’m ignorant in the ways of the law, but it still seems to me that the meaning of “or” is the same to the layman as it is to the legal scholar.
So, when this law says (bolding mine)
Then the language that you keep pointing to (“AFTER BIRTH”) is not relevant in the case of a spontaneous fetal death occurring without medical attendance.
I’m cottoning to your legal expert ways, however, so I’ll put it like you do:
WHEN A SPONTANEOUS FETAL DEATH REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED BY THIS CODE SECTION OCCURS WITHOUT MEDICAL ATTENDANCE AT OR IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE DELIVERY or… [piece that Bricker thinks relevant… THE PROPER INVESTIGATING OFFICIAL SHALL INVESTIGATE THE CAUSE OF FETAL DEATH..
Am I getting the hang of this legal wrangling?
At present, the proper investigating official is the medical examiner. However, when the issue is the determination as to whether the crime of murder has occurred, it will become a criminal investigation, will it not? Or will the medical examiner be suited to conduct a criminal investigation?
Feel free to ALL CAPS your answer as is legally warranted.
Ah, yes, the famous “I was joking” defense.
The problem is that as parody, it doesn’t work. What I said was a precisely correct use of the term. Your “parody” is indistinguishable from what someone who had no clue what I was talking abou would say. As such, it fails as parody.
No.
By the words you yourself quote, that applies to a spontaneous fetal that that is required to be reported by this section. So let’s start with that.
How is a miscarriage “required to be reported by this section?”
Go ahead. You’re the expert on Georgia law here. You tell me.
It’s not.
Then which spontaneous fetal deaths are?