Texas doctor says he violated nation's most restrictive antiabortion law to challenge it

The fetus has no rights until the 3rd trimester. The woman retains hers throughout the pregnancy. Whether she's 4 or 6 ft. tall.

 

Good. I have nothing but respect for the medical profession due to seeing the amount of effort it is required. I am also very lucky to be a patient to some incredibly gifted doctors. Mainly my internalist, who has been awarded the top 10 doctor list the past 20 yrs in the NYC from the magazine The New Yorker.

 

Dr. Braid has been sued under the Austinberg Decree Law... by an Illinois-residing disbarred pro-choice lawyer.... what a country!!

https://www.ksat.com/news/local/202...ortion-ban-sued-by-disbarred-illinois-lawyer/

Gotta LOVE the first line of the 1/3 page suit



You, poster, have my respect through the remainder of this day for your call...... Do with it what you will....

 

If this doctor is performing abortions past the time allotted by Texas law then he is.

I never said they weren't standing up for something. The way they went about it, destroying billions worth in property and causing needless deaths (which is far beyond "out of control"), is not worthy of any sort of admiration. You will note that I specifically called out the riots.

 

You clearly indicated BLM wasn't standing up for anything.

And this Doctor isn't risking 30 seconds in prison, based on this "law" alone.. It's a civil process.... Money...Loot... Cash....

If the packed SCOTUS does something to R vs W, then there might be some criminal possibility, but no word if the Texiban made that retroactive...

 

O idk that's going to survive, particularly when the only relief he asks for is "**** this law your honor". Its not a true adversary case for one and that's obvious. The strawmanning was supposed to be more subtle than that. Also: Illinois residence on Texas state law... dicey.

They a little confused, but they got the spirit.

 

Your points on relief and Illinois resident are well taken and my first 2 problems with this, but nowhere does the law remotely say it has to be an adversary case.... just that you caught an abortion provider or helper in some way... Money is Money after all, friend or foe....

 

You know I'm really interested in your opinion and I have asked quite civilly about it why shut up and post like this?

Why can't you give a straight answer as I said we might find some common ground. As I said I can clearly and concisely tell you why I am anti-abortion and pro-life, I have done so. I asked you to do the same, explain your opinion as you stated it let's discuss.................what's the problem?

 

... you realize that other legal principles related to the system apply when you're examining a law in court... right?

Bringing a suit in good faith is one that applies to any legal proceeding. That means you intend to be the adversary, not demand the court throw down the law you're asserting claims under after not asking for any relief the law grants.

What he should have done if he wanted to help rather than grandstand, and with the rep of this guy I guarantee you its about grandstanding, is basically assert arguments that roe v wade was wrongly decided and do a piss poor job of it such that the court would basically take the case to say "that's not how any of that works what the **** is wrong with you".

 

No, I didn't. I said that what this doctor did is braver than what those that committed the BLM/Antifa riots. Because he's willing to deal with the consequences. BLM/Antifa used a mass of people to do what they did. Most of them wearing masks. Hiding. Trying to escape the crimes that they did. This doctor isn't.

Ok, so its a civil suit. He's still willing to accept the consequences of his actions. You cannot say that for the BLM/Antifa rioters.

SCOTUS is not a packed court. Court packing is adding extra justices in order to change the make up of the court. It is not replacing one judge for another judge because that judge retired or died. Our courts haven't been packed since Jimmy Carter when Democrats controlled Congress and expanded the courts in 1978 adding 10 new seats. All of which were filled by some of the most liberal justices Carter could find.

 

Changing the number of justices is one definition... Changing the composition of justices is another...

This court was packed the day Neil Gorsuch took the oath...

 

No, it wasn't.
Court packing is a specific term and refers to adding members to the court as FDR famously floated.

Additionally: If you don't have the votes to even force the nom to the floor of the senate, the advice is "not this guy" and the consent is withheld.
Constitutional functions served, you came up short. Let it go.

Before anyone gets bent out of shape saying "well advice and consent means they have to go through a process" 1) a process was gone through and you didn't have the minimums to meet it; 2) if I can get some *****, with the advice and consent of any woman in possession of a ***** I would like to get, if she wants to say "no" does she have to go through a particular process? Must she try just the tip first to see if she's in the mood?
I think not.

 

Everyone has the right to protest something they believe is wrong but they should also know they could be arrested if they do break laws which many civil rights protestors were. If the doctor admitted to something he may or may not have done he should be arrested and let the courts sort it out. An investigation should take place.

 

If a mouse rationalizes taking a cookie he'll find a way to rationalize taking some milk too. After all, "poor and illegitimate" is a subjective description. Just as the BLM rioters.

 

Bold: That is nothing more than a political spin.

But lets use your definition. Neil Gorsuch, a conservative type judge, replaced Scalia, another conservative type judge. So...how was the composition changed by him replacing Scalia? It didn't. Using your definition however the court would have been packed had Obama's pick, Garland been allowed to become a justice on SCOTUS. Because he's a liberal type judge that would have replaced a conservative type judge. Therefore changing the composition of the SCOTUS.

Also liberal justices replace conservative justices all the time. And visa versa. It is literally a part of the process that is baked into the system since its the current President who appoints the justices. They are not appointed by party to replace one of theirs whenever one retires or dies while they let the other party replace those judges that retire or die that represent them even though they are not the ones in power.

So....do you really want to continue using that "definition" of court packing? Because its a false one. One that doesn't hold up to what you claim to be "court packing" when examined.

 

Why 3rd trimester and not 5 years old? Or 10? You know damn well those time lines are arbitrary.

 

No they're not. They're based on viability.

 

Go on

 

Go on with what? Read Roe v Wade. It's in the decision.

 

I don't care what is in roe v wade, my claim was that those timelines are arbitrary. And they are.

 

No they're not. Crimeny. Viability. Look it up.

 

I know what viability means, wtf is your point?

 

My point? You asked why 3rd trimester. I told you. That you don't like the answer doesn't change that.

Since you obviously understand viability, what the *******n hell is your point?

 

You are presenting a false analogy. The crucial difference between these two issues, is that a woman's getting an abortion can have no physical effect on anyone other than herself. It cannot, for example, cause her neighbor to have a miscarriage.

Not getting immunized, however, not only endangers one's own self but, because the viral loads they carry around in their nose & throat is four times as high as for an immunized carrier, makes a person more likely to SPREAD their illness to others. On top of this, being unvaccinated makes a person far more likely to end up in the hospital, leading to situations of deluge, which also have deleterious effects on other patients, in need of medical care.


For this reason, if vaccination is not REQUIRED, there is then justification for only allowing the immunized to occupy various buildings/spaces, in which there might be close conditions, as the Biden Administration is beginning to do, with its new OSHA regulations on businesses with 100 or more employees, for instance.

The longer this pandemic persists, due to the non-vaccinated being unwilling to isolate themselves-- and often, even unwilling to mask up (and do so properly)-- the greater the chances we will see more of these types of restrictions. I am completely in accord with your feeling that government should not have the power to control what a person does with their body, provided that it does not impinge on the rights of others. If you want to hang yourself, in your own apartment, that's your business; but it's a whole other animal, if you want to commit suicide by blowing yourself to bits, in a public place.

 

Maybe the problem is that you don't know what arbitrary means. FFS, my point should be obvious to anyone with an IQ over 50.