Activist Judge Inserts Herself Into State Abortion Legislation

SmarterThanYou said:
ok, i can sorta see that. the basic premise is that yes, states have power to do certain things in order for the good of society, but those are always offset by the level of scrutiny provided to whatever right that is. In almost every case though, if there is a federally protected right, a state law is subject to scrutiny by the federal courts to determine if the law oversteps it's authority in restricting a federally protected right or a law is too vague in determining it's compelling government interest.
Click to expand...

You should have never given in to his semantic bullshit.
 
Return of Dune said:
DY thinks you you find an error in someone's writing that also impeaches their logic.
Click to expand...
I never said that. What I said is that your poor writing skills shows the severe limits of your intelligence, and that since it's so piss-poor, any logic in it is usually lost in translation. :)
 
DamnYankee said:
I never said that. What I said is that your poor writing skills shows the severe limits of your intelligence, and that since it's so piss-poor, any logic in it is usually lost in translation. :)
Click to expand...

If I am so stupid, why do I pwn you so regularly?
 
DamnYankee said:
The specific area of the law that the judge has an issue with is that the states require the clinic to give the mother scientific information. I don't see how that infringes upon the rights of the mother. Liberals are always screaming that conservatives hate science, and here we have clear evidence that, as usual, that it is liberals who hate the very thing that they claim conservatives hate.
Click to expand...

From your link in the OP. (Excerpt) A federal judge in Greensboro blocked part of the state's new abortion law Tuesday, ruling providers do not have to place an ultrasound image next to a pregnant woman so she can view it, nor do they have to describe its features and offer her the chance to listen to the heartbeat.

…abortion-rights organizations for trying to block the law, saying it would provide women with information that would help them make decisions. "They are not interested in informed consent," Brunstetter said. (End)

Informed consent? You're for giving the prospective mother scientific information, DY? What are your views on making genetic testing mandatory and if defects are found the expectant mother must visit a hospital specializing in genetically defective children and listen to their cries and witness their suffering before continuing the pregnancy? Would you support a State passing such a law?
 
apple0154 said:
From your link in the OP. (Excerpt) A federal judge in Greensboro blocked part of the state's new abortion law Tuesday, ruling providers do not have to place an ultrasound image next to a pregnant woman so she can view it, nor do they have to describe its features and offer her the chance to listen to the heartbeat.

…abortion-rights organizations for trying to block the law, saying it would provide women with information that would help them make decisions. "They are not interested in informed consent," Brunstetter said. (End)

Informed consent? You're for giving the prospective mother scientific information, DY? What are your views on making genetic testing mandatory and if defects are found the expectant mother must visit a hospital specializing in genetically defective children and listen to their cries and witness their suffering before continuing the pregnancy? Would you support a State passing such a law?
Click to expand...

It is abundantly clear what the intention of all this is, scientific information be damned, it is blatant emotional blackmail. If the woman wants to request an ultrasound scan then one should be provided, but to force somebody to have one is just bullshit. Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong but I wasn't aware that they had abortion clinics in the US in the 18th century.

It is abundantly clear that DY is totally against abortion in anyway shape or form and approaches the subject from a religious point of view without regard for any other consideration.
 
apple0154 said:
From your link in the OP. (Excerpt) A federal judge in Greensboro blocked part of the state's new abortion law Tuesday, ruling providers do not have to place an ultrasound image next to a pregnant woman so she can view it, nor do they have to describe its features and offer her the chance to listen to the heartbeat.

…abortion-rights organizations for trying to block the law, saying it would provide women with information that would help them make decisions. "They are not interested in informed consent," Brunstetter said. (End)

Informed consent? You're for giving the prospective mother scientific information, DY? What are your views on making genetic testing mandatory and if defects are found the expectant mother must visit a hospital specializing in genetically defective children and listen to their cries and witness their suffering before continuing the pregnancy? Would you support a State passing such a law?
Click to expand...
What is your argument? That the child has to be genetically perfect in order to be worthy of living?
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
It is abundantly clear what the intention of all this is, scientific information be damned, it is blatant emotional blackmail. If the woman wants to request an ultrasound scan then one should be provided, but to force somebody to have one is just bullshit. Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong but I wasn't aware that they had abortion clinics in the US in the 18th century.

It is abundantly clear that DY is totally against abortion in anyway shape or form and approaches the subject from a religious point of view without regard for any other consideration.
Click to expand...

The new law states that the provider must places an ultrasound image in view of the mother. Nothing says that she has to look at it. It is abundantly clear that you are totally for abortion in anyway shape or form and approach the subject from an anti-scientific point of view without regard for any other consideration.

Why do you hate science?
 
apple0154 said:
From your link in the OP. (Excerpt) A federal judge in Greensboro blocked part of the state's new abortion law Tuesday, ruling providers do not have to place an ultrasound image next to a pregnant woman so she can view it, nor do they have to describe its features and offer her the chance to listen to the heartbeat.

…abortion-rights organizations for trying to block the law, saying it would provide women with information that would help them make decisions. "They are not interested in informed consent," Brunstetter said. (End)

Informed consent? You're for giving the prospective mother scientific information, DY? What are your views on making genetic testing mandatory and if defects are found the expectant mother must visit a hospital specializing in genetically defective children and listen to their cries and witness their suffering before continuing the pregnancy? Would you support a State passing such a law?
Click to expand...

Why do you care if they provide the mother the opportunity to look?
According to you, it's nothing and how can anyone get upset about looking at nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top