6 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

I'd have to do some research, but off the top of my head, I can't recall many medical procedures that governments attempt to insert themselves into the decision-making process. More often than not, a court would probably decline to take up the case.

How does this concept square with any form of national medical or national health insurance program?  Under those types of programs the state is directly or indirectly involved in every single medical decision.

Did you guys see this one by the way?

https://nypost.com/2021/12/01/woman-who-sued-moms-doctor-saying-she-never-should-have-been-born-wins-case/

"Woman who sued mom’s doctor claiming she never should have been born wins millions"

32 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

No Medical board would approve of that procedure.  Doctors aren't unregulated bodies without oversight.  If they perform unapproved procedures they can lose their license and be subject to criminal charges. When it comes to medical decision making I think the decisions sound be left to medical professionals and families, not politicians projecting their morals and religion onto others. 

I'm not asking if they would approve it. I'm saying hypothetically, do you think that should be legal - yes or no?

Also, the second a so called "medical professional” gets elected to a licensing board, they become a politician 

48 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

So your example is one guy who got convicted of murder?

Try a duckduckgo search

https://www.liveaction.org/news/born-alive-after-abortion-part-12-allegations-against-abortionist-shelley-sella/

Born alive after abortion part 12: allegations against abortionist Shelley Sella

 

1 hour ago, Procus said:

I guess you weren't on the boards when this guy was banned.  The cat's out of the bag.  Should we bring him back now that the boards are under new management?

What does someone being banned on the old board have to do with your annoying habit of calling people out for the same things you youself repeatedly do?

30 minutes ago, TEW said:

I'm not asking if they would approve it. I'm saying hypothetically, do you think that should be legal - yes or no?

Actively terminating a full term viable infant?  No I don't think your hyperbolic hypothetical should be legal. Nor does any court of law or medical society currently.

But if you're going to advocate for government interference in someone's personal medical decision making process, you have to come with more than just feelings and slippery slope fallacies. 

51 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

How does this concept square with any form of national medical or national health insurance program?  Under those types of programs the state is directly or indirectly involved in every single medical decision.

Insurance coverage of medical procedures =\= making them illegal. 

10 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Insurance coverage of medical procedures =\= making them illegal. 

Agreed. I never it was now did I?

26 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Agreed. I never it was now did I?

Hitting the sauce a little early are we? 

I assumed you were trying to compare single payer government insurance program to the government banning a medical procedure vis a vis government interference in medicine.  If not then my bad. 

1 hour ago, Boogyman said:

What does someone being banned on the old board have to do with your annoying habit of calling people out for the same things you youself repeatedly do?

 

2 hours ago, Procus said:

 

Yup, as usual nothing. I bet guys like you hate people who pay attention.

53 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Hitting the sauce a little early are we? 

I assumed you were trying to compare single payer government insurance program to the government banning a medical procedure vis a vis government interference in medicine.  If not then my bad. 

 

Nope, wrong on both accounts.

 

I am about to sit down with my wife and watch Succession and have a wee drop of vino though.  Just about 9pm over here now.

 

11 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

So what's your point, that the woman is allowed to be pro-choice with her body and anti choice when it comes to vaccines?

2 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

How does this concept square with any form of national medical or national health insurance program?  Under those types of programs the state is directly or indirectly involved in every single medical decision.

 

I wouldn't say that providing financial support for medical services could be accurately termed as being intimately involved in "every single medical decision" in terms of whether or not a procedure is deemed valid or necessary.

2 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

I wouldn't say that providing financial support for medical services could be accurately termed as being intimately involved in "every single medical decision" in terms of whether or not a procedure is deemed valid or necessary.

Once the services that the support can be used for are defined there is direct or indirect involvement in the "decision making process".  If the services are rendered directly by a govt agency (as in many countries) then it is always going to be direct.

5 hours ago, Procus said:

So what's your point, that the woman is allowed to be pro-choice with her body and anti choice when it comes to vaccines?

Why ask his point, if when he does you are gonna slink away like a bish for a while?

Interesting move. 

8 hours ago, DEagle7 said:

Interesting move. 

Interesting and most likely illegal. There's no abortion provision in the Constitution. There is however, that pesky 2nd Amendment, along with the Commerce Clause, and a fair amount of precedent case law in both areas.

2 hours ago, PoconoDon said:

Interesting and most likely illegal. There's no abortion provision in the Constitution. There is however, that pesky 2nd Amendment, along with the Commerce Clause, and a fair amount of precedent case law in both areas.

Almost definitely not legal, but a ruling deeming it so would seemingly force a precedent to be set on these work-around private citizen suing programs for established national SCOTUS rulings. Roe vs Wade established abortion as protected under the due process clause of the 14th, so yeah per our current national precedent it is protected under the constitution. Regardless of anyone's feelings on one issue or the other I don't see how one could be allowed local work around laws and not the other. 

On 12/4/2021 at 3:17 PM, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

I wouldn't say that providing financial support for medical services could be accurately termed as being intimately involved in "every single medical decision" in terms of whether or not a procedure is deemed valid or necessary.

And you’d be wrong

having seen how managed markets has to handle reimbursement tiers in Europe,,,you are dead wrong

On 12/13/2021 at 6:59 PM, DEagle7 said:

Interesting move. 

Sure wish judges would be appointed by their ability to interpret law instead of whether they’re "conservative” or "liberal”. When we let politicians play political games without consequence, this is what we get.

On 12/14/2021 at 6:56 AM, DEagle7 said:

Almost definitely not legal, but a ruling deeming it so would seemingly force a precedent to be set on these work-around private citizen suing programs for established national SCOTUS rulings. Roe vs Wade established abortion as protected under the due process clause of the 14th, so yeah per our current national precedent it is protected under the constitution. Regardless of anyone's feelings on one issue or the other I don't see how one could be allowed local work around laws and not the other. 

The privacy protection under the Due process Clause of the 14th Amendment was an application of the term "liberty" and the SCOTUS held that yes, women have a right to privacy that includes deciding to have an abortion, but the SCOTUS also said that right is not absolute. The SCOTUS also ruled that the State has a compelling interest in protecting prenatal life.

They balanced the two competing interests by breaking it into 3 trimesters. 1st Trimester the State is not allowed to regulate abortions at all. 2nd trimester the State may regulate abortions to save a Mother's life. 3rd trimester the State may regulate abortions as it sees fit over any rights of the mother. That's where we are now.

As for the gun thing, I'd say that's just not happening.

23 hours ago, MidMoFo said:

Sure wish judges would be appointed by their ability to interpret law instead of whether they’re "conservative” or "liberal”. When we let politicians play political games without consequence, this is what we get.

If you are arguing against de facto judicial legislation, I agree.  Judges should simply apply the applicable law to the facts of record before them.  Judges should not create new law.  As you aptly state, judges should interpret law.  It's one of the reasons why Roe, from a purely legal standpoint, is a poor opinion.  You could say the same thing about Miranda, and Brown v. Board of Education as well.