Jump to content

sheeeit

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    701
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by sheeeit

  1. You use your typical histrionics but I don't disagree with the sentiment. There are certainly things the hospitals and doctors can do to insulate them from this. In house medical panels that review, rigorous documentation etc. And if you read the statute jail time is only for doctors or others that "wantonly" violate the statute. But your point stands that there is risk. From a purely legal standpoint, I don't think this particular line of thinking is a winning strategy. Obviously getting the law repealed is ideal. Short of that, I think a woman is going to have to sue a doctor or hospital for denying her an abortion under the vagueness of the statute and force the courts to put in language that removes the ambiguity. We already have laws that deal with medical reasonableness and things like experimental drugs and procedures. These are not, at all, issues that the medical world hasn't dealt with before.
  2. This is just not true or accurate. SCOTX as well as the AG's office have all agreed that Ms Cox is entitled to an abortion under the law. What SCOTX and the AG's office are saying is that she and the doctor and the hospital have to follow the requirements for the abortion as defined under the law. This case sets no precedent on dealing with exceptions to the rule because the plaintiffs admit they didn't follow the rule. I agree with you that the intent of the statute is to make it difficult to get an exception. That was by design. Possibly a case can be made that the requirements are too onerous but that is not the case they are bringing.
  3. You missed the point. The staute will never be changed or repealed based on someone's belief that something might happen. Have a woman get an abortion based on the exceptions to the statute that clearly exist and then if the AG tries to interfere, a suit can be brought that has a chance of winning.
  4. So what is your solution? You and others seem pretty emotional about this and rightfully so. I am sure the women this law affects are happy that you are screaming about it on a message board but I don't see how that actually helps them. Let's assume that the federal SCOTUS is not likely to change their stance on abortion anytime in the near future. SCOTUS said abortion needs to be defined by the states. As a result if you really want a change to the Texas law then it is going to have to come from Texas voters and by their proxy the Texas state legislatureor through SCOTX. I assme we can all agree on that? If your stance is that a majority of Texas minds will never be changed on this subject and further that even if the majority of Texans favor change, that the legislature is going to somehow ignore the will of the people and then insulate themselves from having to be re-elected so that the current statute/law will never face repeal or change then why are you even discussing it? You and so many others keep saying that you KNOW how the issue is going to be decided in a hypothetical scenario. That isn't knowing, that is speculating. You could be 100% correct in your speculation but you don't know it and it isn't fact until it happens. And, more importantly, your speculation does not have the power to change anything. Only allowing the actions to actually happen has the potential to change things. I would like the actual statute/law changed. I am advocating for a path forward that might actually produce a change. But what is happening now with the current cases isn't going to work imo. I haven't read every single scenario in the current suit but I have read most of them. Again, imo, those cases are going to lose because in those instances the plaintiffs are saying they want an abortion for a specific circumstance with their prgnancy and SCOTX has said that based on their reading of the statute all of the women are/were entitled to a leal abortion under the statute. So there is no case. What the plaintiffs are saying is that they do not want any restrictions on the abortions and that they do not want to go through the procedures required to get a legal abortion under the statute. That isn't goling to fly imo. I think a much better case would be a woman that has a viable prgenancy and did not realize she was pregnant until after the reporting timeline based on the statute but would have opted for an abortion if she knew. I think the statute is very shaky on this issue. It has been written in such a way to make it almost impossible for anyone in this scenario to get an abortion. I think a challenge on the vagueness of the statute and the hypocritical nature of the wording has a chance to win at SCOTX.
  5. This is the point. You may very well be right that the AG would have come up with some other method. But we don't know and we didn't give him the chance. If minds are going to be changed then there must be a case where the statute was complied with and still the abortion was interfered with. Then you have a case to fight with.
  6. I'm pretty high and not sure I understand the point you are making. I thought that you and the other guy were saying that because this case has legs and is getting a lot of national press and that this is an election year that it might actually change the minds of the Texas voters that approved the people in the legislature that put the statute into law. But then you post above about how truly crazy the people are. Which leads me to believe that no amount of national pressure is going to shame enough people to actually change the legislature, which was my point.
  7. Hopefully you guys are right. But it seems to me that the only way to repeal the law is through the legislature. That is going to require a pretty serious conversion. I think the national dialogue will produce 2 things. Texas is going to look stupid and the ones responsible for being stupid are just going to hunker down and tell the world they don't understand the law. Shame does not work when people aren't ashamed of what they are doing.
  8. Agreed to a point. I think you, as a good poster, should be above the crazies. I would like the law/statute repealed or replaced. But by bringing these types of cases, it actually gives the AG a defense by pointing out that, legally, the bad outcomes did not have to occur based on the statute. In order to actually get the statute repealed, hearts and minds are going to need to be changed. Perhaps they never will. But they certainly never will when the tactic used to try and change them is based on outcomes that could have been avoided if the current statute was applied correctly.
  9. I think Rimbo is more right on this issue. Of course we will never know. But Gore believed, unequivocally (and as VP he had access to all of the intel), that Saddam had WMDs and was actively looking to share them with terrorists. Gore stated that in multiple speeches at the time. He couched support for the invasion by saying we needed more of an international consensus (and he was probably right about that in hindsight) but the die was cast and the US was going after Saddam regardless of who won the election. Further, no one could plausibly argue that the Clintons would not have had a major impact on Gore as POTUS and both Bill and Hillary supported the invasion, with Hillary being in the minority of dems that voted for the resolution (21 dem senators and 126 dem house memberts voted against the resolution). I did agree with Gore that we should not have slowed down our fight against Al Queda but that fight was proving to be harder than we thought. As to Haliburton, I think that line of thinking is just completely flawed and weak. When the authorization to invade was made there was absolutely no way to do a formal "bid" process to support the troops and handle the oil fields and Haliburton was, in fact, the best US corp to handle the work. Haliburton obviously made a shit ton of money but I do not believe, at all, that Haliburton getting the work played any role in the decision to invade. I think Cheney was an idealogue and truly thought he was helping the country. I don't think he actually did help the country but he was not motivated, nor was Bush, by Haliburton profiteering off the war.
  10. To be clear, I disagree completely with the Texas abortion law and think it perfectly illustrtaes the backwords thinking and political grandstanding and blatant hypocrisy of the Texas GOP. It is ghoulish. The law is too vague and needs serious reform. It is likely written to put fear into doctors and hospitals. It is terrible. I would never support any of the people responsible for it. But there are definitely people on here that look to the few level headed attorneys on the board for information and I think you are greatly mischaracterizing the Texas law. To your points: 1)"Yeah and the statute doesn't require following the hospitals procedures."- I think it actually does. The law requires the doctor performing the procedure to have "active admitting privileges" at the time of the procedure and the hospital only grants privileges to doctors that agree to comply with all hospital policies. The truth is that if the hospital knowingly allows a doctor to perform surgeries/procedures that do not comply with their (the hospital's) own guidelines then the hospital is certainly at risk for penalties. This is true whether the procedure is an abortion or any other medical procedure. 2) "They are trying to force this woman to give birth to a stillborn infant and also to prosecute the hospital. "- Disagree again. The Texas statute (as ghoulish as it is) clearly states that an exception to the guidelines exists for any unborn child that " has a severe fetal abnormality". No woman would ever be forced to to give birth to a stillborn child under the statute. Again, they are not saying this at all. You, as a lawyer, know this. That was simply an answer to the specific filings in this case. There are many cisrcumstances that allow a legal abortion that do not require the mother's life to be in danger. As mentioned, the law is certainly vague and I can understand the hesitancy of the doctors. As stated, I think the statute is absolutely repulsive. But it was passed into law. And in making a PURELY legal and unemotional judgement on the actions of the AG (again I disagree to the law completely) in this case I would agree that the AG is correct in its arguments. There are laws and procedures required for legal abortions. Ms Cox and her doctor did not follow them and they certainly could have. The doctor could easily have noted the conditions present in Ms Cox's pregnancy that were a danger to "impairment of a major bodily function" and had another doctor concur and performed the abortion. I get it that they don't want to do that because it might show that the statute allows it and then they have a far more limited avenue to sue. They want to use the emotional scenarios to help draw attention to the law and the need for reform and I hope they succeed. What I do not like is the suffering that some of these women incur when they shouldn't have to legally or otherwise.
  11. Good read. Just my opinion but I believe that after this conflict is resolved, Bibi will step down. I hope so.
  12. I have a real problem with this sentiment. Maybe I am not understanding your point. The vast majority of people who are condemning Israel for their offensive and seemingly being supportive of Palestinians (as opposed to Hamas) all seem to suggest that Hamas represents a small percentage of Palestinians. I hear this a lot. Israel is killing "innocent" non combatives. I hear most Palestinians just want to live in peace and go to work and raise kids etc. So, IF that is true (I do not believe it to be) then why or how could another Hamas type group emerge in a post Hamas Gaza? Israel is going to shred Hamas including both people and weapons. It will be effectively destroyed. So if we assume that post Hamas Gaza gets vast international aid to rebuild their territory and some sort of international police force is present in Gaza during the rebuilding, how would a new Hamas get a foothold there? The only way would be if there really are a larger percentage of Gazans that are fine with killing Jews and trying to destroy Israel. I firmly believe that we are going to find out. Hamas is going to be wiped out. Gaza is going to be given an opportunity at true self determination after this conflict is over. International aid in the billions will flow into Gaza. If in 10 years, Gaza is living peacefully then they will be left alone by Israel. If in 10 years another Hamas type emerges to some position of control then Israel is going to decimate the whole population.
  13. You truly think if Israel "surrendered" that Hamas would stop trying to kill them? What has Hamas ever done to make anyone think that?
  14. I understand your point. And you are correct. I am saying that it is likely that events have occurred throughout history that would cause some hatred of jews. Just like there is hatred of any societies that have had conflict. I am sure there are chinese that hate japanese due to the atrocities prior to ww2. I am sure there are americans that hate japanese for pearl harbor or japanese that hate americans for Hiroshima etc. And sure the hatred should be reserved for the leaders but that just defies human nature. But all of those societies have seemed to evolve to some extent and are willing to be mostly peaceful. The palestinians seem to not want to evolve. They continue to foment hatred and wish violence on the jews and they teach it to their children as a religion.
  15. This is an interesting post and one that I think a lot of people agree with. To me, it is just a feel good response by people who are detached from the issue and have no skin in the game. It is also a very general use of the word terrorism. When you say the Israelis havent been blockaded and starved, you offer no reason why that has occurred. You seem to insinuate that the Israelis are doing it out of spite or meanness. It is not a disputed fact that rocket fire and suicide bombers were routinely coming out of Gaza and into Israel for years and years before Israel cut off the passageways. It is not a diputed fact that Iran/Hezbollah were sneaking weapons into Gaza through the passages that were open. What is Israel to do? Why has Egypt kept their border with Gaza closed during the same period? Why are they not called out by you and others to help with the humanitarian crisis in Gaza due to the blockade? Gaza is tiny. More than enough aid could come through Egypt to care for the whole country. Would you try to equivocate the response if Hamas had attacked Egypt on Oct 7? Would you or anyone have condemned their response? Maybe I have missed it but I do not recall any pro palestinian spokesperson or leader or Hamas or anyone that has condemned Egypt over the last decades due to the blockade. And Jewish Israel and Arab Egypt enjoy normal realtions and have hundreds of millions of trade between them. And what I mean by detached is that we in the US have the luxury of making comments like "I dont view terrorism in Israel as all that different". But you would think it was different if you lived in Israel and had family members killed by those terrorist acts that you seem so indifferent about. Attacks that have gone on for decades unabated. I am frankly amazed that people who constantly poke a bear are then horrified when the bear eats them. I do not see any chance of Israel stopping short of eradicating Hamas from Gaza. My hope is that it is done as quickly as possible and with as few casualties as possible. Then I hope the world pours a lot of money into Gaza to rebuild and establishes a temporary international police force in Gaza to keep a Hamas like group from reforming and allows the Palestinians to actually self govern and live in peace.
  16. You are correct if we are talking about right now. My point was that the Palestinians have hated the Jews and have been calling for their extermination almost throughout history. They have raised their children preaching violence and death to Jews for a long time. Certainly well before Israel or Netanyahu. No one can possibly understand all of the history between the two. Perhaps some hate of Jews is justified from history. But no hate is justification for calling for mass extermination of a group of people.
  17. I really disagreee with both of these points. On the first, your feelings are understandable in todays world where we are able to view everything in real time. Coupled with the fact that it really doesn't impact 99% of the people here (USA) personally. It is not our children and neighbors being killed. But imagine what the reaction would be to WWII say 4 months after D Day or after Dresden or during the bombing of Britain. War is hell on earth. Germany was indiscriminatetly killing civilians and, in turn, German civilians were getting killed in response. Imagine a bunch of people from Mexico calling the Allied forces barbarians when German civilians were killed. But Roosevelt and Churchill knew that a ceasefire against Hitler was pointless. He was never, ever going to stop. So "innocent" Germans were going to get killed. Hamas is never, ever going to stop killing Jews. Never. It would be great if Israel could eradicate Hamas in a week but that just isnt how it works. I hope it is quick and that the body count is low but Israel is not going to spare Hamas this time. On the second, I just don't think that sentiment reflects reality. It is 2023. The citizens of Gaza have cell phones and internet and all kinds of communication capabilities. Yet very, very few criticize Hamas publicly and, to my knowledge, none have given intel to outside organizations about tunnels and weapons. One can certainly argue that criticizing Hamas is dangerous but it is certainly less dangerous now as everyone sees everything now. Further, the Palestinians are taught in school at very early ages and taught at home to hate the Jews and that the Jews are the sole cause of every bad thing that happens to Palestinians. To be clear, I am not defending the Jews. I am saying that the Palestinian population, from their very childhoods, have had hate for the Jews ingrained into their very psyches. That is a mental cycle that is immensely hard to break. It is hard for me to comprehend the depravity required to use hospitals and schools as shields for tyranny. I don't think many Americans can understand this. Hamas literally hate Jews more than they love their fellow countrymen.
  18. sheeeit

    High

    That is a shockingly descriptive post.
  19. This took a weird turn which is sort of predictable here. I have no desire or interest to defend Abbot/Paxton and I think many of the platforms of the Texas gop are stupid and wrong. I would not argue that many in the the Texas gop would like to revert to a more traditional (certainly traditional in our country) form of governance but I do not think they will be successful and, very clearly, the country as a whole is moving on without them. If you just wanted to do a Texas gop is bad and religion is bad thread then I would not have responded. Your original post asked "It feels like more and more we are headed towards theocracy in this country. At the very least, the right are determined to commingle church and state much more. This goes for all religions, but since we are in the US, that mostly means Christianity. They weaponize it for whatever cause and policy they are trying to push on the country." I do not think that is true. And Texas isn't the country. I would say the country is actually heading in an opposite direction of a theocracy. Plus, what group that wants something politically doesn't weaponize their support for it? I do not have any issue with religious people being politically active on issues just like I have no issue with any group that wants to become active politically and fight for what they believe in. When I think of a theocracy, I think of some society ruled by the teachings/rulings of some divine being or some group that considers themselves as divinely guided. Like making it illegal to eat meat on Fridays during lent or mandating prayer at govt functions or similar. In our country's history we had some ideals like that but they have mostly been eradicated. We are a far, far more secular govt today than in the past. That is undeniable. Maybe it isn't happening as fast as some would like, and I tend to think that is a good thing in most cases, but it is moving in that direction and there is absolutely no traction nationwide for a return to some sort of theocracy. Abortion- Again, I have made my personal beliefs known and I think the Texas law is grossly bad. However, I can understand an argument from people who think abortion is killing a potential life. An atheist can believe and be scientifically and medically supported that life occurs at conception. I doubt we will ever get a consensus on that. But I do not find arguments against abortion to be specifically religious. It certainly aligns with the beliefs of many religious people but taking it literally- believing that abortion is killing a potential life- there is no society or religion that would agree that killing a potential life is legal. I can respect that argument. Gay Marriage- Our society's feelings on gay marriage have changed quickly in a short period of time. Even Obama was against it as recently as 2008 and you would not consider him a right wing religious zealot. But attitudes change and our govt laws change. Gay marriage is legal everywhere now. Yes there are Neanderthals in the Texas gop that would want to change that but they don't have much chance of that happening. Texas courts would likely shut it down and certainly the SC would and did. If someone argues against gay marriage on its face then I would ridicule them and would not support them. If a religious person argued that they should not be compelled to perform a service that contradicts their religion then I would absolutely defend that persons rights. LGTB- This is such a new issue, especially transgenderism, and the country is going to have to figure it out. I would never ever support legislation that stripped rights from a trans person. I read over some of the bills you linked above. Many of them are just too stupid and have zero chance of passing. The ones worth discussing, imo, have to do with medical/surgical care for adolescents. I saw Troph's post about how she feels about it and I agree very much with what she believes. There should be very good communication about it, there should be long term professional counseling involved and then informed decision making between the child, parents and their doctor. My personal belief is that medication or surgery before 16 is misguided. Truly being trans is not really anything anyone wants. It is a brutal thing for them to deal with. Troph does not want anyones pity but we can be very empathetic to her and others in a similar situation. But the subject needs to be treated carefully. I think troph would completely agree that people who are pushing medication/surgery on adolescents that do not go through the proper procedures (like long term counseling, parental input, medical input etc) are dangerous and need to be stopped. When people read about abuses like that they are naturally going to react emotionally and they will rush to support legislation to stop it. However, over time, a rational plan will be clawed out and we will be much better at dealing with these types of issues. To round out the discussion, that is an example of how I feel the country is moving away from a theocracy. We may stumble along the way on both sides, but, in the end, our society will have a plan to deal with trans youth that is both helpful and practical.
  20. Your first paragraph is kind of making my point. It seems you want to believe that the court made its ruling based on religion. It did not. The decision was based on pretty straight forward legal theory. And Alito went out of his way to remark that abortion is very different from other "social" liberties due to the fact that it deals with potential life. You also want to imply that money from special interest affected the decision. There is obviously no proof of that but the same argument could be made for any number of court decisions that are controversial and important to some group. Energy companies, unions, trial lawyers, tech, etc. They all give tons of money to their causes. On the gay marriage issue, I have already pointed out my personal belief. I read your link and have read many other links. Abbott/Others did not say, at all, that gays should not have the right to get married. They can and they can get married in the church. What they said is that the govt should not be able to compel someone to do something that is against their religious beliefs. That is an argument I can understand and respect whether I agree with it or not. You say there efforts to push legislation through. That is why I asked for specifics. Most times that I read about some egregious bill, when I read the actual text of the bill it is a lot different from what was reported.
  21. Appreciated. Lets start with abortion. I was raised catholic and lost all interest at one time and am more or less back now. Admittedly agnostic and do have to question those that believe beyond any doubt. I am not opposed to abortion within certain limitations and think the current Texas law is terrible. That being said, I read a lot about the recent overturn of Roe and religion is never mentioned in any of the court documents I could find. No question the battle against abortion is being waged by many that profuse to be religious, but that doesn't mean that they are pushing their religion on anyone. It is an issue that many religious people feel very strongly about, and, they are engaging in their right to make their voices on the issue heard. Abortion is never going to be settled as there just seems no way to make a scientific case for when life begins. We tried with "fetal viability" but it is still arbitrary. It is not my belief, but I can understand someone thinking abortion is killing a life, and I can respectfully disagree with that position. But if you feel abortion is killing a life then that is not only a religious wrong but also a societal wrong that we already make illegal. On the LGTB issues, we are probably going to have to be more specific. Interesting that you used the phrase "restricting liberties". It seems almost all conflict in this regard is when 2 or more different groups/people both feel their liberties are being restricted. If we are talking about Gay Marriage (which I am in complete agreement with) and potentially the Supreme Court with Obergefell, if the case gets overturned it will be on ideological/legal basis rather than religious. Obviousy there has been a lot of LBGT, especially trans, in the public eye lately. Maybe there is legislation out there that is different, but when I read the actual text of the various laws, they seem to be based on fairly rational thinking. I may disagree with them, but I do not think they are "religiously" written. No question they are favored by many on the religious side of things but every contentious issue has rabid sides. I actually think the ability of religious people to get certain pet ideologies passed into law is is lesser now than in the past. Before most of these laws were passed in darkness to the masses. Now we get to see and read everything. I strongly believe that the influence of purely religious fanatics is waning. To your last point about how we can stop this (even though I do not feel it is something that is really getting worse), I think the answer is that you cant. And, more importantly, you shouldn't. Religion is never, ever going away. It is a bit of a pendulum at times and has wide sways in followers, but it always swings back the other direction. The religious right is pretty big and they are always going to have some influence. The best way to curtail them is to watch what they do and call them on things when they go too far. But our system of government already does a really good job (certainly compared to the rest of the world) of protecting the rights of the minority in 2023.
  22. Good thread mostly. I'd like to debate with you but need some clarification. Can you be specific about examples of the right trying to comingle church and state? It is easier to respond to specifics than generalities. I agree 100% that religion should be completely separated from policy. I hate it when politicians mention their religious beliefs in conjunction with some policy. The rub is when morality/ethics are embedded in laws/policy. It is certainly possible that some politician could author legislation that is good and moral and deserving of thoughtfulness. That same politician might say that he authored the legislation as a result of his religion. He might actually feel in his heart that this is true. He might just be saying it to gin up his base. I suppose only the author knows for sure. But, just because he used religion is not a reason to automatically disregard his legislation. It is hard for me to come up with actual policy that is pushed by the right that is predominantly religious in nature. By that I mean the actual text of the bill/legislation. Not at all playing gotcha here. But would you give a few examples of what you see happening?
  23. Thank you! Now crack him on his knuckles and deny recess. I don't think I am the only one who sleeps better at night knowing you are out there protecting us from "improper use of quotations".
  24. Classic CR. Went back and read the whole thread. Roma the schoolmarm was really doing God's work with the negs. We need him on that wall.
  25. @Brisketexan @InkaUtexas I am having a really hard time understanding your positions here. You keep telling everyone that Musk is cozying up (affinity) with Putin/Russia and cares nothing about the people. Yet, he is essentially spending hundreds of millions personally to provide Ukraine with internet access via Starlink that every person with any knowledge of the situation has aid is absolutely vital to Ukraine's success. It has resulted in saving thousands of Ukrainian lives and led to the killing of thousands of Russian soldiers and caused Putin to lose massive amounts of money/power/influence etc in the world. The whole invasion could possibly topple Putin. Listen to what you posted and liked "Both of them think it's good and right for the rich and powerful to simply take what they want and they think there should be no legal or even social checks on people like them doing whatever they want. " No one single person (and really many countries) has done more to oppose Putin/Russia in this invasion than Musk.
×
×
  • Create New...