Appellate Ruling Upholds Texas Abortion Law

[Jroc]

All of that may be true, katz, and unlike QWB and Jros who refuse to admit the truth of what they have posted earlier, you are a right wing progressive using political means to enforce cultural and societal change in the practice of medicine.

Once again, I have not read the law, so I will not comment on it. If what I read about it is accurate I think it intrudes on the doctor/patient relationship by requiring the doctor to say things that may not be pertinent to the discussion. that means it would violate the 1st Amendment, just in case you are curious. Since I have not actually read the law I will not assume my opinion is correct though, unlike you.

Still waiting for you to show where I want to impose morality through government like you do.

Or, in your case, lack of morality or in protection of 1st Amendment freedom, although I don't think doctor-client protection is protected constitutionally in itself, but is rather a statue by the respective state legislature. I am beginning to wonder if you are a libertarian progressive, which is certainly a possibility.

Why do you have trouble with the concept that progressivism is a reform impulse with liberal, moderate, conservative (and libertarian) wings?

Jake's been brainwashed by his college professors you have to excuse him

 

[JakeStarkey]

College professors I have had are far more insightful, whether conservative or liberal, than you, Jroc, have ever shown on the Board.

They understand to account for their own bias and search for the truth.

You can't do that, so I will tell you about you: you are a progressive, generally from the right wing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

All of that may be true, katz, and unlike QWB and Jros who refuse to admit the truth of what they have posted earlier, you are a right wing progressive using political means to enforce cultural and societal change in the practice of medicine.

Once again, I have not read the law, so I will not comment on it. If what I read about it is accurate I think it intrudes on the doctor/patient relationship by requiring the doctor to say things that may not be pertinent to the discussion. that means it would violate the 1st Amendment, just in case you are curious. Since I have not actually read the law I will not assume my opinion is correct though, unlike you.

Still waiting for you to show where I want to impose morality through government like you do.

Or, in your case, lack of morality or in protection of 1st Amendment freedom, although I don't think doctor-client protection is protected constitutionally in itself, but is rather a statue by the respective state legislature. I am beginning to wonder if you are a libertarian progressive, which is certainly a possibility.

Why do you have trouble with the concept that progressivism is a reform impulse with liberal, moderate, conservative (and libertarian) wings?

Gee, you really are stupid.

Compelling a doctor, or any other person, to say something he disagrees with is just as much a violation of free speech as telling them they cannot say something, that is why students cannot be forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You don't understand the law at all, QWB. Go study doctor-patient law. They are statutes passed by the legislature. They are rooted in privacy, not in the 1st Amendment. You really are unlearned about our constitution, our history, and our law. Go look it up.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You don't understand the law at all, QWB. Go study doctor-patient law. They are statutes passed by the legislature. They are rooted in privacy, not in the 1st Amendment. You really are unlearned about our constitution, our history, and our law. Go look it up.

Why should I go study something that I already know? My point is that, from what I know of the law, which could be wrong, it is a violation of the 1st Amendment. From what I have seem it compels doctors to discuss things they may choose not to bring up with patients seeking an abortion. If the law does not actually compel speech feel free to correct me, I will admit I am wrong. Since I am not talking about doctor/patient privacy, something you do not agree with anyway, I see no reason to point out how it applies, or does not apply, to the Texas law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, you are wrong, and, no, it is not a violation of the 1st amendment, which guarantees political and religious speech, not medical practice. I don't have to give evidence to rebut your assertion. I merely have to rebut your assertion with logic and analysis. I have done that. If you have no further "evidence," you are fail.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes, you are wrong, and, no, it is not a violation of the 1st amendment, which guarantees political and religious speech, not medical practice. I don't have to give evidence to rebut your assertion. I merely have to rebut your assertion with logic and analysis. I have done that. If you have no further "evidence," you are fail.

You need to let lawyers and judges know that you know more about the way the law works than they do, the entire case against the Texas law is based on the 1st Amendment.

Texas can enforce abortion law, rules 5th Circuit | First Amendment Center

I apologize to stupid people for insulting them by calling you stupid.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thank you for doing research, finally. That's what you should have done in the first place. "Chief Judge Edith H. Jones" is incorrect that "the Texas law" does not inhibit the free-speech [my italics] "rights of doctors and patients, the key argument against the law." The original claim of the defendant of free speech is immaterial. Thus, free speech has nothing to do with it, which is actually what I told you.

One, the original ruling by Judge Sparks was mistakenly targeted the right of confidentiality, not free speech, between doctor and patient, and that the Texas law infringed on it. Confidentiality is granted by statute. One could argue privacy, I suppose, by that is not free speech.

This case will go to the Supreme Court. The issue of free speech will be moot, as I have told you. The issue will be decided on the right privacy, and the Supreme Court will rule to uphold the appellate court, but not on free speech issues.

I am glad you are researching and reading.

The appellate court's ruling will

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Thank you for doing research, finally. That's what you should have done in the first place. "Chief Judge Edith H. Jones" is incorrect that "the Texas law" does not inhibit the free-speech [my italics] "rights of doctors and patients, the key argument against the law." The original claim of the defendant of free speech is immaterial. Thus, free speech has nothing to do with it, which is actually what I told you.

One, the original ruling by Judge Sparks was mistakenly targeted the right of confidentiality, not free speech, between doctor and patient, and that the Texas law infringed on it. Confidentiality is granted by statute. One could argue privacy, I suppose, by that is not free speech.

This case will go to the Supreme Court. The issue of free speech will be moot, as I have told you. The issue will be decided on the right privacy, and the Supreme Court will rule to uphold the appellate court, but not on free speech issues.

I am glad you are researching and reading.

The appellate court's ruling will

I did not need to do any research because the only thing I was doing in this thread was mocking your assertion that you are intelligent enough to discuss the issues. That is self evident.