Stroke your epeen a little more. Something useful might come out.
Of course I know that doctors conflict. I'm the one who explained that in MY POST.
YOU SEEM TO IGNORE the fact that making it illegal means that 99% of doctors will stop doing it. That's pretty effective enforcement right there. And in the cases where you have a doctor claiming that a mother's life is in danger, it's going to be pretty hard medically to cheat the system. You keep making these sweeping comments about medical litigation in general, but fail to speak about SPECIFIC circumstances.
I'm pretty glad that you were never a PI for one of my cases. You can't seem to hold a train of thought very well.
I was questioning whether you were a lawyer or not but your dancing around like a monkey on fire, twisting and distorting the truth have convinced me you are.
I gave you SPECIFICS such as medical malpractice cases where YOU HAVE TO HAVE A DOCTOR'S AFFIDAVIT that there was negligence to even file your case.
Now tell me counselor, are you denying that in a mdeical malpractice case, IN ALL medical malpractice cases you have a doctor stating that the standard of care was not up to speed and that is what caused the malpractice and that the insurance carrier of the doctor will have their doctor come in and state THE EXACT OPPOSITE?
If they didn't then how do THEY DEFEND THE DAMN CASE?
Same with worker's compensation cases. I gave SPECIFICS on that also.
And from the companion case YOU BROUGHT UP Doe which proves my point 100%:
That case broadly defined the health exemption so that any level of distress or discomfort would qualify and gave the abortionist the final say over what qualified:
"The medical judgement may be exercised in the light of all factors-physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age, relevant to the well being of the patient. All these factors may relate to "health".
Because the application of the health exemption was left to the abortionist, as I have been schooling you on here, any legislation directly prohibitng any abortion is practically UNENFORCEABLE.
And it was prior history of doctors ALWAYS DOING THIS, that prompted the ruling in the first place.
Fairly simple for anyone that is interested IN FACT.
Coming back to this thread this morning as I don't surf USMB at night.
Let me start with this. Pulling the "im the only one interested in facts" bs is ridiculous. I know it happens elsewhere on USMB, but if we're going to have a discussion, that's got to stop. Yes, I made the epeen comment, but you seem to have this recurring need to tell us your credentials. Just say, I've seen my share, and leave it at that. Quoting unverifiable personal statistics over the internet doesnt give you any more credibility than simply stating your profession does.
Now, to the meat...
Yes, doctors disagree in court. I do both plaintiff's work and defense and have hired the same expert to testify to conflicting testimony, had the parties been joined. You're not telling me anything new.
But what you're lacking is a concept of how a trial (bench or jury) works. At the end of the day the plaintiff has to prove their case and if they dont, no judgment. I'll say that again a different way. You're making a BLANKET assertion that these cases would all be unprovable. Each case works on its own facts, procedural posture, and discovery. You can't make a comment like that AT ALL. That's like saying "yeah, police brutality cases are unwinnable since states have sovereign immunity." Sounds good in theory, but yes, they are winnable.
The prosecution/plaintiff makes their case and if they don't reach the burden then they lose. The facts of all these cases are SO different you can't possibly say that as a group they are unprovable.
Doctors go up against each other all the time...and VERDICTS ARE STILL HANDED DOWN. At the end of the day, juries make up their minds based on a whole bunch of other stuff besides just quibbling experts. I'd think with so much trial experience you'd know that. The entire med mal market exists...not because juries hear two experts and won't decide. The market exists because even DESPITE dueling experts....they decide they like one side better than the other!!!
And taking into account the % of abortions that would go down simply because it was made illegal....YES, you can achieve the necessary result. I'm sorry, you don't see it that way, but it's true. (I could type something in here about how you want to avoid facts...but that wouldn't really move the discussion along and is just emotional raving.)
Never said they would all be unprovable.
But the standard and burden on the prosecution is so much greater in a criminal case than a civil case.
And that would make many a DA not want to prosecute. How could a doctor testify that it was not in the best interestof the health ofthe mother IF HE NEVER SAW THE PATIENT?
Abortions go down because it was made illegal? ONLY from poor women.
What I find amazing about you counselor is you do not acknowledge that if Roe was overturned today it would go back to the states individually and their legislatures.
And the facts are undisputed:
Some states would ban it outright with NO exceptions.
Some states would ban it with few exceptions.
Some states would ban it with many exceptions.
Some states would allow it with few restrictions.
Some states would allow it with many restrictions.
Some states would be AT WILL and allow it no matter what.
So what do we end up with counselor?
If you are a pregnant woman and are pregnant and want an abortion and live in a state THAT DOES NOT ALLOW IT AT ALL and have $$$ you very easily get into a car or a plane and travel and obtain a legal abortion.
If you are a pregnant woman and are pregnant and want an abortion and have NO $$$ then you are forced by the government to have the child that YOU DO NOT WANT and in most cases DO NOT KNOW HOW TO CARE FOR.
Tell me where I am wrong.
NO LAW ever stops abortion. I have already given you the facts of different scenarios if Roe was overturned. ABORTION WILL NEVER BE ILLEGAL.