It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: dogstar23
a reply to: SlapMonkey
My guess is the likely result of this, if passed, is a bunch of abortions will be performed later in the pregnancy than they otherwise would have once the courts intervene (however long that takes) and abortions begin happening in OH again.
Then, those who pushed for this law can carry the burden of knowing they played a part in additions happened at 10 weeks instead of 7, etc.
(a) No person described in division (A)(1)(b) of this section who is acting in an official or professional capacity and knows, or has reasonable cause to suspect based on facts that would cause a reasonable person in a similar position to suspect, that a child under eighteen years of age, or a person, under twenty-one years of age with a developmental disability or physical impairment, has suffered or faces a threat of suffering any physical or mental wound, injury, disability, or condition of a nature that reasonably indicates abuse or neglect of the child shall fail to immediately report that knowledge or reasonable cause to suspect to the entity or persons specified in this division. Except as provided in section 5120.173 of the Revised Code, the person making the report shall make it to the public children services agency or a municipal or county peace officer in the county in which the child resides or in which the abuse or neglect is occurring or has occurred. In the circumstances described in section 5120.173 of the Revised Code, the person making the report shall make it to the entity specified in that section.
(b) Division (A)(1)(a) of this section applies to any person who is an attorney; physician, including a hospital intern or resident; dentist; podiatrist; practitioner of a limited branch of medicine as specified in section 4731.15 of the Revised Code; registered nurse; licensed practical nurse; visiting nurse; other health care professional; licensed psychologist; licensed school psychologist; independent marriage and family therapist or marriage and family therapist; speech pathologist or audiologist; coroner; administrator or employee of a child day-care center; administrator or employee of a residential camp, child day camp, ...
originally posted by: SRPrime
And that's exactly the problem. The only legislation on opinions that should be valid is that you cannot draft laws that ban options because of someones opinion.
There is no fact in pro-life opinion. There is of course, factual evidence against it. If you force poor people to carry to term, all you do is make more poor people. Poor people equate directly to the crime rate, so forcing unwanted babies on people does and will raise the crime rates as well as produce higher costs through entitlement programs.
Literally no good is done "saving" accident babies. I care more about those who are here and breathing, talking and conversing, than I do a "would be" child that's just going to make it more difficult for those of us who are here and breathing.
If you don't know you're alive, you're not self aware -- if you're not self aware, you're not a person yet. Until this fact changes, nobody should be capable of forcing a prolife opinion through law.
The second we have some godly answer to this question is the second I'll support a bill that changes things as long as it's reflective of that new information. It is not the governments place to legislate opinion. They are there to legislate fact to create a better society. Legislating in favor of pro-life creates a worse society and is unfounded by evidence. This is a moral opinion legislated.
All that the job of the SCOTUS entails is to provide opinions on the constitutionality of laws brought before them. Like I said, opinions change--I'm not trying to make an argument that a change will be good or bad, I'm just saying that it's possible, if not probable, depending on the appointed justices in the upcoming future. And, often times, once SCOTUS opinions are determined, laws follow based on said opinions.
The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution.
The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. ... But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.
All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.
In the spirit of non-explicit mentioning of rights, the 14th Amendment does not specifically state that it can not be applied to human beings in the womb of the mother, either, which means that it SHOULD be okay for states to make laws that protect these human beings as well, without the federal government telling them that they cannot (kind of in line with the purpose of the 10th Amendment).
Take, for example, the instances where someone kills a pregnant mother and they get tried and convicted for the murders of both people, the mother and the unborn baby. Why is there a protection against being murdered in that instance, but when it comes to abortion, the killing of that same unborn baby is completely legit (within the confines of the law, of course). I'm not concerned so much with who is doing the killing as I am with different standards being applied to the same being: The unborn child.
originally posted by: windword
There's no way one can reinterpret the Constitution to include the unborn, when it explicitly states "persons born". The founding fathers, nor the Bible for that matter, ever considered the unborn as "persons". Imagine the can of worms that would arise if the State tried to claim ownership through citizenship of every child conceived while the mother was visiting the USA! Talk about "anchor babies"!
Women's reproductive rights are Constitutional rights, not states issues.
The only way to render Roe V Wade irrelevant is a Constitutional Amendment. Overturning Roe V Wade has far too many far reaching implications that could invalidate anyone's right to privacy and anonymity and the jeopardize the doctor patient relationship, not just pregnant women. Imagine if the State could force you to "donate" a kidney or your daughter to have an abortion. The knife cuts both ways.
You are wrong....
As for the rest of it, you're using the Slippery Slope and Strawman logical fallacies at this point, so it's not worth discussing under that pretext.
originally posted by: windword
You can't change the wording of the constitution through opinion.
Of course it is! The "What will happen if Roe V Wade is overturned or rendered irrelevant?" is worth discussing! Depending on the reason it's overturned or rendered irrelevant has everything to do with the "slippery slope". If Roe V Wade is overturned because the justices don't believe the constitution protects the private relationship between a patient and their doctor, everyone's privacy is threatened.
If the Court makes it too dangerous for women to visit doctors, they won't. They will use over the counter pregnancy tests and "back alley abortions" options. That's another factual slippery slope.
The fact is Roe V Wade is NOT broken and doesn't need to be fixed. There is no debate to be had. Changing the official medical opinion of when viability occurs does nothing to change Roe V Wade.
For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
Physicians and their scientific colleagues ... have tended to focus ... upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.
That's what we have when things are brought to the SCOTUS, and that interpretation can be different with different combinations of justices.
Have you ever even read the actual ruling? I mean, I linked to it--you should read it. I'll help you out with the relevant verbiage, though: For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
What you must note is that the opinion notes that advances is medicine will affect such determination as to when a fetus becomes "potentially able to live outside of the mother's womb ... with artificial aid." Please note the term "potentially" in there, because that potential to survive is what changes most often with advances is the technology that renders the "artificial aid."
Obviously you can continue if you want, but it's 50/50 at this point if I will respond.
The Constitution’s guarantee that no one can “be deprived of life, liberty or property” deliberately echoes the Declaration of Independence’s proclamation that “all” are “endowed by their Creator” with the inalienable right to life. Accordingly, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to children before birth.
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: MOMof3
That is not what we are discussing is it? Is the reason for the procedures medical necessity entered as well? Are the billing and insurance people not held to HIPPA privacy laws as well? The way I understand HIPPA laws it is intended to be private. I signed no release for the state or other nosy agency.
Myth: Doctors are bound by the Hippocratic Oath.
A binding agreement, as much a social contract as Social Security or Medicare, the traditional Hippocratic Oath holds those who swear to it to a strict code of professional and personal conduct. Contrary to popular belief, though, most doctors never take this oath, and, actually, most of us are probably glad they never do. www.todayifoundout.com...