It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ron Paul and the states-rights-sidestep

page: 8
12
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2012 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 

By your argument, Sec. 1841.c.2 would no longer protect doctors doing normal medical procedures as well. This is not the case, thus c.1 would also still apply.

c.1 doesn't depend on Roe v Wade or anything else... it stands alone. Until this is changed, it applies.

Yes, I will absolutely refer to federal law which specifically calls out what it is NOT able to do. That's the entire point of that section of the law.

reply to post by captaintyinknots
 

Thank you as well.




posted on May, 3 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by ErgoTheConfusion
 



Remember, according to your interpretation a doctor doing everything right when trying to save a woman's life that results in the death of an unborn "person" would be able to be prosecuted
perhaps not criminally, however, if a physician is found to have err'd, then yes, that's one reason they MUST carry malpractice insurance. no physician can legally practice without it.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 

Yes, but as long as abortion itself (under the conditions defined) is called out, it falls under the same umbrella as a non-negligent doctor.

Negligence prosecution of doctors applies to errors on adults as well... who are *also* considered persons. However if there was no negligence, there is no prosecution.

The entire law is designed to deal with the conditions upon which federal law allows for action against someone who causes the death of a fetus.

I'm not trying to argue for or against it. I'm simply trying to explore the *actual* outcome possible under the current laws. Again... if the above law changes, then absolutely these fears are real. I don't disagree. It is certainly something to keep on eye on for those who have this subject as a priority.

Namaste.
edit on 2012/5/3 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion
reply to post by Honor93
 

By your argument, Sec. 1841.c.2 would no longer protect doctors doing normal medical procedures as well. This is not the case, thus c.1 would also still apply.

c.1 doesn't depend on Roe v Wade or anything else... it stands alone. Until this is changed, it applies.

Yes, I will absolutely refer to federal law which specifically calls out what it is NOT able to do. That's the entire point of that section of the law.

reply to post by captaintyinknots
 

Thank you as well.

you cannot be serious ... a federal statute would not apply at any State level.
how you can infer that it would is questionable if not intentionally misleading.

according to the legislation proposed, the entire Act your argument is revolving around, including section c: would have no bearing whatsoever.

when you bypass federal authority, it no longer holds any weight, much like your argument.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 

Therefore you are also arguing that this will remove protection for doctors when performing legitimate procedures on a woman and the fetus dies. Do you believe this will be the effect of the proposed bill?

Do you believe this is what a career OB/GYN would be aiming for?

What is it that allows states to have a death penalty without mandating them to do so? What is it that would allow states to conduct abortions without mandating them to do so?
edit on 2012/5/3 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion
reply to post by Honor93
 

Yes, but as long as abortion itself (under the conditions defined) is called out, it falls under the same umbrella as a non-negligent doctor.

Negligence prosecution of doctors applies to errors on adults as well... who are *also* considered persons. However if there was no negligence, there is no prosecution.

The entire law is designed to deal with the conditions upon which federal law allows for action against someone who causes the death of a fetus.

I'm not trying to argue for or against it. I'm simply trying to explore the *actual* outcome possible under the current laws. Again... if the above law changes, then absolutely these fears are real. I don't disagree. It is certainly something to keep on eye on for those who have this subject as a priority.

Namaste.
edit on 2012/5/3 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)
IF you are going to continue inferring that a Federal Act will have standing once bypassed, please explain how.
just because you say so doesn't make it so.

IF the proposed legislation is accepted and passed, no such authority remains.

this proposal has no correlation with the fetal-homicide laws already on the books. besides, even they are sparsely enacted and certainly not federally imposed ... only 25 states have'em on the books.

however, this is not about fetal-homicide, we are talking about murder of a person who has been deemed such via a legislative measure. it is preposterous.

i make no qualms about my argument against it but that doesn't enforce your argument one bit.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 

Let me ask you from a different angle: What Federal Court would be able to hear a case about an "abortion murder" if this were to pass?


‘Sec. 1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation
Notwithstanding (AKA IN SPITE OF) the provisions of sections 1253, 1254, 1257, and 1258, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof--

‘(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or
‘(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates--
‘(A) the performance of abortions; or
‘(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.’.


‘Sec. 1370. Limitation on jurisdiction
Notwithstanding (IN SPITE OF) any other provision of law, the district courts shall not have jurisdiction of any case or question which the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review under section 1260 of this title.’.

Who will be able to judge the criminal?
edit on 2012/5/3 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion
reply to post by Honor93
 

Therefore you are also arguing that this will remove protection for doctors when performing legitimate procedures on a woman and the fetus dies. Do you believe this will be the effect of the proposed bill?

Do you believe this is what a career OB/GYN would be aiming for?


edit on 2012/5/3 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)

ummm, i'd have to give that concept more consideration.
what it does indicate is that those who suffer at the hands of less than capable doctors would be limited in their pursuit of adequate recovery. so, it clearly removes protections provided to the mother.

ok, re-reading your assertion has me confused and here's why.
on one hand, you profess a fetus dies as the result of a legitimate procedure. on the other, you simultaneously infer that an abortion should be considered accidental ??
so, which is it ??

is abortion (to you) a legitimate medical procedure with a specific result intended or ... is it an accident ??

a career politician can also be a career OB/GYN, while his opinions may be guided by his profession, that doesn't make them absolute or correct. He is a Man, regarding pregnancy or abortion, what does he really know except second and third hand information ??

i believe the unintended results of this legislation will come as a surprise to those who swallow this malarkey as it is written. exactly where those chips fall, i believe, will spread far and wide.


What is it that allows states to have a death penalty without mandating it?
Amendment 2

What is it that would allow states to conduct abortions without mandating it?
recorded history of all abortions prior to 1974, need more ??



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion
reply to post by Honor93
 

Let me ask you from a different angle: What Federal Court would be able to hear a case about an "abortion murder" if this were to pass?


‘Sec. 1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation
Notwithstanding (AKA IN SPITE OF) the provisions of sections 1253, 1254, 1257, and 1258, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof--

‘(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or
‘(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates--
‘(A) the performance of abortions; or
‘(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.’.


‘Sec. 1370. Limitation on jurisdiction
Notwithstanding (IN SPITE OF) any other provision of law, the district courts shall not have jurisdiction of any case or question which the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review under section 1260 of this title.’.

Who will be able to judge the criminal?
edit on 2012/5/3 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)

with all due respect, i refuse to answer such a hypothetical question when you refuse to answer any of mine.
quick and dirty, what happens when a father chooses to prosecute a mother who engaged in an abortion against his wishes ?? State level, no feds needed.

i did not bring up the Federal aspect with regard to "abortion", that aspect revolves around Murder of a person. if you are going to separate the two, as this legislation does, abortion is irrelevant whereas murder is not.

edit to add: let's just ignore that section 1370 is completely UNConstitutional anyway, right ??
edit on 3-5-2012 by Honor93 because: add text
oh yeah, one more ... what concerns me most about this legislation is the fact that the whole decision is a NUNYA, from the word go. ANY politician who seeks to usurp the provisions of the Consitution is no friend of America and i don't care who he is.
edit on 3-5-2012 by Honor93 because: add more text



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
ok, re-reading your assertion has me confused and here's why.
on one hand, you profess a fetus dies as the result of a legitimate procedure. on the other, you simultaneously infer that an abortion should be considered accidental ??
so, which is it ??

is abortion (to you) a legitimate medical procedure with a specific result intended or ... is it an accident ??

I don't know where you got the impression I viewed it as an accident and didn't mean to if so.

It is a medical procedure with a specific result. This medical procedure is specifically called out in the Unborn Victims Act as a protected procedure in c.1, just as other legitimate procedures are protected in c.2.

In the proposed bill, it also becomes a medical procedure which NO Federal Court would have the ability to hear cases over. It would restrict it so that only state level courts would have the authority to make decisions.


Originally posted by Honor93
a career politician can also be a career OB/GYN, while his opinions may be guided by his profession, that doesn't make them absolute or correct. He is a Man, regarding pregnancy or abortion, what does he really know except second and third hand information ??

Ahhh... I understand more now.


Originally posted by Honor93
with all due respect, i refuse to answer such a hypothetical question when you refuse to answer any of mine.

I'm sorry if you feel that is what I have done. The purpose of the court question was specifically in response to your questions as it relates directly to the topic I thought we were discussing, which was whether this bill would essentially make it so no states could actually allow abortions because the feds would just sweep in and call it straight up murder.

If the feds have no courts with the authority to hear or rule on the issue...


Originally posted by Honor93
quick and dirty, what happens when a father chooses to prosecute a mother who engaged in an abortion against his wishes ?? State level, no feds needed.

Believe me I understand what you are getting at and don't disagree.

I'm discussing the actual impact of this bill as it stands regarding the OP assertion of whether Ron Paul is trying to pull a trick to allow the feds to sweep in and ban all abortions under the guise of just shifting authority to the states.

Whether this is a sneak attack that intends to do something the opposite of what it says... or whether it is actually strengthening the stance he has had all along... which is to shift all power to the states and remove all federal teeth.

Whether this is a *good* thing or not... I really am not involved in. Perhaps you can understand why due to it being the same reason you wish to dismiss Ron Paul's experience and perspective.

Namaste... and I mean that sincerely and as it is fully intended. Your full feelings and thoughts on this are not being misunderstood. Your fear of the potential ripple effect is understood.
edit on 2012/5/3 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ErgoTheConfusion
 

since you're a fan of alternate angles, let's look at this one.
ex: mother & father are willing and ready to become pregnant and they do.
abortion isn't even a distant thought in their minds.

they live in a non-abortion state (per this new legislation)
the nearest pro-abortion state is more than 1000 miles away.

now, life tosses a curve ball, mother is discovered to have ectopic preganancy.
mother AND child will die in such a condition.
the only life-saving choice for family is abortion, however, at 1000 miles away, it's not financially feasible.
how is this inevitable, yet avoidable, death of both mother and child a plus for humanity ??

from your post, i'm not sure where i ever held this stand

which was whether this bill would essentially make it so no states could actually allow abortions because the feds would just sweep in and call it straight up murder.

that sure is a revision of what i stated with elements i never included.

my question regarding murder is from a State aspect. [which you never answered btw]
my question regarding Federal interest was regarding "family authority" and the destruction of such which doesn't quite conincide with what you said.

yes, others mentioned the potential of drs getting arrested, i see it but i don't buy it as i see them more as contributors to a pending disaster.
are you aware that some Ob/gyn docs will report you as a potential abuser if you inquire about abortions ?
anyone read the stories lately of "supposed" abuse leading to victimizations and deaths ??
and the mistake all began at the drs office.


If the feds have no courts with the authority to hear or rule on the issue...

this is my point exactly, what is to stop one state from punishing its resident who sought an "illegal" procedure elsewhere?
what higher authority (other than the Supreme Court) exists to stop such abuses ??

i understand what you mean about the topic but in many ways, i have to agree with the OPs perceptions of potential disaster.
and no intended offense to Paul or his supporters but when the man continues to attempt to usurp the Constitution, my ears perk up and the hairs on my body quiver.
i do not dismiss his experience or perspective, i disagree with it being a complete outlook upon the situation.
i haven't even given much consideration to the ripple effect, these are absolute obstacles from the onset.

look, you can assess me all you want, it doesn't change the facts.
1) abortion is (should be) NO business of government
2) rights MUST be asserted, a fetus is not capable of asserting any rights
3) no State has the right to condemn an individual to death WITHOUT due process, this does just that in the example provided above and to 2 persons at once.
4) no law should permit the exclusion of the Supreme Court in ANY legal decision
5) parts of the legislation are purposefully dismissing provisions specifically provided in the Constitution
and lastly, i am a woman so i do understand the parts he cannot.

these are some of the facts, not emotional ones, not partisan ones and not political ones.
if you care to discuss these facts, fine, if not, it's been fun.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 02:46 AM
link   
You are trying to discuss with me whether states having this authority exclusively is good or not and are confusing the discussion you entered into with something it is not.


Originally posted by Honor93
from your post, i'm not sure where i ever held this stand

which was whether this bill would essentially make it so no states could actually allow abortions because the feds would just sweep in and call it straight up murder.

that sure is a revision of what i stated with elements i never included.

I tried to make this clear that this was in reference to the topic I thought we (the collective we, not just you and I) were discussing in the thread... based on what the original poster was proposing.

I'm not claiming YOU said that, in fact you keep making it clear you don't think that's what would happen as you keep discussing the situation where a person wants to get to a state that still allows abortion.

The questions you aren't getting answers to are because they are questions that I'm not trying... or desiring... to address. NOT whether states having this power is good or not, but whether Ron Paul is trying to ban abortions with this bill directly and outright by using back door politics.

Please go back and read the original post.

You are actually backing up every single point I am making... by demonstrating exactly *what* complications come with States having final authority on whether abortion is legal or not.

The original poster was trying to make the claim that the bill will make it so NO states could legally allow abortions. I have been demonstrating how states will still be fully allowed to have abortions... or not... and the Federal Government would have no say.

Whether this will have a positive or negative impact long term isn't something I believe I have tried to discuss, as that is literally an entirely different discussion.

You don't need to convince me of the potential issues... I think I also tried to make that clear in my final response to you.

I am simply addressing the original poster's claims that Ron Paul is trying to use back door politics to make it so NO states can allow abortions. This is clearly not the case even if it's what he would like for the rest of us to decide is right.


and lastly, i am a woman so i do understand the parts he cannot.

That's exactly what I meant when I said "Ahhh... I understand more now." That said... I'm sure if Ron Paul agreed with you you'd have no lack of enthusiasm for his ability to "understand", however if he disagrees... because he's male he can't possibly have the capacity of thought, empathy, compassion, and understanding even with his medical career. What about women who disagree with you?

I hope you apply this same rule to Men's issues in reverse. Remembering that you are a woman, and really couldn't possibly understand the impact of divorce and custody laws on men, the difference in how men and women are treated when it comes to homelessness, etc. This is not an attack, but an attempt to reach out to show that I'm not actually trying to debate with you what you are trying to debate with me.

Please go back and read my final message to you. I am not debating the quality of states alone having this authority, the impact on women, etc. and have tried very hard to stay away from that area as it treads into an entirely different area.

We don't necessarily disagree as much as you keep trying to insist we do. I've tried to stay focused on one very specific aspect, which is what the thread was started for, which was the claim that this would make it so the Feds would in fact be able to prevent states from allowing abortions entirely.

As they are written now, they wouldn't be able to prevent California, for example, from allowing them... but would allow Georgia to ban them. I am discussing nothing more.

Everything else you keep coming at me with are things that I don't necessarily disagree with, though things I'm not willing to divert the original poster's thread into. There are more than enough threads already discussing the positives and negatives of abortion availability nationwide or not.

If that is the discussion that this is going to evolve into, then yes... I will gladly step aside so you can discuss that with others who wish to.

Best to you.
edit on 2012/5/3 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 02:51 AM
link   
OP, since you are thinking about this and since another mentioned the ripple effect, here's some other considerations.

we all know pre-natal care is not as good as it should be.
given the obvious declaration this fetus is now a person with certain unalienable rights, what is the parental liability for inadequate pre-natal care and who determines such ??
remember, that fetus has rights ya know.

what of those mothers who qualify for subsidized food programs ??
should they be criminally punished if they can but choose not to participate ??

remember, this would all become State issues to resolve.
and what of that child's right to life ?? what if he or she is born disabled or disfigured, do they have the right to sue somebody and who ?? what about the taxpayers, do we have the right to refuse ??

and what about the less than ethical doctors who will reside in a non-abortion state, support an agenda all the while driving over the bridge to their "contracted" abortion clinic ??

this goes beyond over-reaching in my opinion and apparently there aren't too many viable arguments in support of this legislation or some would appear here.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


he the worst kind of honest politician. his ethics and goal and determining drive for the future is past his due time for his antiquated belief relating the power to do what the libertarian platforms stance is regarding states rights and other aspects of their too broad platform.

focusing only on states rights as your thread title leads...

its apparent hes a segregationist in thought has he been in practice is what the libertarians try and protect about the "ron paul" political figure while never encroaching the true aspects of how his view in the hands of power structure as defined (the libertarian platform and what they stand for)as being based around racial segregation in implementation is stupid to put together. the very foolishness of ignoring his stated stances and known affiliations while supporting an restructuring of government to condone old methods of democracy intended as strong enough to support civil segregation and a platform strong point for emerging oil age democrats(not just relegated to the south,dixiecrats) is too much power to swing in his direction.

hes really too old and im tired of that type of old illiberal white guy that openly acts like its cool to be immature and discriminatory with their age and "perception" of "freedom" while using those powers invested in authored necessary roles in the functioning of government. if libertarians do become accepted that they at least pick people whos not only documented actions being impeccable of which they should when checked anyway be also ethical enough in mind to not run on a platform that is way outside of their given position regarding such limited perspective on issues he personally has. the whole thing seems like a secret conspiracy power grab over powers that will be delegated behind the means of officiated laws; and putting paul an honest to good illiberal as a platform runner for a party called libertarians a supposed offshoot from old republicans whos older cronies in power left the democrats about 3.5 decades ago is just bad politics no matter how fast the perception of life is to be projected cointel pro.

it stinks and it alienated the party on purpose because with such a power grab and placing such a grotesque image of liberty it takes a sad degree of sacrifice to even accept the party itself as valid.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 03:59 AM
link   
reply to post by ErgoTheConfusion
 


You are trying to discuss with me whether this bill is good or not

you are confused. i never said any such thing, i disagree with this proposal, period.
it does nothing to reinforce 'States' rights'. it actually does infringe on 'right to life'
good, bad, irrelevant to the topic.

i also happen to agree with the OPs perceptions, although not all of them.


I'm not claiming YOU said that
ok, but your use of a specific reply button led me to think otherwise.

in fact you keep making it clear you don't think that's what would happen as you keep discussing the situation where a person wants to get to a state that still allows abortion
this statement confuses me too much to respond, so, if you care to expand, i'm listening.


but whether Ron Paul is trying to ban abortions with this bill directly and outright by using back door politics.

aye, but he is and has been for nearly 2 decades now, nothing new there.


What he is doing is trying to get Congress to recognize that life begins at conception,
at least we agree on the important part and this is the primary error in the legislation.

look, with regard to our discussion (the one i started), you asserted that the doctors would be protected from Federal prosecution based on existing Federal statutes.

i questioned why you thought a Federal statute would have ANY standing if the Feds were excluded.
you have yet to address that particular inquiry.

can you perceive the possibility that doctors who perform legal State abortions could be held to a higher global standard and subsequently be prosecuted for things like genocide and crimes against humanity?
and what's worse, the Federal authority would provide no protections then, either.

so yes, the long term effect could be exactly as the OP suggests.


That's exactly what I meant when I said "Ahhh... I understand more now." That said... I'm sure if Ron Paul agreed with you you'd have no lack of enthusiasm for his ability to "understand", however if he disagrees... because he's male he can't possibly have the capacity of thought, empathy, compassion, and understanding even with his medical career. What about women who disagree with you?

you brought up his career, not i. you brought up his capability to fully understand, i disagreed, what's the problem?

based on his proposal, i have formed an opinion, not based on his manhood, his career, his experience or his personal opinions.
sad that you choose such deflection.

what about women who disagree with me ?? i've met plenty, have you?
most, not all, have -0- experience from which to form an opinion so what's your point here ?


I've tried to stay focused on one very specific aspect, which is what the thread was started for, which was the claim that this would make it so the Feds would in fact be able to prevent states from allowing abortions entirely.

the OP never indicated this would be an immediate result and neither have i, however, you seem to be too narrow-minded to view or discuss the potential landscape before your eyes.

your diversion gets a
because you have yet to explain how a Federal Act will protect State physicians performing abortions when the Feds have -0- authority over abortions, while at the same time, they retain full authority to prosecute offenses involving multiple murders.
if you care to make this point, please do so.

edit to add: following through with your suggestion, i re-read the OP, perhaps so should you.
from the opening statement ...

This thread is to connect the dots as to how Ron Paul WILL outlaw abortion, under the cloak of states rights

now, unless i am totally mis-reading this, the OPs direction is to bring awareness to the potential for such a national effect resulting from baby steps. (pun intended)



edit on 3-5-2012 by Honor93 because: add text



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 04:05 AM
link   
It all comes down to when "life" begins. If I read the act correctly, it is utilizing the scientific understanding that babies born before full gestation are able to maintain life, should be recognized as life. By using the term fetus, it allows a person to not see a growing life form as a person yet thus not extending any Natural Rights towards it.

I am not a Ron Paul fan, but the issue of abortion shouldn't be a Federal issue. It is an Individual issue in which States and the People should have the say in how their communities and societies deal with it.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
you have yet to explain how a Federal Act will protect State physicians performing abortions when the Feds have -0- authority over abortions, while at the same time, they retain full authority to prosecute offenses involving multiple murders. if you care to make this point, please do so.

States have jurisdiction over murder definition and prosecution within their borders. Serial Killers who only kill within their own state fall under State Jurisdiction. Stay in your state and you are fine. Go across state boundaries to perform one, do it on federal property, etc and you bring it within federal jurisdiction.

The one potential entry point is U.S.C. 1111, however the malice aspect would need to be established. Perhaps you believe this is what would happen, or that it will be declared a civil rights issue akin to when the federal government started stepping in with hate crimes. Again, the hate crime aspect would need to be established.

It can easily be argued that the Federal legal arm will try to overstep this boundary in the case of abortion (as it does with the MM issues recently), but that is a separate topic that also is worth addressing, and one which Ron Paul is a strong advocate of reigning them back in... *specifically* to protect what you are worried about from happening to those doctors who follow their state rules.

This also includes preventing the federal government from being able to declare it a civil rights murder issue due to the consent of the mother and doctor, and no "hate crime" being able to be established, thus keeping it within state jurisdiction. The federal government can try to overstep that, but this is precisely the opposite of what he has been aiming for.

Beyond the limitations of federal jurisdiction over murder, there are in addition... the things we have been discussing so far which add further definition to these boundaries that the federal government sets for itself when these acts/bills were/are passed.

Then add in the additional restriction on federal courts he is pursuing. Regardless of whether you support it or not... I'm discussing his long term aim... which includes protections for doctors operating within state law just like the intent for protection of doctors who wish to prescribe MM.

I'm happy to let you have the last word as I doubt either of us has much more to offer the other that they haven't already heard before.

/salute

edit on 2012/5/3 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 05:14 AM
link   
ADDENDUM: This also includes the States establishing their own laws on Right to Die in terms of understanding how these jurisdictions are handled.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ErgoTheConfusion
 

while i appreciate your contribution, i believe your assertion is too narrow to be considered reasonable, let alone legal.
when we/he accept legislation that permits outlawing a necessary medical procedure, what's next ?

it doesn't matter how pretty the package is, the long term effect is likely to be the same.

you claim the Feds won't have jurisdiction, however, based on the 14th Amendment, i disagree.
this proposal does nothing to enhance State Rights, it does exactly the opposite and simultaneously removes a vital path to recovery for those who are abused by this system.
in essence, it also directly punishes any newborn who survives such a procedure by limiting recourse.

any effort to outlaw a medical procedure is simply UnConstitutional.

and with this statement, i revert back to "you are confused".

*specifically* to protect what you are worried about from happening to those doctors who follow their state rules.

doctors who are currently prescribing are not in jeopardy, have not been reprimanded, fined, suspended or any such punishment.
growers, consumers and distributors however, are at great risk of a complete "loss of freedom" simply trying to fill a drs order.
i see NO comparison between the two, whatsoever.


I'm happy to let you have the last word as I doubt either of us has much more to offer the other that they haven't already heard before

something tells me that my word won't be the last on this subject, however, if that means you are bowing out of this discussion, so be it.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion
ADDENDUM: This also includes the States establishing their own laws on Right to Die in terms of understanding how these jurisdictions are handled.
huh ?? where is the "right to die" aspect covered in this proposal?




top topics



 
12
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join