Skip to comments.Identifying Abortion Doctors, Staff, Patients Online May Soon be Prohibited: California
Posted on 07/08/2006 11:29:17 AM PDT by wagglebee
click here to read article
As usual, you refuse to answer my question.
I answered your question. If there are procedures that are specifically for abortion and NO other reason, then I don't think a doctor should "have to" learn them, but a D&C is still the method used in a very high percentage of abortions, and there are lots of other reasons an OB/Gyn does have to know that procedure.
Was that wordy enough for you?
If you continue the conversation and I don't reply, it's because the Chinese food delivery just arrived here. ;)
You're damn right:
Now shut up, put on your Yellow Star, and get on the train.
Thankfully, our Founding Fathers felt differently.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. ...
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Of course not: check the wording for absolutely infallible "only when WE want it to apply" clause:
"information would be prohibited if it intentionally incited a third person to cause imminent great bodily harm to the person identified, or if it would constitute a threat...or place them in objectively reasonable fear.
Another one-way socialist law all ready to be imposed on ... only other people.
I get it. Celebrities get to have armed bodyguards while the local yokels have to fend themselves with a pitchfork. Celebrities have the right to not have their pictures taken in public spaces but the local yokels have to wear ski masks.
And now abortionists are allowed to be cloaked in anonymity while disposing of babies without any proof of a medical emergency but an unproveable standard of damaging mental health.
The number of abortionists that have been killed/injured by over-zealous pro-lifers is under 20 in over thirty years while the aftermath of their profession (fill in the blank).
Are lawyers the next protected group? How about not publishing the names and addresses of pro-lifers? Do you think they never get death threats? Ask any avid pro-life protester how many threats they have received over the years to the cheers of pro-choicers.
This is a classic case of all people are equal but some deserve special treatment because they are more equal.
You sound "over-zealous", using your own term. No point in further discussion.
>>Of course not: check the wording for absolutely infallible "only when WE want it to apply" clause:<<
Unfortunately, I believe you have the correct interpretation.
The only standard that would be applied is like all such lists - the one that has the lowest threshold. That is...
or place them in objectively reasonable fear for his or her safety.
This is the same standard used in campus speech codes to say that no speech should be allowed that would creat an "uncomfortable environment."
Sounds like you are running in the liberal lane on this issue. You won't even debate the points I made in my argument - just like the libs I argue/discuss with all the time.
I made a perfectly legitimate point that this is creating a special right that if granted should be applied to all professions/activism where such harrasment occurs including pro-lifers LEGALLY protesting
There is nothing "over-zealous" about that.
I never claimed it did, I was merely stating that not all laws are valid, nor should they all be considered valid.
Reduced to absurdity. The law in question doesn't even compare to the Neuremberg Laws.
Dead babies, dead Jews...no comparison at all.
While I agree that there is a time and place for civil disobediance, this is not it. Working to change the laws, protesting the laws, is acceptable. Incitement to violence is not, nor should it ever be. It's wrong when the NYT does it, it's wrong when we do it.
The left is trying to change the law now. Why should it be illegal to post the names of abortionists? There is no national security reason to keep them private, this is public information. California is proposing laws that would affect other states, therefore it is unconstitutional.
We aren't discussing abortion, we're discussing a law aimed at preventing violence against people who work in abortion clinics. Abortion (however contemptable) is legal, and the people who work in abortion clinics have the right to be secure in their persons.
Protest, work to change the laws all you like, but you can't incite violence against people who have a different opinion on the matter. That sort of thing might fly in the Congo, but it's not how we play it here in America.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.