[nathanbedford]

I think our observations come together.

My point is that the Supreme Court will work backwards to its desired ruling by manipulating the standard it applies to the state's regulation.

It is quite normal for a state to regulate hospitals etc. and, normally with the close advice of the medical community, to set down regulations about qualifications etc. In this instance, a left-wing legislator attempted to shape the field and it appears that it might have backfired. Normally, this would not be a matter for the courts, certainly not for the Supreme Court of the United States-but abortion is involved.

So the whole case from this perspective is a bogus enterprise. It will be decided by manipulating legal standards to fit a preconceived outcome in a case that exists only as an unintended consequence.

[wastoute]

Having spent a career of 35 years in it one of the first things I decided to do is figure out the difference between “good doctor” and “bad doctor” so you know who to try to emulate. A good doctor wouldn’t dream of letting another physician near a patient with a complication. The first thing they are going to do is ingratiate themselves to the patient by agreeing with them that you are, indeed, a very bad doctor. The fact that abortionists do not want to manage their own complications tells you everything you need to know.