FROM
Posted on 02/26/2003 7:21:42 AM PST by RCW2001
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:41:53 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Provide evidence for your claim.
The law does not excuse you from using other options just because those options are not guaranteed to be effective.
The defendants are more than willing to be sued for whatever damage these abortion mills can prove. What damages are there really? Probably none. That is why they had to resort to the Rico laws. They thought they could bankrupt these protesters using laws designed to bankrupt organized crime. It didn't work.
Mandated reporting laws. Look, your assertion that pregnancy is grave bodily injury is ridiculous. You are the one that is obliagted to support your aseetion, not me.
If you believe that a natural and normal bodily process is akin to grave bodily injury then I'm not going to argue with you and I certainly won't be able to sway someone who holds such a silly posistion. LEt me just say that I doubt you would get even a small minority of women to agree with your assertion that a pregnancy is the equivalent of grave bodily injury (with the possible exception of a woman with a pre-exisitng health condition like diabeties).
Hyman et al (1998) reviewed the available literature on reporting requirements of all 50 US states. They place the states into five categories according to reporting requirements:
At least 40 states and the District of Columbia mandate reporting by health care providers in specified instances where the patient has an injury that appears to have been caused by a gun, knife, firearm, or other deadly weapon. States vary as to which deadly weapons trigger the reporting requirement. In some states, the requirement to report deadly weapon injuries applies only if the injury appears intentionally inflicted, criminal in nature, or is likely to result in death. [AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, DC, FL, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NV, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, OR, PA, RI, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WV, WI] Criminal Law Violation; Violence; Intentional Injuries; Gravity of Injury At least seven states require health care providers to report injuries that they have reason to believe resulted from an act of violence, with some indicating that the injury must be grave or that the act appear illegal before the requirement to report would apply. [FL, HI, MI, NE, NC, OH, TN] Finally, at least eight states require reports under circumstances in which the injury appears intentionally inflicted [AK, AR, CO, GA, HI, ID, NV, OR], and in nine states, the gravity of the injury is of import to the decision to report. [AK, AZ, HI, IN, IA, KS, NY, NC, OH] Domestic Violence or Abuse CALIFORNIA Health practitioners must report to the police if they provide medical services to a patient whom they know or reasonably suspect is suffering from a physical injury that was caused by a firearm or by "assaultive or abusive conduct" (defined to include twenty-four crimes). It is recommended that referrals to local services be given to domestic violence victims and that providers thoroughly document domestic violence in the medical record. COLORADO Physicians are required to report to law enforcement if they attend or treat an injury caused by a weapon or an injury they have reason to believe involves a criminal act "including injuries resulting from domestic violence." KENTUCKY Any person having reasonable cause to suspect that an adult has suffered abuse, neglect, or exploitation, shall report to the Cabinet for Human Resources. The Cabinet must notify police, initiate an investigation of the complaint, and make a written report of findings and recommendations. The Cabinet is allowed access to mental and physical health records of the adult if necessary to complete the investigation. The Cabinet can enter the private premises of the adult to investigate the need for protective services. If the adult does not consent, a search warrant may be issued upon a showing of probable cause of abuse. If a determination is made that protective services are neces-sary, the Cabinet shall provide such services except where the adult refuses them. NEW HAMPSHIRE A person treating or assisting another for a gunshot wound or any other injury believed to be caused by a criminal act is required to report, except if the injured person has been a victim of sexual assault or abuse, is over eighteen years of age, and objects to the release of this information to law enforcement. This exception does not apply if the person is also being treated for a gunshot wound or other serious bodily injury. RHODE ISLAND In addition to a deadly weapon reporting provision, the statute requires medical providers to report domestic violence related injuries only for data collection purposes. The reports are not to contain names or any identifying informa-tion. The domestic violence data is to be compiled and reported annually by the domes-tic violence training and monitoring unit of the court system. Voluntary Reporting No Statutes Found |
| Return to List of References This material was adapted from the publication entitled, "Improving the Health Care System's Response to Domestic Violence: A Resource Manual for Health Care Providers," produced by the Family Violence Prevention Fund in collaboration with the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Written by Carole Warshaw, M.D. and Anne L. Ganley, Ph.D., with contributions by Patricia R. Salber, M.D. |
Can you explain what you mean by "other options" ? If pregnancy is imminent grave bodily injury then it must occur at conception. Assuming we go with your silly assertion, why is the husband any different than the rapist if both are about to do the same bodily harm ?
Provide evidence for your claim that Mandated reporting laws apply to all "expected incidents of grave bodily injury."
Look, your assertion that pregnancy is grave bodily injury is ridiculous. You are the one that is obliagted to support your aseetion, not me.
I have: if I were to do to Jane Doe what pregnancy and childbirth do to a mother, it would self-evidently be inflcition of grave bodily injury.
Thanks for posting this. Missouri has had such a law for years now, and the reason pro-aborts hate it is because it *does* stop abortions. So do state laws (like we also have) which forbid tax dollars from going to pay for abortions. It's a hard-won state policy that taxpayer money is NOT going to support abortion. Hopefully other states will enact these laws as well.
The ones discussed in your post #333:
"you are legally justified in using deadly force only if you have no other option by which you could stop the bad guy at the very moment that he is attacking or about to attack you. Clearly if someone threatens you by telephone, you have many options other than deadly force.
"Speaking of options, you also to consider whether you could save yourself from your attacker by simply escaping."
why is the husband any different than the rapist
Because the woman is consenting to the act---which removes the self-defense argument, both then and later.
I in fact do believe that pregancy is physically risky and maybe more so than abortion but I cannot put it on the same playing field as an attacker, unless of course the woman had a reasonable belief she could die from the pregnancy.
It would be pointless for us to continue this debate and we should agree to disagree.
Done.
Perhaps you and I have different dictionaries. Can you name one instance in which Operation Rescue used VIOLENCE to advance its cause? Blocking the clinic access is trespassing. You can be arrested for trespassing. 99 times out of 100 it is a misdemeanor. Screaming the truth at people entering an abortion mill is an exercise in free speech. It is not an exercise in violence.
The use of Rico was an unconstitutional assault on free speech and free assembly. The image of people using the courts to unconstitutionally harass and assault people who are exercising their right to speech and assembly and to turn a local misdemeanor into a federal felony does more damage to the constitution than a little harrssment of abortionists does to the pro-life cause.
Now if you have evidence that these people were involved in violence, then they should be prosecuted for felony assualt or battery. You don't have that evidence. So don't go around using descriptive terms like "violence" when in fact the actions are not in any sense "violence."
You do "violence" to the English Language when you attempt to murder it by your willy-nilly arbitrary and capricious changing of the plain meanings of simple words to suit your political leanings.
And they'll lose again. LOL
The court wisely cited instances of protests in the past when these kinds of tactics were used, e.g. civil rights protests. It seems to me, the court also wisely cited laws already in existence to deal with things such as 'violence.'
If you feel someone has committed 'violence' by restricting your access to an abortion clinic (just as the anti-war protestors restricted access to university buildings during the Vietnam War), then press charges using those laws.
The court wisely cited instances of protests in the past when these kinds of tactics were used, e.g. civil rights protests. It seems to me, the court also wisely cited laws already in existence to deal with things such as 'violence.'
If you feel someone has committed 'violence' by restricting your access to an abortion clinic (just as the anti-war protestors restricted access to university buildings during the Vietnam War), then press charges using those laws.
FROM
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.