Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

An obstetrician's opinion

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Gondwanaland
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

    AND, the taxi driver (actually, I believe the example was Uber, which is even more strange, because there's even less interaction) would have to know that the person was going there for the PURPOSE of having an abortion, not just a pregnancy test or something.

    Imagine a woman telling her Uber driver, "yes, that address is an abortion clinic, and, yes, I'm about to have an abortion".
    Excellent point. After all, aren't liberals telling us all the time about how Planned Parenthood does all sorts of services for women?

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
    the person pursuing the suit would have to have been in the taxi and/or have a listening device to show that such a thing occurred, at the very least.
    AND, the taxi driver (actually, I believe the example was Uber, which is even more strange, because there's even less interaction) would have to know that the person was going there for the PURPOSE of having an abortion, not just a pregnancy test or something.

    Imagine a woman telling her Uber driver, "yes, that address is an abortion clinic, and, yes, I'm about to have an abortion".

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    And if the taxi driver knowingly drove someone to the address of an abortion clinic?
    You have GOT to be kidding. He/she would also have to know that the woman was going there for an abortion, not the thousands of other services the abortion clinic pretends to offer.

    It would have to be shown that he knowingly did it, which in Texas law implies complicity.

    Of course this and all the other possibilities are at present hypotheticals but under this law such cases could be brought. Whether the courts would uphold them is entirely another matter. However, the intimidation factor - i.e. the risk of being sued - is what is shutting down the provision of help for women who cannot afford to go elsewhere. I am sure that many a wealthy Texan who finds their daughter has accidentally become pregnant by her boyfriend will not think twice about going elsewhere to terminate that pregnancy.
    OK, walk us through it.... under Texas law, how would this begin.

    Step 1....

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    I actually wrote that I assume the courts will make the award.
    Why would you assume that? There has to be a judgment first.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    As I wrote there may be test cases.
    As I have said all along, I think that's the intent of the bill.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    In what specific and exact respects has she misrepresented the law in Texas?
    Read the preceding 14 pages.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gondwanaland
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    And if the taxi driver knowingly drove someone to the address of an abortion clinic?
    the person pursuing the suit would have to have been in the taxi and/or have a listening device to show that such a thing occurred, at the very least.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post

    Wake up in back. I already noted that at post #145
    It seems our posts "crossed in the ether".

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

    No, you're, again, exposing your ignorance --- there needs to be the "knowingly" factor. That would have to be proven.
    And if the taxi driver knowingly drove someone to the address of an abortion clinic?

    Of course this and all the other possibilities are at present hypotheticals but under this law such cases could be brought. Whether the courts would uphold them is entirely another matter. However, the intimidation factor - i.e. the risk of being sued - is what is shutting down the provision of help for women who cannot afford to go elsewhere. I am sure that many a wealthy Texan who finds their daughter has accidentally become pregnant by her boyfriend will not think twice about going elsewhere to terminate that pregnancy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gondwanaland
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    As I wrote there may be test cases.
    There's nothing to test. You're simply repeating hyperbole your herdmasters told you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

    Hence, H_A's inability to walk us through how the "mercenary" would ever "collect the bounty".
    Absolute total ignorance.
    I actually wrote that I assume the courts will make the award.

    Given your use of belittling language and your attempt to distort what I have written, your post looks suspiciously like someone trolling.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

    See this is how we know you are doing nothing other than regurgitating far left talking points your herdmasters fed you.

    The law does not remotely support such a thing. Taxi and Uber drivers are given two addresses, a pickup address and a drop-off address. It's not their business nor their issue where they pick you up, where they drop you, or what your motives are for after you are dripped off.
    As I wrote there may be test cases.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

    How else would you explain her gross misrepresentation of the law in Texas. Is she STUPID?
    In what specific and exact respects has she misrepresented the law in Texas?

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    1. Stupid

    B: Ignorant

    III) Dishonest.

    And it gets back to her never showing any understanding about the law she seeks to pontificate on.
    Pretty much what we've been saying all along for which we're accused of "censuring" her.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

    How else would you explain her gross misrepresentation of the law in Texas. Is she STUPID?
    1. Stupid

    B: Ignorant

    III) Dishonest.

    And it gets back to her never showing any understanding about the law she seeks to pontificate on.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
16 responses
160 views
0 likes
Last Post One Bad Pig  
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
53 responses
400 views
0 likes
Last Post Mountain Man  
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
25 responses
114 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
33 responses
198 views
0 likes
Last Post Roy
by Roy
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
84 responses
379 views
0 likes
Last Post JimL
by JimL
 
Working...
X