An obstetrician's opinion

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Correct. Unlike you, I fess up to my biases and actions.

Once again you are acknowledging you have engaged in trolling something of which you regularly accuse me. That is rather hypocritical of you, would you not agree?

For the purposes of mocking your continuous ing, yes.

Oh I see. So now you are engaging in tactics of which you like to accuse me?

I'm done with this little ing exercise of yours -- the readers will come to their own conclusions.

What a pity you did not make all your various excuses crystal clear in your initial reply to me where you acknowledged you had engaged in behaviours associated with "trolling".

[Cow Poke]

Once again you...

How bout we set that aside while you explain to me how the law works in Texas.

How would a "mercenary" obtain a "reward" in this Texas law situation?

[Sparko]

How bout we set that aside while you explain to me how the law works in Texas.

How would a "mercenary" obtain a "reward" in this Texas law situation?

Well first he would hunt down the varmint. Then shoot it. Then turn in the tail for the $5 bounty. Right?

[Cow Poke]

Back to the actual topic....

and, note, it shows the quote from H_A, but it's actually part of the OP she cited...

If I worked in Texas, anyone could sue me under the new law. But not just me. Anybody could also sue you, should you be the secretary who made the appointment; or the neighbor who watched other kids to make the appointment possible; or the Uber driver who took the patient to the clinic. The payout is at minimum $10,000 per defendant, with no upper limit.

The Uber driver?

The language of S.B. 8 says people who perform the abortion — as well as anyone who “knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion” — can be legally liable. The assistance includes the “paying for or reimbursing the costs of an abortion.”

The "Uber driver" would have to "knowingly engage in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion".

This is how silly the OP is - making dumb claims totally ignorant of the actual law.

The "neighbor wo watched the kids" would need to "knowingly engage in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion".

In this way, the law creates a mercenary and adversarial relationship between a community and its medical providers. ...

"mercenary"?

Gross misrepresentation of the law.

Why?

Bias.

[rogue06]

Of course I do not but I am not the one censoring Dr Karkowsky or questioning her motives.

Who has censored her?

[Cow Poke]

Who has censored her?

She subsequently claims she meant "censured".

[rogue06]

Why didn't you say so in the first place? A simple answer to the question I asked you. You should just have stopped after "of course I do not".

So, therefore, everything you have stated here about the doctor's patient records are only your opinion.

But expressing your opinion without seeing patient records is only wrong for others. It's perfectly fine acceptable when she does it.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Back to the actual topic....

and, note, it shows the quote from H_A, but it's actually part of the OP she cited...



The Uber driver?

The language of S.B. 8 says people who perform the abortion — as well as anyone who “knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion” — can be legally liable. The assistance includes the “paying for or reimbursing the costs of an abortion.”

The "Uber driver" would have to "knowingly engage in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion".
This is how silly the OP is - making dumb claims totally ignorant of the actual law.

The "neighbor wo watched the kids" would need to "knowingly engage in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion".



"mercenary"?

Gross misrepresentation of the law.

Why?

Bias.

It could be argued in a court that the taxi driver or neighbour assisted in a woman obtaining an abortion by driving her to a clinic or taking care of her other children while she went for her abortion.

Of course these are all potential test cases given that this law permits private citizens to bring civil suits. How those will be decided is of course up to the courts.

However, that the possibility exists potentially puts medical staff and anyone tangentially involved in a woman obtaining an abortion in jeopardy, and of course that is the underlying motive for this Bill, intimidate by the possible risk of being sued.

[rogue06]

Plaid! Plaid, I say!

And a great big Kevorkian!

Well, it's official. This thread has now...

75q2WDa.gif

[rogue06]

She subsequently claims she meant "censured".

Yeah. Just saw that. No reason to doubt it was just a spelling mistake.

[Cow Poke]

It could be argued in a court that the taxi driver or neighbour assisted in a woman obtaining an abortion by driving her to a clinic or taking care of her other children while she went for her abortion.

No, you're, again, exposing your ignorance --- there needs to be the "knowingly" factor. That would have to be proven.
Have you ever used Uber? You request a ride on the app, you get in the car, they take you to your location, and they're gone.
Nobody in their right mind would cite the Uber driver (that was the example) OR a taxi driver.

Of course these are all potential test cases given that this law permits private citizens to bring civil suits. How those will be decided is of course up to the courts.

And I have said all along that this law appears to be (and I got a partial confirmation from the Attorney General last night) to hasten this issue to SCOTUS.

However, that the possibility exists potentially puts medical staff and anyone tangentially involved in a woman obtaining an abortion in jeopardy, and of course that is the underlying motive for this Bill, intimidate by the possible risk of being sued.

How?

How would this work?

How would the case get into court? What's the process? How does a "mercenary" obtain this "reward"?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Who has censored her?

Wake up at the back. I corrected that typo earlier today.

Post # 392

Inadvertent Typo

Of course I do not but I am not the one censoring Dr Karkowsky.

Should have read:

Of course I do not but I am not the one censuring Dr Karkowsky

Post # 395 to Cow Poke and Gondwanaland :

See my correction at post #392. It seems I either mistyped an "o" for a "u" or my tablet's predictive text did not recognise the word censured.

[rogue06]

Well first he would hunt down the varmint. Then shoot it. Then turn in the tail for the $5 bounty. Right?

We used to get something like 2 cents for each prairie dog tail we brought in up in South Dakota in the 60s. Pretty much just enough to pay for the .22 ammo you used back then.

[Gondwanaland]

Are mercenaries [if you are referring to military personnel] paid in advance?

Er, yes. They're usually paid weekly or biweekly like any other employee, usually with a starting expense payment for equipment or supplies needed for the mission.

One assumes the courts would award in their favour.

on what basis does "one assume" that?

[rogue06]

Wake up at the back. I corrected that typo earlier today.

Post # 392

Inadvertent Typo

Of course I do not but I am not the one censoring Dr Karkowsky.

Should have read:

Of course I do not but I am not the one censuring Dr Karkowsky

Post # 395 to Cow Poke and Gondwanaland :

See my correction at post #392. It seems I either mistyped an "o" for a "u" or my tablet's predictive text did not recognise the word censured.

Wake up in back. I already noted that at post #145