General The Supreme Court has overturned Roe vs Wade.

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to Sign Up today.
Sign up

Approve of federally-protected access to legal abortion being overturned?

  • Yes, it's murder

  • No, it's a woman's right to choose

  • But what about Hunter Biiiiiiiiiiiiiden

Results are only viewable after voting.
nuraknu

nuraknu

savage
Jul 20, 2016
6,246
10,756
Filthy said:
nuraknu @nuraknu

What does it do? It provides the AG the power to initiate a civil case if a healthcare provider denies access to contraception or contraception information.

do you see why people opposed to abortion would vote against it? Do you see the potential for abuse if an AG decided to go after doctors or health providers that are opposed to (or have unpopular views regarding) contraception?

It's law that compels speech, and I'm not sure which enumerated power this falls under in the US Constitution.
Click to expand...
I think either you or I misread it. None of the civil actions listed are against health care providers. Which line are you referring to?

The point of the act is that the governments don't have the right to interfere.
 
Filthy

Filthy

Iowa Wrestling Champion
Jun 28, 2016
27,498
29,664
The term “health care provider” means, with respect to a State, any entity or individual (including any physician, certified nurse-midwife, nurse, nurse practitioner, physician assistant, and pharmacist) that is licensed or otherwise authorized by the State to provide health care services.
Click to expand...
...
The statutory rights specified in subsection (a) shall not be limited or otherwise infringed through any limitation or requirement that—
(1) expressly, effectively, implicitly, or as implemented singles out the provision of contraceptives, contraception, or contraception-related information; health care providers who provide contraceptives, contraception, or contraception-related information; or facilities in which contraceptives, contraception, or contraception-related information is provided; and
(2) impedes access to contraceptives, contraception, or contraception-related information.
Click to expand...
(a) Attorney General.—The Attorney General may commence a civil action on behalf of the United States against any State that violates, or against any government official (including a person described in section 6(c)) that implements or enforces a limitation or requirement that violates, section 4. The court shall hold unlawful and set aside the limitation or requirement if it is in violation of this Act.
(b) Private Right Of Action.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Any individual or entity, including any health care provider or patient, adversely affected by an alleged violation of this Act, may commence a civil action against any State that violates, or against any government official (including a person described in section 6(c)) that implements or enforces a limitation or requirement that violates, section 4. The court shall hold unlawful and set aside the limitation or requirement if it is in violation of this Act.
...

(d) Costs.—In any action under this section, the court shall award costs of litigation, as well as reasonable attorney’s fees, to any prevailing plaintiff. A plaintiff shall not be liable to a defendant for costs or attorney’s fees in any non-frivolous action under this section.
Click to expand...

this is a really bad law.

but it has a virtuous title and all the Republicans will vote against it....so...here come the Dems trying to raise funds...
 
nuraknu

nuraknu

savage
Jul 20, 2016
6,246
10,756
Filthy said:
...





this is a really bad law.

but it has a virtuous title and all the Republicans will vote against it....so...here come the Dems trying to raise funds...
Click to expand...
You're implying it's going to be twisted into healthcare providers being treated as representatives of the State government?
 
Filthy

Filthy

Iowa Wrestling Champion
Jun 28, 2016
27,498
29,664
nuraknu said:
You're implying it's going to be twisted into healthcare providers being treated as representatives of the State government?
Click to expand...
private citizens can sue doctors for restricting access to contraception information. Activists can bankrupt physicians or nurses.

Can a doctor ethically say that abstinence is the only form of contraception that they'll prescribe for a patient?
 
nuraknu

nuraknu

savage
Jul 20, 2016
6,246
10,756
Filthy said:
private citizens can sue doctors for restricting access to contraception information. Activists can bankrupt physicians or nurses.

Can a doctor ethically say that abstinence is the only form of contraception that they'll prescribe for a patient?
Click to expand...
The two civil actions listed are ok to be brought against States. Are you implying that it will be twisted so that healthcare providers are treated as representatives of the State?
 
Filthy

Filthy

Iowa Wrestling Champion
Jun 28, 2016
27,498
29,664
nuraknu said:
The two civil actions listed are ok to be brought against States. Are you implying that it will be twisted so that healthcare providers are treated as representatives of the State?
Click to expand...
it literally says that in the definition of "healthcare provider".

"with respect to the the State, any..."
 
nuraknu

nuraknu

savage
Jul 20, 2016
6,246
10,756
Filthy said:
it literally says that in the definition of "healthcare provider".

"with respect to the the State, any..."
Click to expand...
That just means, in the context of a particular state which would grant a license to practice in that state. That isn't section 6c.

(c) Other Individuals Considered As Government Officials.—Any person who, by operation of a provision of Federal or State law, is permitted to implement or enforce a limitation or requirement that violates section 4 shall be considered a government official for purposes of this Act.

Does a license to practice make a doctor a government official? Idk.
 
nuraknu

nuraknu

savage
Jul 20, 2016
6,246
10,756
There's nothing in the Act I don't think that says that anyone has to provide anything, just that no one is allowed to stop someone from providing, or stop someone from obtaining. It sounds like you're taking the idea that you can't make a rule that people can be stopped from obtaining contraception that providers have to have it to provide.

That doesn't really make sense because the definition of health care provider includes like, podiatrists?

(4) Health care provider.--The term ``health care
provider'' means, with respect to a State, any entity or
individual (including any physician, certified nurse-midwife,
nurse, nurse practitioner, physician assistant, and pharmacist)
that is licensed or otherwise authorized by the State to
provide health care services.

But people do stuff that doesn't make sense all the time so will be interesting to see how it's interpreted by the courts
 
Filthy

Filthy

Iowa Wrestling Champion
Jun 28, 2016
27,498
29,664
nuraknu said:
There's nothing in the Act I don't think that says that anyone has to provide anything, just that no one is allowed to stop someone from providing, or stop someone from obtaining. It sounds like you're taking the idea that you can't make a rule that people can be stopped from obtaining contraception that providers have to have it to provide.

That doesn't really make sense because the definition of health care provider includes like, podiatrists?

(4) Health care provider.--The term ``health care
provider'' means, with respect to a State, any entity or
individual (including any physician, certified nurse-midwife,
nurse, nurse practitioner, physician assistant, and pharmacist)
that is licensed or otherwise authorized by the State to
provide health care services.

But people do stuff that doesn't make sense all the time so will be interesting to see how it's interpreted by the courts
Click to expand...
that's the issue, it's easily interpreted in a manner that can be abused. The provision that defendants have to pay the plaintiff, and not vice versa, is bad law.

but it's silly to post "look at all the EVIL REPUBLICANS voting against the SAFE BABY LOVE KISSES Act!!!!"

it's fundraising, and it's what's wrong with the federal legislature.
 
Kingtony87

Kingtony87

Batman
Feb 2, 2016
6,524
8,908
Filthy said:
that's the issue, it's easily interpreted in a manner that can be abused. The provision that defendants have to pay the plaintiff, and not vice versa, is bad law.

but it's silly to post "look at all the EVIL REPUBLICANS voting against the SAFE BABY LOVE KISSES Act!!!!"

it's fundraising, and it's what's wrong with the federal legislature.
Click to expand...
hot damn we agree
 
nuraknu

nuraknu

savage
Jul 20, 2016
6,246
10,756
Filthy said:
that's the issue, it's easily interpreted in a manner that can be abused. The provision that defendants have to pay the plaintiff, and not vice versa, is bad law.

but it's silly to post "look at all the EVIL REPUBLICANS voting against the SAFE BABY LOVE KISSES Act!!!!"

it's fundraising, and it's what's wrong with the federal legislature.
Click to expand...
The provision is that the defendant has to pay costs for a prevailing plaintiff - in other words, litigation costs are the minimum awarded to a plaintiff that wins a case.

Defendants being awarded fees in specifically suits found to be frivolous is a standard set by the Supreme Court I think, so it's not special to this bill. It's not a "gotcha" or whatever.

I have mixed feelings about it. I understand how it seems like someone can have their life ruined by someone else, but at the same time a regular working class person should be able to bring a non-frivolous genuine case against a state and also not have to suffer abuses, so hard to say which way it should go.

For now I'm fine seeing how it plays out with it this way.
 
Filthy

Filthy

Iowa Wrestling Champion
Jun 28, 2016
27,498
29,664
nuraknu said:
The provision is that the defendant has to pay costs for a prevailing plaintiff - in other words, litigation costs are the minimum awarded to a plaintiff that wins a case.

Defendants being awarded fees in specifically suits found to be frivolous is a standard set by the Supreme Court I think, so it's not special to this bill. It's not a "gotcha" or whatever.

I have mixed feelings about it. I understand how it seems like someone can have their life ruined by someone else, but at the same time a regular working class person should be able to bring a non-frivolous genuine case against a state and also not have to suffer abuses, so hard to say which way it should go.

For now I'm fine seeing how it plays out with it this way.
Click to expand...
i think you're misreading the part about "the State"...this isn't just about AGs going after State actors...it's literally anyone with a license or certification issued by a State.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom