Yes, do you even when you go back and link to it? OK man, the straw manning here has to stop. I know it's no innocent mistake at this point when you actually link my previous statement. You asked what group of VA physicians was advocating for performing abortions on the basis of anxiety, and I said "none that I'm aware of." Where to begin with the false equivalences? Not knowing of something isn't the same as declaring non-existence. A group isn't the same as individuals. Advocating isn't the same as silently hoping, etc. And again, this is just a completely illogical detour. Whether or not there are people out there who will abuse bad laws doesn't mean you make bad laws.
Tort law isn't the same as criminal law. Medical law can fall under either depending on the circumstances. There is such a thing as criminal malpractice.
No shit. But my doctor trying to treat my foot rash with a mercury pill is not the same situation as state law enshrining that I enjoy more substantial rights than another individual when they come into conflict. I'll just quote my entire point from before that you failed to respond to instead of continuing to bash my head against the wall.
Funny, that's my exact advice for you. Since you can't even get things right when you link to my posts though I'm thinking you might be a lost cause here.
Skipping over the same straw man as before, no, I don't think you need to make anxiety specifically illegal. It's rather the corollary that I'm against. I don't think it should be enshrined. That's what the law literally says when the fetus can be aborted at any time on the basis of mental health alone, without any qualifiers or thresholds.
Ugh. Look, the phrasing of the law is that if "the physician's best clinical judgement, the continuation of pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman or impair the mental or physical health of the woman." The physician isn't making a clinical judgement on whether an abortion is ethical for a certain situation, he's making a clinical judgement on whether the mental health of the patient is likely to be impaired. If the physician performs an abortion where there's no good risk of mental health impairment, then the state medical board can go after him if they can (good luck) prove that. But the physician is explicitly allowed by state law to perform an abortion for any likely mental health concern though. There are (no longer) any constraints or limits such as "substantially and irremediably." The state medical board can't say "We disagree with state law so we're going to suspend your license." They don't have that power. The worst they can do is to call the physician's clinical judgement into question as it relates to diagnosing a likely mental health impairment, not as it relates to using that diagnosis as a reason to perform an abortion.
There doesn't need to be a victim for malpractice to occur, but it sure helps.
Well, you're arguing against me arguing against the proposed changes to the law, so....
It is incredible how the original post of this thread can reflect one's inability to follow what is spoken or written. This thread was posted under the idea that Governor Northam supports "post-birth" abortions. Yet, after watching the posted part of his radio interview, the Governor admits to not being present for a committee meeting and responds to the very question posed to him. Somehow in your mind, he's supposed to not be governing but listen to every moment of every committee meeting, ignore the questions posed to him to answer some question you want him to answer. After he responds to both questions, you accuse him of supporting "post-birth" abortions despite nothing in his response to the questions indicate that it is his position. As multiple people have pointed out, it is remarkable the amount of inane logic that has to be used to twist an interview into saying something he never did.
And look what happens again? Now I'm accused of supporting the law changes, not because I said I support it, but because I chose to respond to the illogical fallicies and ignorance of medical laws posted in this thread. Huh?
Please, for all of us, where have I endorsed the proposed law changes? Just like Governor Northam, what is said and is written is somehow twisted to support your fantasy world.
And to top it all off, you flip-flop and can't keep a consistent train of thought together, completely and utterly contradict yourself multiple times, and then try to twist your own words to again support your fantasy world. There is no way that legislation can be kept up to date on what is acceptable medical care, this is why we don't have laws prohibiting the usage of mercury for treatment of children with autism. With how medical laws are written, it is up to the Virginia physicians to determine what is acceptable, and for this law, what is "impairment of mental or physical" health. You proposed
"anxiety" as a possible criterion that would fit, despite admitting that
NONE would support it. Now you realized your mistake and start backtracking and moving the goal posts, well its now its a "hard time finding" one. This is exactly why I have written multiple times about the importance of the Virginia physician in what is determining standards of care and this is how malpractice is determined. Even though, as you admit, no Virginia physician would advocate for "anxiety" to be a sufficient indication for a third trimester abortion, you still want to codify it as illegal. That means that you think we should go back and codify everything that isn't the standard of care as illegal, ala with your comparison to
"duelling lawyers."
Remember, you are the one who claimed "
Whether or not a physician would abort a late term viable fetus for something as inconsequential as anxiety has no bearing on whether or not we should give one the legal cover to do so" despite the fact it is Virginia physicians who determines what qualifies as the standard of care that meets "impairment of mental or physical" health. And almost unsurprisingly, in your last response, you suddenly reverse course and admit the thoughts of the state medical board do matter. So which is it? They don't matter, or do they suddenly appear important through the thoughts of VA physicians and the state medical board?
It is an interesting discourse on warping one's reality. The Governor supports "post-birth" abortions despite discussing items that do not indicate that position. I support the law changes, because... well, where did I say that???