brierebecca 0 #76 November 15, 2005 QuoteThat is the undue burden you are referring to. As I've said, I'm pro-choice, but I don't see that as an undue burden. The finding that "A significant number of women will likely be prevented from obtaining an abortion just as surely as if Pennsylvania had outlawed the procedure entirely." is flawed IMO. I don't see how asking a woman if she told her husband would be likely to prevent her from obtaining an abortion.Quote this is a classic conservative argument. The flip-side of it is that a substantial number of women who don't want to tell their husbands that they are having an abortion don't do so because they fear physical abuse. Alito doesn't seem to care about the fact that some women who are made to tell their husbands will get the shit beat out of them. He doesn't think it's an undue burden, because the women who fear abuse can pursue a Belotti bypass (which is traditionally for juveniles, but Alito directly analogizes the bypass part of the statute to juvenile cases in the quote I provided above). The problem with this is that these bypasses are so complicated in some states that it is difficult for low-income, uneducated women - who are much more likely to suffer abuse - to navigate the system. If you still don't think it's an undue burden, I'll have to respectfully disagree with you. But I studied some of these systems in my constitutional law classes, and the paperwork alone is an undue burden. PM me if you want other examples of measures states are taking to limit a woman's right to choose - I'll send you some court cases. Hope this helps. Brie"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ReBirth 0 #77 November 15, 2005 Quotethis is a classic conservative argument. HAA!! First time I've been accused of that. QuoteAlito doesn't seem to care about the fact that some women who are made to tell their husbands will get the shit beat out of them. How are they made to? All they have to do is tell the Dr. "I told my husband". That's it. They don't check with the husband. It's just a voluntary statement made by the woman before the procedure. QuoteThe problem with this is that these bypasses are so complicated in some states that it is difficult for low-income, uneducated women - who are much more likely to suffer abuse - to navigate the system What states are you referring to? Because this case was in PA, and PA has built in exceptions that are not difficult to navigate. In fact all they really have to do is say they're afraid and a social worker is immediately assigned to take care of the paperwork. QuotePM me if you want other examples of measures states are taking to limit a woman's right to choose As I've stated before and will say again, I am PRO CHOICE. I don't think this ruling is anywhere close to an example of limiting a woman's right to choose. If you look at this apolitically, it was a correct assessment. It's arguments like this why liberals are labeled as extremists. Nothing about this ruling would limit a woman's right to choose. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Wopelao 0 #78 November 15, 2005 QuoteQuoteThat is the undue burden you are referring to. As I've said, I'm pro-choice, but I don't see that as an undue burden. The finding that "A significant number of women will likely be prevented from obtaining an abortion just as surely as if Pennsylvania had outlawed the procedure entirely." is flawed IMO. I don't see how asking a woman if she told her husband would be likely to prevent her from obtaining an abortion.Quote this is a classic conservative argument. The flip-side of it is that a substantial number of women who don't want to tell their husbands that they are having an abortion don't do so because they fear physical abuse. Alito doesn't seem to care about the fact that some women who are made to tell their husbands will get the shit beat out of them. He doesn't think it's an undue burden, because the women who fear abuse can pursue a Belotti bypass (which is traditionally for juveniles, but Alito directly analogizes the bypass part of the statute to juvenile cases in the quote I provided above). The problem with this is that these bypasses are so complicated in some states that it is difficult for low-income, uneducated women - who are much more likely to suffer abuse - to navigate the system. If you still don't think it's an undue burden, I'll have to respectfully disagree with you. But I studied some of these systems in my constitutional law classes, and the paperwork alone is an undue burden. PM me if you want other examples of measures states are taking to limit a woman's right to choose - I'll send you some court cases. Hope this helps. Brie If you think this way, then men should not be accountable for child support. I think this measure also gives men some sort of right and say about his off spring, something that has been long overlooked in the constitution, men's rights when it comes to family issues. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GTAVercetti 0 #79 November 15, 2005 QuoteQuotethis is a classic conservative argument. HAA!! First time I've been accused of that. dude, that is some funny shit. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites brierebecca 0 #80 November 15, 2005 Here is the section to which you refer: Quote§ 3209. Spousal notice (a) Spousal notice required.--In order to further the Commonwealth's interest in promoting the integrity of the marital relationship and to protect a spouse's interests in having children within marriage and in protecting the prenatal life of that spouse's child, no physician shall perform an abortion on a married woman, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), unless he or she has received a signed statement, which need not be notarized, from the woman upon whom the abortion is to be performed, that she has notified her spouse that she is about to undergo an abortion. The statement shall bear a notice that any false statement made therein is punishable by law. (b) Exceptions.--The statement certifying that the notice required by subsection (a) has been given need not be furnished where the woman provides the physician a signed statement certifying at least one of the following: (1) Her spouse is not the father of the child. (2) Her spouse, after diligent effort, could not be located. (3) The pregnancy is a result of spousal sexual assault as described in section 3128 (relating to spousal sexual assault), which has been reported to a law enforcement agency having the requisite jurisdiction. (4) The woman has reason to believe that the furnishing of notice to her spouse is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her by her spouse or by another individual. Such statement need not be notarized, but shall bear a notice that any false statements made therein are punishable by law. (c) Medical emergency.--The requirements of subsection (a) shall not apply in case of a medical emergency. (d) Forms.--The department shall cause to be published forms which may be utilized for purposes of providing the signed statements required by subsections (a) and (b). The department shall distribute an adequate supply of such forms to all abortion facilities in this Commonwealth. (e) Penalty; civil action.--Any physician who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of "unprofessional conduct," and his or her license for the practice of medicine and surgery shall be subject to suspension or revocation in accordance with procedures provided under the act of October 5, 1978 (P.L. 1109, No. 261), known as the Osteopathic Medical Practice Act, [FN1] the act of December 20, 1985 (P.L. 457, No. 112), known as the Medical Practice Act of 1985, [FN2] or their successor acts. In addition, any physician who knowingly violates the provisions of this section shall be civilly liable to the spouse who is the father of the aborted child for any damages caused thereby and for punitive damages in the amount of $5,000, and the court shall award a prevailing plaintiff a reasonable attorney fee as part of costs. QuoteHow are they made to? All they have to do is tell the Dr. "I told my husband". That's it. They don't check with the husband. It's just a voluntary statement made by the woman before the procedure. wrong. It is not a voluntary statement. It is required that the woman certify in writing that he told her husband. She is criminally liable if she lies about this. It isn't some offhand statement. The woman has the choice of telling her husband or exposing herself to criminal liability. Also, let me reiterate that Justice O'Connor, the author of the undue burden standard, wrote the opinion which stated that this was an undue burden. QuoteWhat states are you referring to? Because this case was in PA, and PA has built in exceptions that are not difficult to navigate. In fact all they really have to do is say they're afraid and a social worker is immediately assigned to take care of the paperwork Wrong again. There is no case worker assigned. The forms are made available at the abortion clinics (see the statute above), and the women have to fill them out and sign them. These forms have huge ramifications, and I wouldn't want to sign one, and expose myself to criminal liability, without a full understanding of the criminal justice system. I will also note that doctors are criminally and civilly liable if any false information is given. QuoteAs I've stated before and will say again, I am PRO CHOICE. I don't think this ruling is anywhere close to an example of limiting a woman's right to choose. If you look at this apolitically, it was a correct assessment. Once again, if you don't think this limits a woman's right to choose, then I will have to respectfully disagree with you. There are different levels of choice. Some states have more stringent abortion statutes than others. Making a woman tell her husband, or lie about it and be criminally liable, is an undue burden according to the supreme court. However, if Alito would have been on the court, it would have come to a different decision. Brie"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ReBirth 0 #81 November 15, 2005 Quote(4) The woman has reason to believe that the furnishing of notice to her spouse is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her by her spouse or by another individual. Such statement need not be notarized, but shall bear a notice that any false statements made therein are punishable by law. All she has to do is sign a statement saying she is afraid. That's it. You're right. There is no caseworker, because that's not even necessary. All she has to do is say she's afraid, she gets the form, and signs it. That's it. Where's the convoluted legal system that the poor and uneducated can't navigate? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites brierebecca 0 #82 November 15, 2005 Maybe it's just my law background, but the words "has reason to believe" have far-reaching ramifications. If a lawsuit is brought against her, she will have the burden of proving that she thought her husband was going to beat her. This is because it's a subjective standard. A layperson signing a form wouldn't know this. Also, in states where the burden is high, it could be difficult to prove that there was reason to believe that she would be abused. She doesn't just have to say she's afraid. She has to subject herself to the possibility of criminal punishment, especially if she can't point to a documented history of abuse to prove her subjective viewpoint. A startling number of abuse cases go unreported. The supreme court thought this burden was too high. I agree with them. Brie"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ReBirth 0 #83 November 15, 2005 QuoteAlso, in states where the burden is high, Again...we're talking PA here. In PA, restraining orders are issued based on accusations, false or otherwise, of the woman. The burden of proof is on the accused to proove they didn't do what they are accused of. QuoteShe doesn't just have to say she's afraid. She has to subject herself to the possibility of criminal punishment, especially if she can't point to a documented history of abuse to prove her subjective viewpoint. Could you find a single instance of anyone being prosecuted for falsely claiming abuse or fear of abuse in PA? Making a supposition about what could happen is not a valid means of determining the burden. "that the woman believes that notifying her husband will cause him or someone else to inflict bodily injury upon her." How do you disprove her belief? ===================== Fine...let's drop all that and agree to disagree. Do you really find it that outlandish, considering I, as someone staunchly pro-choice disagrees with you, that this opinion should not be used to label someone as ANTI ABORTION? It was a legal decision based on an opinion of what undue burden is. I don't think it is undue burden, neither did 3 of the supremes. I don't see how this is being used to label Alito as a rabid anti-abortionist. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites brierebecca 0 #84 November 15, 2005 Quote"that the woman believes that notifying her husband will cause him or someone else to inflict bodily injury upon her." How do you disprove her belief? believing and having reason to believe are not the same thing, especially from a legal standpoint. I'm sure the lawyers on here would agree with me. If you have to have reason to belive something, you have to be able to point to a specific instance which would support your belief. If the abuse is undocumented, that could be difficult. Restraining orders and abortion are not the same thing. It's a specious analogy. Undue burden is not just about what could happen. Just as you didn't understand the ramifications of the phrase "reason to believe," a woman claiming abuse could get confused, and unknowingly subject herself to criminal prosecution because she was not aware of what she was signing onto. Okay, agree to disagree. I also never said that Alito was anti-abortion. I said his opinion of what "undue burden" means is troubling. I think that he is anti-abortion, but has been stopped from ruling abortion statutes unconstitutional because he doesn't have the power to do so. If he becomes a Supreme, he will have the opportunity to set the precedent. Not that I think Roe is going out the window. I just think that it will become so restricted that it will become less about choice and more about medical necesssity. The Casey, Thornberg, and Hodgson rulings all support my contention. In fact, almost every ruling to come out of the Supreme Court recently on abortion has restricted it. I also don't think you're not Pro-choice. I just think that this undue burden analysis is not a highly publicized debate, and it's quietly chipping away at a woman's right to choose. Brie"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ReBirth 0 #85 November 15, 2005 QuoteUndue burden is not just about what could happen. Just as you didn't understand the ramifications of the phrase "reason to believe," a woman claiming abuse could get confused, and unknowingly subject herself to criminal prosecution because she was not aware of what she was signing onto. Can you find a single instance of that happening in PA? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites brierebecca 0 #86 November 15, 2005 QuoteCan you find a single instance of that happening in PA? It doesn't matter. Whether the effect of the burden actually happens is not a factor in the undue burden analysis. It's whether the burden exists at all. Here, the burden is the ramifications of the signature. A woman shouldn't have to put herself in that position to have an abortion. That is the burden. It's not whether she is actually confused and subjected to criminal prosecution, it's that she could be. A woman should not have to answer for her belief that she will be abused in a courtroom. It shouldn't even be an issue. But the language of the statute makes it an issue, and this is why it's an undue burden. Brie"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ReBirth 0 #87 November 15, 2005 QuoteIt's not whether she is actually confused and subjected to criminal prosecution, it's that she could be. Only if she is lying. If she is telling the truth, what jeopardy is she in? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites brierebecca 0 #88 November 15, 2005 QuoteOnly if she is lying. If she is telling the truth, what jeopardy is she in? Even if she isn't lying, she shouldn't be put in a position where she has to prove it. I'm not sure what is so hard about this.... The burden is not that she would have to lie. It's that if she makes these allegations, she may have to prove them in a criminal proceeding. The statute is clear about this. You are belaboring something that isn't the point. I'm done explaining the legal issues here. It's obvious that we're on opposite sides of the spectrum when it comes to this. I don't even think the bypass list is all-inclusive. There are many other reasons a woman wouldn't want to tell her husband that she is having an abortion than the 4 the statute lists. I don't see a problem with it. It's her choice. I'll be back in here if there's another Supreme Court thread, but I'm tired of this one.... Brie"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #89 November 15, 2005 Quotethe words "has reason to believe" have far-reaching ramifications. If a lawsuit is brought against her, she will have the burden of proving that she thought her husband was going to beat her. First question - a lawsuit for what? Quotein states where the burden is high, it could be difficult to prove that there was reason to believe that she would be abused. Those states would likely have alternative language. This is just Pennsylvania we're talking about and the standard seems pretty low. QuoteShe has to subject herself to the possibility of criminal punishment, especially if she can't point to a documented history of abuse to prove her subjective viewpoint. This seems to be an overly broad approach that you are using. If she has "reason to believe" then she "has reason to believe." This is subjective on HER part. Seems to me the prosecution would have to prove that she had NO reason to believe it. She doesn't have to prove she had a reason. Prosecutors would have to prove she did not, which is a pretty tough thing to do "beyond a reasonable doubt." QuoteThe supreme court thought this burden was too high. I agree with them. Alito did not think the burden was too high. You respectfully disagree. Hell, I'm a libertarian, but perhaps I'm viewing this from the guy angle. If my wife is pregnant, I want to have the opportunity to raise this child. Also, is it slipping your mind that it nowhere in the statute requires the husband's consent? All it says is that she's gotta say, "I'm pregnant and I'm terminating it." The husband has no choice. None. Zip. Zero. Zulch. Nada. At least, that is my reading of the statute. Can it be done by telephone? Yep. E-mail? Yep. Letter? Yep. In person? Yep. I respectfully disagree that this is an "undue burden." I'm not a pro-lifer by any means. But I'm also someone who likes to look at individual cases instead of blanket policies for and against. I personally like that this sets up a case-by-case look at it. As an aside, what choices/rights do you think a father/husband should have? None? Lots? A few? How about responsibilities? None? Lots? A few? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Wopelao 0 #90 November 15, 2005 QuoteMaybe it's just my law background, but the words "has reason to believe" have far-reaching ramifications. If a lawsuit is brought against her, she will have the burden of proving that she thought her husband was going to beat her. This is because it's a subjective standard. A layperson signing a form wouldn't know this. Also, in states where the burden is high, it could be difficult to prove that there was reason to believe that she would be abused. She doesn't just have to say she's afraid. She has to subject herself to the possibility of criminal punishment, especially if she can't point to a documented history of abuse to prove her subjective viewpoint. A startling number of abuse cases go unreported. The supreme court thought this burden was too high. I agree with them. I would say your comment for the most part is BS. Have you visited family court recently, any state.? The problem with belief, as rebirth was saying, is that there is not proof except for what ever belief the woman has inside her head, truth or not, it will be upheld by the courts regardless, as there is no need of "undue burden of proof" to anyone who "believes" is in danger. There is no middle ground in court decisions based on "belief" instead of proof, one is that an asshole that has money, can post bail and go kill her SO, on the other hand it allows for abuse of shady women who use this as shelter to not to be held accountable to anyone anytime they "feel" like it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #91 November 15, 2005 QuoteAs an aside, what choices/rights do you think a father/husband should have? None? Lots? A few? How about responsibilities? None? Lots? A few? rights - typical answer is "none" (but it's always caveated with statement that he should get to 'discuss' it, and bluster and talk and so on,....... BUT - there's always the but - she get's the 'final' decision. I like that phrase 'final decision' as opposed to 'decision', it makes it seem like there are other 'decisions' prior to it) responsibilities - let's rephrase that to "financial support burden" - typical answer is 'lots' (tagged with a bunch of 'depends', but still 'lots') either way, I'd like to see the two questions get in sync...... right now they aren't in sync and covered in sweet sweet candy-like prose to make it seem ok. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites brierebecca 0 #92 November 15, 2005 QuoteFirst question - a lawsuit for what? The statute is clear that she is criminally liable if she falsifies the form. If her husband reports her to a criminal justice agency after she has an abortion without telling him, and that agency prosecutes, that's a lawsuit. QuoteThis seems to be an overly broad approach that you are using. If she has "reason to believe" then she "has reason to believe." This is subjective on HER part. Seems to me the prosecution would have to prove that she had NO reason to believe it. She doesn't have to prove she had a reason. Prosecutors would have to prove she did not, which is a pretty tough thing to do "beyond a reasonable doubt." It's been a year since I was in a criminal law class, but the language "reason to believe" in several cases (I'd have to drag out my casebook to cite them, I'll try to do that later) required there be something upon which the defendant could base his beliefs. If there is no documented history of abuse (no complaints, etc), then I could see the prosecution having a very easy time proving that she had no basis for believing that she would come to bodily harm. Especially because the proof that the belief was reasonable is not subjective. It's objective. QuotePennsylvania Supreme Court observed: [T]he requirement that the defendant be operating under a reasonable belief that he is in imminent danger of death, great bodily harm, or some felony, involves two elements. First, the defendant must have acted out of an honest, bona fide belief that he was in imminent danger. Second, the belief must be reasonable in light of the facts as they appeared to him. The first element is entirely subjective; the second element is entirely objective. That's from Com v. Hill, and it's the standard for reasonable belief in Pennsylvania. If the reasonableness part is objective, then I could see a jury finding that if there is no documented history of abuse, then there is no reason for her to believe that she may be abused, even if that belief was warranted. I guess I disagree that the husband gets any rights at all when it comes to having the child. He doesn't have to carry it, and he doesn't have to expose himself to the dangers of childbirth. I would never want to live in a society in which my husband could make me carry a child for nine months and have it if I truly didn't want to have it, or if it wasn't safe for me to have it. Responsibilities? It doesn't seem part of the discussion to me. We're talking about having a child, not supporting the child after it is born. That's just my take on it. I've known several women who were abused, and I would never want to be in that situation, especially if an abortion was in the picture. Brie"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites brierebecca 0 #93 November 15, 2005 QuoteThe problem with belief, as rebirth was saying, is that there is not proof except for what ever belief the woman has inside her head, truth or not, it will be upheld by the courts regardless, as there is no need of "undue burden of proof" to anyone who "believes" is in danger. I'm not going to respond because you're confusing the issues of "undue burden" and "burden of proof." You're also confused between "belief" and "has reason to believe." See my post below for more clarification. brie"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #94 November 15, 2005 QuoteWe're talking about having a child, not supporting the child after it is born. Separate discussion - How do you separate the two concepts? Being able to do that seems to indicate something less than ......... I don't know what word to use here. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ReBirth 0 #95 November 15, 2005 QuoteEven if she isn't lying, she shouldn't be put in a position where she has to prove it. I'm not sure what is so hard about this.... What's so hard is that she does NOT have to prove it. She just has to say it, and sign her name to it. If you can find a case of that ever being challenged, fine. But I don't think you will. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ReBirth 0 #96 November 15, 2005 QuoteI respectfully disagree that this is an "undue burden." I'm not a pro-lifer by any means. But I'm also someone who likes to look at individual cases instead of blanket policies for and against. I personally like that this sets up a case-by-case look at it. As an aside, what choices/rights do you think a father/husband should have? None? Lots? A few? How about responsibilities? None? Lots? A few? Damn...dude...I've been waiting for you to step in. I'm no law talking guy like you. But it seems pretty clear to me, as a pro-choice, anti-establishment type of person, that this is a non-issue as far as putting a burden on anyone. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #97 November 15, 2005 I think you are getting into an issue of statutory construction. "Reasonable belief" and "Reason to believe" are entirely different things. "Reasonable" puts an objective standard on it. Let's say that there would have to be a reasonable belief of physical violence if required to notify the husband. This would mean that there would likely have to be some history of violence to establish this. On the other hand, for "reason to believe" all she needs is a reason. For example, her husband told her a few weeks ago he'd smack her if she had an abortion without telling him first. Or, if the husband has a prior arrest (but no conviction) for domestic violence for a previous girlfriend. Or, if his mother says something about his temper to the wife. All of these provide a "reason to believe." I don't think you can interchange "reason to believe" with "reasonable" any more than you can interchange "subjective" with "subject of." Of course, if I am wrong, that's what I get for actually believing that words mean what they say they mean... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ReBirth 0 #98 November 15, 2005 Everything I see on this guy continues to impress me. Granted it's just what the "left wing media" has portrayed, but he comes across as being honest, intelligent, and with integrity. Those qualities are vital in a SC justice. http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mymod/hdln/rt/sty/*http://story.news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051115/pl_nm/court_alito_dc Quote"'It was different then'," Feinstein quoted Alito as saying. "'I was an advocate seeking a job, a political job and that was 1985'." "'I'm now a judge. I've been on the circuit court for 15 years. It's very different. I'm not an advocate'," Feinstein said. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Wopelao 0 #99 November 16, 2005 I agree with you, but it has come to the point where the nomination is rather discussed as to what "personal" opinion the judge has about abortion. It looks like the fact that they can rule based on law is not very important at least according to the media. Sad. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ReBirth 0 #100 November 16, 2005 I was actually being sarcastic. I think that piece I linked to from Reuters was very fair and favorable to him. Even though Gawain said yesterday that Reuters is one of the most biased liberal sources out there Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 4 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
ReBirth 0 #77 November 15, 2005 Quotethis is a classic conservative argument. HAA!! First time I've been accused of that. QuoteAlito doesn't seem to care about the fact that some women who are made to tell their husbands will get the shit beat out of them. How are they made to? All they have to do is tell the Dr. "I told my husband". That's it. They don't check with the husband. It's just a voluntary statement made by the woman before the procedure. QuoteThe problem with this is that these bypasses are so complicated in some states that it is difficult for low-income, uneducated women - who are much more likely to suffer abuse - to navigate the system What states are you referring to? Because this case was in PA, and PA has built in exceptions that are not difficult to navigate. In fact all they really have to do is say they're afraid and a social worker is immediately assigned to take care of the paperwork. QuotePM me if you want other examples of measures states are taking to limit a woman's right to choose As I've stated before and will say again, I am PRO CHOICE. I don't think this ruling is anywhere close to an example of limiting a woman's right to choose. If you look at this apolitically, it was a correct assessment. It's arguments like this why liberals are labeled as extremists. Nothing about this ruling would limit a woman's right to choose. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wopelao 0 #78 November 15, 2005 QuoteQuoteThat is the undue burden you are referring to. As I've said, I'm pro-choice, but I don't see that as an undue burden. The finding that "A significant number of women will likely be prevented from obtaining an abortion just as surely as if Pennsylvania had outlawed the procedure entirely." is flawed IMO. I don't see how asking a woman if she told her husband would be likely to prevent her from obtaining an abortion.Quote this is a classic conservative argument. The flip-side of it is that a substantial number of women who don't want to tell their husbands that they are having an abortion don't do so because they fear physical abuse. Alito doesn't seem to care about the fact that some women who are made to tell their husbands will get the shit beat out of them. He doesn't think it's an undue burden, because the women who fear abuse can pursue a Belotti bypass (which is traditionally for juveniles, but Alito directly analogizes the bypass part of the statute to juvenile cases in the quote I provided above). The problem with this is that these bypasses are so complicated in some states that it is difficult for low-income, uneducated women - who are much more likely to suffer abuse - to navigate the system. If you still don't think it's an undue burden, I'll have to respectfully disagree with you. But I studied some of these systems in my constitutional law classes, and the paperwork alone is an undue burden. PM me if you want other examples of measures states are taking to limit a woman's right to choose - I'll send you some court cases. Hope this helps. Brie If you think this way, then men should not be accountable for child support. I think this measure also gives men some sort of right and say about his off spring, something that has been long overlooked in the constitution, men's rights when it comes to family issues. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GTAVercetti 0 #79 November 15, 2005 QuoteQuotethis is a classic conservative argument. HAA!! First time I've been accused of that. dude, that is some funny shit. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites brierebecca 0 #80 November 15, 2005 Here is the section to which you refer: Quote§ 3209. Spousal notice (a) Spousal notice required.--In order to further the Commonwealth's interest in promoting the integrity of the marital relationship and to protect a spouse's interests in having children within marriage and in protecting the prenatal life of that spouse's child, no physician shall perform an abortion on a married woman, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), unless he or she has received a signed statement, which need not be notarized, from the woman upon whom the abortion is to be performed, that she has notified her spouse that she is about to undergo an abortion. The statement shall bear a notice that any false statement made therein is punishable by law. (b) Exceptions.--The statement certifying that the notice required by subsection (a) has been given need not be furnished where the woman provides the physician a signed statement certifying at least one of the following: (1) Her spouse is not the father of the child. (2) Her spouse, after diligent effort, could not be located. (3) The pregnancy is a result of spousal sexual assault as described in section 3128 (relating to spousal sexual assault), which has been reported to a law enforcement agency having the requisite jurisdiction. (4) The woman has reason to believe that the furnishing of notice to her spouse is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her by her spouse or by another individual. Such statement need not be notarized, but shall bear a notice that any false statements made therein are punishable by law. (c) Medical emergency.--The requirements of subsection (a) shall not apply in case of a medical emergency. (d) Forms.--The department shall cause to be published forms which may be utilized for purposes of providing the signed statements required by subsections (a) and (b). The department shall distribute an adequate supply of such forms to all abortion facilities in this Commonwealth. (e) Penalty; civil action.--Any physician who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of "unprofessional conduct," and his or her license for the practice of medicine and surgery shall be subject to suspension or revocation in accordance with procedures provided under the act of October 5, 1978 (P.L. 1109, No. 261), known as the Osteopathic Medical Practice Act, [FN1] the act of December 20, 1985 (P.L. 457, No. 112), known as the Medical Practice Act of 1985, [FN2] or their successor acts. In addition, any physician who knowingly violates the provisions of this section shall be civilly liable to the spouse who is the father of the aborted child for any damages caused thereby and for punitive damages in the amount of $5,000, and the court shall award a prevailing plaintiff a reasonable attorney fee as part of costs. QuoteHow are they made to? All they have to do is tell the Dr. "I told my husband". That's it. They don't check with the husband. It's just a voluntary statement made by the woman before the procedure. wrong. It is not a voluntary statement. It is required that the woman certify in writing that he told her husband. She is criminally liable if she lies about this. It isn't some offhand statement. The woman has the choice of telling her husband or exposing herself to criminal liability. Also, let me reiterate that Justice O'Connor, the author of the undue burden standard, wrote the opinion which stated that this was an undue burden. QuoteWhat states are you referring to? Because this case was in PA, and PA has built in exceptions that are not difficult to navigate. In fact all they really have to do is say they're afraid and a social worker is immediately assigned to take care of the paperwork Wrong again. There is no case worker assigned. The forms are made available at the abortion clinics (see the statute above), and the women have to fill them out and sign them. These forms have huge ramifications, and I wouldn't want to sign one, and expose myself to criminal liability, without a full understanding of the criminal justice system. I will also note that doctors are criminally and civilly liable if any false information is given. QuoteAs I've stated before and will say again, I am PRO CHOICE. I don't think this ruling is anywhere close to an example of limiting a woman's right to choose. If you look at this apolitically, it was a correct assessment. Once again, if you don't think this limits a woman's right to choose, then I will have to respectfully disagree with you. There are different levels of choice. Some states have more stringent abortion statutes than others. Making a woman tell her husband, or lie about it and be criminally liable, is an undue burden according to the supreme court. However, if Alito would have been on the court, it would have come to a different decision. Brie"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ReBirth 0 #81 November 15, 2005 Quote(4) The woman has reason to believe that the furnishing of notice to her spouse is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her by her spouse or by another individual. Such statement need not be notarized, but shall bear a notice that any false statements made therein are punishable by law. All she has to do is sign a statement saying she is afraid. That's it. You're right. There is no caseworker, because that's not even necessary. All she has to do is say she's afraid, she gets the form, and signs it. That's it. Where's the convoluted legal system that the poor and uneducated can't navigate? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites brierebecca 0 #82 November 15, 2005 Maybe it's just my law background, but the words "has reason to believe" have far-reaching ramifications. If a lawsuit is brought against her, she will have the burden of proving that she thought her husband was going to beat her. This is because it's a subjective standard. A layperson signing a form wouldn't know this. Also, in states where the burden is high, it could be difficult to prove that there was reason to believe that she would be abused. She doesn't just have to say she's afraid. She has to subject herself to the possibility of criminal punishment, especially if she can't point to a documented history of abuse to prove her subjective viewpoint. A startling number of abuse cases go unreported. The supreme court thought this burden was too high. I agree with them. Brie"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ReBirth 0 #83 November 15, 2005 QuoteAlso, in states where the burden is high, Again...we're talking PA here. In PA, restraining orders are issued based on accusations, false or otherwise, of the woman. The burden of proof is on the accused to proove they didn't do what they are accused of. QuoteShe doesn't just have to say she's afraid. She has to subject herself to the possibility of criminal punishment, especially if she can't point to a documented history of abuse to prove her subjective viewpoint. Could you find a single instance of anyone being prosecuted for falsely claiming abuse or fear of abuse in PA? Making a supposition about what could happen is not a valid means of determining the burden. "that the woman believes that notifying her husband will cause him or someone else to inflict bodily injury upon her." How do you disprove her belief? ===================== Fine...let's drop all that and agree to disagree. Do you really find it that outlandish, considering I, as someone staunchly pro-choice disagrees with you, that this opinion should not be used to label someone as ANTI ABORTION? It was a legal decision based on an opinion of what undue burden is. I don't think it is undue burden, neither did 3 of the supremes. I don't see how this is being used to label Alito as a rabid anti-abortionist. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites brierebecca 0 #84 November 15, 2005 Quote"that the woman believes that notifying her husband will cause him or someone else to inflict bodily injury upon her." How do you disprove her belief? believing and having reason to believe are not the same thing, especially from a legal standpoint. I'm sure the lawyers on here would agree with me. If you have to have reason to belive something, you have to be able to point to a specific instance which would support your belief. If the abuse is undocumented, that could be difficult. Restraining orders and abortion are not the same thing. It's a specious analogy. Undue burden is not just about what could happen. Just as you didn't understand the ramifications of the phrase "reason to believe," a woman claiming abuse could get confused, and unknowingly subject herself to criminal prosecution because she was not aware of what she was signing onto. Okay, agree to disagree. I also never said that Alito was anti-abortion. I said his opinion of what "undue burden" means is troubling. I think that he is anti-abortion, but has been stopped from ruling abortion statutes unconstitutional because he doesn't have the power to do so. If he becomes a Supreme, he will have the opportunity to set the precedent. Not that I think Roe is going out the window. I just think that it will become so restricted that it will become less about choice and more about medical necesssity. The Casey, Thornberg, and Hodgson rulings all support my contention. In fact, almost every ruling to come out of the Supreme Court recently on abortion has restricted it. I also don't think you're not Pro-choice. I just think that this undue burden analysis is not a highly publicized debate, and it's quietly chipping away at a woman's right to choose. Brie"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ReBirth 0 #85 November 15, 2005 QuoteUndue burden is not just about what could happen. Just as you didn't understand the ramifications of the phrase "reason to believe," a woman claiming abuse could get confused, and unknowingly subject herself to criminal prosecution because she was not aware of what she was signing onto. Can you find a single instance of that happening in PA? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites brierebecca 0 #86 November 15, 2005 QuoteCan you find a single instance of that happening in PA? It doesn't matter. Whether the effect of the burden actually happens is not a factor in the undue burden analysis. It's whether the burden exists at all. Here, the burden is the ramifications of the signature. A woman shouldn't have to put herself in that position to have an abortion. That is the burden. It's not whether she is actually confused and subjected to criminal prosecution, it's that she could be. A woman should not have to answer for her belief that she will be abused in a courtroom. It shouldn't even be an issue. But the language of the statute makes it an issue, and this is why it's an undue burden. Brie"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ReBirth 0 #87 November 15, 2005 QuoteIt's not whether she is actually confused and subjected to criminal prosecution, it's that she could be. Only if she is lying. If she is telling the truth, what jeopardy is she in? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites brierebecca 0 #88 November 15, 2005 QuoteOnly if she is lying. If she is telling the truth, what jeopardy is she in? Even if she isn't lying, she shouldn't be put in a position where she has to prove it. I'm not sure what is so hard about this.... The burden is not that she would have to lie. It's that if she makes these allegations, she may have to prove them in a criminal proceeding. The statute is clear about this. You are belaboring something that isn't the point. I'm done explaining the legal issues here. It's obvious that we're on opposite sides of the spectrum when it comes to this. I don't even think the bypass list is all-inclusive. There are many other reasons a woman wouldn't want to tell her husband that she is having an abortion than the 4 the statute lists. I don't see a problem with it. It's her choice. I'll be back in here if there's another Supreme Court thread, but I'm tired of this one.... Brie"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #89 November 15, 2005 Quotethe words "has reason to believe" have far-reaching ramifications. If a lawsuit is brought against her, she will have the burden of proving that she thought her husband was going to beat her. First question - a lawsuit for what? Quotein states where the burden is high, it could be difficult to prove that there was reason to believe that she would be abused. Those states would likely have alternative language. This is just Pennsylvania we're talking about and the standard seems pretty low. QuoteShe has to subject herself to the possibility of criminal punishment, especially if she can't point to a documented history of abuse to prove her subjective viewpoint. This seems to be an overly broad approach that you are using. If she has "reason to believe" then she "has reason to believe." This is subjective on HER part. Seems to me the prosecution would have to prove that she had NO reason to believe it. She doesn't have to prove she had a reason. Prosecutors would have to prove she did not, which is a pretty tough thing to do "beyond a reasonable doubt." QuoteThe supreme court thought this burden was too high. I agree with them. Alito did not think the burden was too high. You respectfully disagree. Hell, I'm a libertarian, but perhaps I'm viewing this from the guy angle. If my wife is pregnant, I want to have the opportunity to raise this child. Also, is it slipping your mind that it nowhere in the statute requires the husband's consent? All it says is that she's gotta say, "I'm pregnant and I'm terminating it." The husband has no choice. None. Zip. Zero. Zulch. Nada. At least, that is my reading of the statute. Can it be done by telephone? Yep. E-mail? Yep. Letter? Yep. In person? Yep. I respectfully disagree that this is an "undue burden." I'm not a pro-lifer by any means. But I'm also someone who likes to look at individual cases instead of blanket policies for and against. I personally like that this sets up a case-by-case look at it. As an aside, what choices/rights do you think a father/husband should have? None? Lots? A few? How about responsibilities? None? Lots? A few? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Wopelao 0 #90 November 15, 2005 QuoteMaybe it's just my law background, but the words "has reason to believe" have far-reaching ramifications. If a lawsuit is brought against her, she will have the burden of proving that she thought her husband was going to beat her. This is because it's a subjective standard. A layperson signing a form wouldn't know this. Also, in states where the burden is high, it could be difficult to prove that there was reason to believe that she would be abused. She doesn't just have to say she's afraid. She has to subject herself to the possibility of criminal punishment, especially if she can't point to a documented history of abuse to prove her subjective viewpoint. A startling number of abuse cases go unreported. The supreme court thought this burden was too high. I agree with them. I would say your comment for the most part is BS. Have you visited family court recently, any state.? The problem with belief, as rebirth was saying, is that there is not proof except for what ever belief the woman has inside her head, truth or not, it will be upheld by the courts regardless, as there is no need of "undue burden of proof" to anyone who "believes" is in danger. There is no middle ground in court decisions based on "belief" instead of proof, one is that an asshole that has money, can post bail and go kill her SO, on the other hand it allows for abuse of shady women who use this as shelter to not to be held accountable to anyone anytime they "feel" like it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #91 November 15, 2005 QuoteAs an aside, what choices/rights do you think a father/husband should have? None? Lots? A few? How about responsibilities? None? Lots? A few? rights - typical answer is "none" (but it's always caveated with statement that he should get to 'discuss' it, and bluster and talk and so on,....... BUT - there's always the but - she get's the 'final' decision. I like that phrase 'final decision' as opposed to 'decision', it makes it seem like there are other 'decisions' prior to it) responsibilities - let's rephrase that to "financial support burden" - typical answer is 'lots' (tagged with a bunch of 'depends', but still 'lots') either way, I'd like to see the two questions get in sync...... right now they aren't in sync and covered in sweet sweet candy-like prose to make it seem ok. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites brierebecca 0 #92 November 15, 2005 QuoteFirst question - a lawsuit for what? The statute is clear that she is criminally liable if she falsifies the form. If her husband reports her to a criminal justice agency after she has an abortion without telling him, and that agency prosecutes, that's a lawsuit. QuoteThis seems to be an overly broad approach that you are using. If she has "reason to believe" then she "has reason to believe." This is subjective on HER part. Seems to me the prosecution would have to prove that she had NO reason to believe it. She doesn't have to prove she had a reason. Prosecutors would have to prove she did not, which is a pretty tough thing to do "beyond a reasonable doubt." It's been a year since I was in a criminal law class, but the language "reason to believe" in several cases (I'd have to drag out my casebook to cite them, I'll try to do that later) required there be something upon which the defendant could base his beliefs. If there is no documented history of abuse (no complaints, etc), then I could see the prosecution having a very easy time proving that she had no basis for believing that she would come to bodily harm. Especially because the proof that the belief was reasonable is not subjective. It's objective. QuotePennsylvania Supreme Court observed: [T]he requirement that the defendant be operating under a reasonable belief that he is in imminent danger of death, great bodily harm, or some felony, involves two elements. First, the defendant must have acted out of an honest, bona fide belief that he was in imminent danger. Second, the belief must be reasonable in light of the facts as they appeared to him. The first element is entirely subjective; the second element is entirely objective. That's from Com v. Hill, and it's the standard for reasonable belief in Pennsylvania. If the reasonableness part is objective, then I could see a jury finding that if there is no documented history of abuse, then there is no reason for her to believe that she may be abused, even if that belief was warranted. I guess I disagree that the husband gets any rights at all when it comes to having the child. He doesn't have to carry it, and he doesn't have to expose himself to the dangers of childbirth. I would never want to live in a society in which my husband could make me carry a child for nine months and have it if I truly didn't want to have it, or if it wasn't safe for me to have it. Responsibilities? It doesn't seem part of the discussion to me. We're talking about having a child, not supporting the child after it is born. That's just my take on it. I've known several women who were abused, and I would never want to be in that situation, especially if an abortion was in the picture. Brie"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites brierebecca 0 #93 November 15, 2005 QuoteThe problem with belief, as rebirth was saying, is that there is not proof except for what ever belief the woman has inside her head, truth or not, it will be upheld by the courts regardless, as there is no need of "undue burden of proof" to anyone who "believes" is in danger. I'm not going to respond because you're confusing the issues of "undue burden" and "burden of proof." You're also confused between "belief" and "has reason to believe." See my post below for more clarification. brie"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #94 November 15, 2005 QuoteWe're talking about having a child, not supporting the child after it is born. Separate discussion - How do you separate the two concepts? Being able to do that seems to indicate something less than ......... I don't know what word to use here. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ReBirth 0 #95 November 15, 2005 QuoteEven if she isn't lying, she shouldn't be put in a position where she has to prove it. I'm not sure what is so hard about this.... What's so hard is that she does NOT have to prove it. She just has to say it, and sign her name to it. If you can find a case of that ever being challenged, fine. But I don't think you will. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ReBirth 0 #96 November 15, 2005 QuoteI respectfully disagree that this is an "undue burden." I'm not a pro-lifer by any means. But I'm also someone who likes to look at individual cases instead of blanket policies for and against. I personally like that this sets up a case-by-case look at it. As an aside, what choices/rights do you think a father/husband should have? None? Lots? A few? How about responsibilities? None? Lots? A few? Damn...dude...I've been waiting for you to step in. I'm no law talking guy like you. But it seems pretty clear to me, as a pro-choice, anti-establishment type of person, that this is a non-issue as far as putting a burden on anyone. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #97 November 15, 2005 I think you are getting into an issue of statutory construction. "Reasonable belief" and "Reason to believe" are entirely different things. "Reasonable" puts an objective standard on it. Let's say that there would have to be a reasonable belief of physical violence if required to notify the husband. This would mean that there would likely have to be some history of violence to establish this. On the other hand, for "reason to believe" all she needs is a reason. For example, her husband told her a few weeks ago he'd smack her if she had an abortion without telling him first. Or, if the husband has a prior arrest (but no conviction) for domestic violence for a previous girlfriend. Or, if his mother says something about his temper to the wife. All of these provide a "reason to believe." I don't think you can interchange "reason to believe" with "reasonable" any more than you can interchange "subjective" with "subject of." Of course, if I am wrong, that's what I get for actually believing that words mean what they say they mean... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ReBirth 0 #98 November 15, 2005 Everything I see on this guy continues to impress me. Granted it's just what the "left wing media" has portrayed, but he comes across as being honest, intelligent, and with integrity. Those qualities are vital in a SC justice. http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mymod/hdln/rt/sty/*http://story.news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051115/pl_nm/court_alito_dc Quote"'It was different then'," Feinstein quoted Alito as saying. "'I was an advocate seeking a job, a political job and that was 1985'." "'I'm now a judge. I've been on the circuit court for 15 years. It's very different. I'm not an advocate'," Feinstein said. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Wopelao 0 #99 November 16, 2005 I agree with you, but it has come to the point where the nomination is rather discussed as to what "personal" opinion the judge has about abortion. It looks like the fact that they can rule based on law is not very important at least according to the media. Sad. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ReBirth 0 #100 November 16, 2005 I was actually being sarcastic. I think that piece I linked to from Reuters was very fair and favorable to him. Even though Gawain said yesterday that Reuters is one of the most biased liberal sources out there Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 4 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
GTAVercetti 0 #79 November 15, 2005 QuoteQuotethis is a classic conservative argument. HAA!! First time I've been accused of that. dude, that is some funny shit. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brierebecca 0 #80 November 15, 2005 Here is the section to which you refer: Quote§ 3209. Spousal notice (a) Spousal notice required.--In order to further the Commonwealth's interest in promoting the integrity of the marital relationship and to protect a spouse's interests in having children within marriage and in protecting the prenatal life of that spouse's child, no physician shall perform an abortion on a married woman, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), unless he or she has received a signed statement, which need not be notarized, from the woman upon whom the abortion is to be performed, that she has notified her spouse that she is about to undergo an abortion. The statement shall bear a notice that any false statement made therein is punishable by law. (b) Exceptions.--The statement certifying that the notice required by subsection (a) has been given need not be furnished where the woman provides the physician a signed statement certifying at least one of the following: (1) Her spouse is not the father of the child. (2) Her spouse, after diligent effort, could not be located. (3) The pregnancy is a result of spousal sexual assault as described in section 3128 (relating to spousal sexual assault), which has been reported to a law enforcement agency having the requisite jurisdiction. (4) The woman has reason to believe that the furnishing of notice to her spouse is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her by her spouse or by another individual. Such statement need not be notarized, but shall bear a notice that any false statements made therein are punishable by law. (c) Medical emergency.--The requirements of subsection (a) shall not apply in case of a medical emergency. (d) Forms.--The department shall cause to be published forms which may be utilized for purposes of providing the signed statements required by subsections (a) and (b). The department shall distribute an adequate supply of such forms to all abortion facilities in this Commonwealth. (e) Penalty; civil action.--Any physician who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of "unprofessional conduct," and his or her license for the practice of medicine and surgery shall be subject to suspension or revocation in accordance with procedures provided under the act of October 5, 1978 (P.L. 1109, No. 261), known as the Osteopathic Medical Practice Act, [FN1] the act of December 20, 1985 (P.L. 457, No. 112), known as the Medical Practice Act of 1985, [FN2] or their successor acts. In addition, any physician who knowingly violates the provisions of this section shall be civilly liable to the spouse who is the father of the aborted child for any damages caused thereby and for punitive damages in the amount of $5,000, and the court shall award a prevailing plaintiff a reasonable attorney fee as part of costs. QuoteHow are they made to? All they have to do is tell the Dr. "I told my husband". That's it. They don't check with the husband. It's just a voluntary statement made by the woman before the procedure. wrong. It is not a voluntary statement. It is required that the woman certify in writing that he told her husband. She is criminally liable if she lies about this. It isn't some offhand statement. The woman has the choice of telling her husband or exposing herself to criminal liability. Also, let me reiterate that Justice O'Connor, the author of the undue burden standard, wrote the opinion which stated that this was an undue burden. QuoteWhat states are you referring to? Because this case was in PA, and PA has built in exceptions that are not difficult to navigate. In fact all they really have to do is say they're afraid and a social worker is immediately assigned to take care of the paperwork Wrong again. There is no case worker assigned. The forms are made available at the abortion clinics (see the statute above), and the women have to fill them out and sign them. These forms have huge ramifications, and I wouldn't want to sign one, and expose myself to criminal liability, without a full understanding of the criminal justice system. I will also note that doctors are criminally and civilly liable if any false information is given. QuoteAs I've stated before and will say again, I am PRO CHOICE. I don't think this ruling is anywhere close to an example of limiting a woman's right to choose. If you look at this apolitically, it was a correct assessment. Once again, if you don't think this limits a woman's right to choose, then I will have to respectfully disagree with you. There are different levels of choice. Some states have more stringent abortion statutes than others. Making a woman tell her husband, or lie about it and be criminally liable, is an undue burden according to the supreme court. However, if Alito would have been on the court, it would have come to a different decision. Brie"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #81 November 15, 2005 Quote(4) The woman has reason to believe that the furnishing of notice to her spouse is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her by her spouse or by another individual. Such statement need not be notarized, but shall bear a notice that any false statements made therein are punishable by law. All she has to do is sign a statement saying she is afraid. That's it. You're right. There is no caseworker, because that's not even necessary. All she has to do is say she's afraid, she gets the form, and signs it. That's it. Where's the convoluted legal system that the poor and uneducated can't navigate? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brierebecca 0 #82 November 15, 2005 Maybe it's just my law background, but the words "has reason to believe" have far-reaching ramifications. If a lawsuit is brought against her, she will have the burden of proving that she thought her husband was going to beat her. This is because it's a subjective standard. A layperson signing a form wouldn't know this. Also, in states where the burden is high, it could be difficult to prove that there was reason to believe that she would be abused. She doesn't just have to say she's afraid. She has to subject herself to the possibility of criminal punishment, especially if she can't point to a documented history of abuse to prove her subjective viewpoint. A startling number of abuse cases go unreported. The supreme court thought this burden was too high. I agree with them. Brie"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #83 November 15, 2005 QuoteAlso, in states where the burden is high, Again...we're talking PA here. In PA, restraining orders are issued based on accusations, false or otherwise, of the woman. The burden of proof is on the accused to proove they didn't do what they are accused of. QuoteShe doesn't just have to say she's afraid. She has to subject herself to the possibility of criminal punishment, especially if she can't point to a documented history of abuse to prove her subjective viewpoint. Could you find a single instance of anyone being prosecuted for falsely claiming abuse or fear of abuse in PA? Making a supposition about what could happen is not a valid means of determining the burden. "that the woman believes that notifying her husband will cause him or someone else to inflict bodily injury upon her." How do you disprove her belief? ===================== Fine...let's drop all that and agree to disagree. Do you really find it that outlandish, considering I, as someone staunchly pro-choice disagrees with you, that this opinion should not be used to label someone as ANTI ABORTION? It was a legal decision based on an opinion of what undue burden is. I don't think it is undue burden, neither did 3 of the supremes. I don't see how this is being used to label Alito as a rabid anti-abortionist. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brierebecca 0 #84 November 15, 2005 Quote"that the woman believes that notifying her husband will cause him or someone else to inflict bodily injury upon her." How do you disprove her belief? believing and having reason to believe are not the same thing, especially from a legal standpoint. I'm sure the lawyers on here would agree with me. If you have to have reason to belive something, you have to be able to point to a specific instance which would support your belief. If the abuse is undocumented, that could be difficult. Restraining orders and abortion are not the same thing. It's a specious analogy. Undue burden is not just about what could happen. Just as you didn't understand the ramifications of the phrase "reason to believe," a woman claiming abuse could get confused, and unknowingly subject herself to criminal prosecution because she was not aware of what she was signing onto. Okay, agree to disagree. I also never said that Alito was anti-abortion. I said his opinion of what "undue burden" means is troubling. I think that he is anti-abortion, but has been stopped from ruling abortion statutes unconstitutional because he doesn't have the power to do so. If he becomes a Supreme, he will have the opportunity to set the precedent. Not that I think Roe is going out the window. I just think that it will become so restricted that it will become less about choice and more about medical necesssity. The Casey, Thornberg, and Hodgson rulings all support my contention. In fact, almost every ruling to come out of the Supreme Court recently on abortion has restricted it. I also don't think you're not Pro-choice. I just think that this undue burden analysis is not a highly publicized debate, and it's quietly chipping away at a woman's right to choose. Brie"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #85 November 15, 2005 QuoteUndue burden is not just about what could happen. Just as you didn't understand the ramifications of the phrase "reason to believe," a woman claiming abuse could get confused, and unknowingly subject herself to criminal prosecution because she was not aware of what she was signing onto. Can you find a single instance of that happening in PA? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brierebecca 0 #86 November 15, 2005 QuoteCan you find a single instance of that happening in PA? It doesn't matter. Whether the effect of the burden actually happens is not a factor in the undue burden analysis. It's whether the burden exists at all. Here, the burden is the ramifications of the signature. A woman shouldn't have to put herself in that position to have an abortion. That is the burden. It's not whether she is actually confused and subjected to criminal prosecution, it's that she could be. A woman should not have to answer for her belief that she will be abused in a courtroom. It shouldn't even be an issue. But the language of the statute makes it an issue, and this is why it's an undue burden. Brie"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #87 November 15, 2005 QuoteIt's not whether she is actually confused and subjected to criminal prosecution, it's that she could be. Only if she is lying. If she is telling the truth, what jeopardy is she in? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brierebecca 0 #88 November 15, 2005 QuoteOnly if she is lying. If she is telling the truth, what jeopardy is she in? Even if she isn't lying, she shouldn't be put in a position where she has to prove it. I'm not sure what is so hard about this.... The burden is not that she would have to lie. It's that if she makes these allegations, she may have to prove them in a criminal proceeding. The statute is clear about this. You are belaboring something that isn't the point. I'm done explaining the legal issues here. It's obvious that we're on opposite sides of the spectrum when it comes to this. I don't even think the bypass list is all-inclusive. There are many other reasons a woman wouldn't want to tell her husband that she is having an abortion than the 4 the statute lists. I don't see a problem with it. It's her choice. I'll be back in here if there's another Supreme Court thread, but I'm tired of this one.... Brie"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #89 November 15, 2005 Quotethe words "has reason to believe" have far-reaching ramifications. If a lawsuit is brought against her, she will have the burden of proving that she thought her husband was going to beat her. First question - a lawsuit for what? Quotein states where the burden is high, it could be difficult to prove that there was reason to believe that she would be abused. Those states would likely have alternative language. This is just Pennsylvania we're talking about and the standard seems pretty low. QuoteShe has to subject herself to the possibility of criminal punishment, especially if she can't point to a documented history of abuse to prove her subjective viewpoint. This seems to be an overly broad approach that you are using. If she has "reason to believe" then she "has reason to believe." This is subjective on HER part. Seems to me the prosecution would have to prove that she had NO reason to believe it. She doesn't have to prove she had a reason. Prosecutors would have to prove she did not, which is a pretty tough thing to do "beyond a reasonable doubt." QuoteThe supreme court thought this burden was too high. I agree with them. Alito did not think the burden was too high. You respectfully disagree. Hell, I'm a libertarian, but perhaps I'm viewing this from the guy angle. If my wife is pregnant, I want to have the opportunity to raise this child. Also, is it slipping your mind that it nowhere in the statute requires the husband's consent? All it says is that she's gotta say, "I'm pregnant and I'm terminating it." The husband has no choice. None. Zip. Zero. Zulch. Nada. At least, that is my reading of the statute. Can it be done by telephone? Yep. E-mail? Yep. Letter? Yep. In person? Yep. I respectfully disagree that this is an "undue burden." I'm not a pro-lifer by any means. But I'm also someone who likes to look at individual cases instead of blanket policies for and against. I personally like that this sets up a case-by-case look at it. As an aside, what choices/rights do you think a father/husband should have? None? Lots? A few? How about responsibilities? None? Lots? A few? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wopelao 0 #90 November 15, 2005 QuoteMaybe it's just my law background, but the words "has reason to believe" have far-reaching ramifications. If a lawsuit is brought against her, she will have the burden of proving that she thought her husband was going to beat her. This is because it's a subjective standard. A layperson signing a form wouldn't know this. Also, in states where the burden is high, it could be difficult to prove that there was reason to believe that she would be abused. She doesn't just have to say she's afraid. She has to subject herself to the possibility of criminal punishment, especially if she can't point to a documented history of abuse to prove her subjective viewpoint. A startling number of abuse cases go unreported. The supreme court thought this burden was too high. I agree with them. I would say your comment for the most part is BS. Have you visited family court recently, any state.? The problem with belief, as rebirth was saying, is that there is not proof except for what ever belief the woman has inside her head, truth or not, it will be upheld by the courts regardless, as there is no need of "undue burden of proof" to anyone who "believes" is in danger. There is no middle ground in court decisions based on "belief" instead of proof, one is that an asshole that has money, can post bail and go kill her SO, on the other hand it allows for abuse of shady women who use this as shelter to not to be held accountable to anyone anytime they "feel" like it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #91 November 15, 2005 QuoteAs an aside, what choices/rights do you think a father/husband should have? None? Lots? A few? How about responsibilities? None? Lots? A few? rights - typical answer is "none" (but it's always caveated with statement that he should get to 'discuss' it, and bluster and talk and so on,....... BUT - there's always the but - she get's the 'final' decision. I like that phrase 'final decision' as opposed to 'decision', it makes it seem like there are other 'decisions' prior to it) responsibilities - let's rephrase that to "financial support burden" - typical answer is 'lots' (tagged with a bunch of 'depends', but still 'lots') either way, I'd like to see the two questions get in sync...... right now they aren't in sync and covered in sweet sweet candy-like prose to make it seem ok. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brierebecca 0 #92 November 15, 2005 QuoteFirst question - a lawsuit for what? The statute is clear that she is criminally liable if she falsifies the form. If her husband reports her to a criminal justice agency after she has an abortion without telling him, and that agency prosecutes, that's a lawsuit. QuoteThis seems to be an overly broad approach that you are using. If she has "reason to believe" then she "has reason to believe." This is subjective on HER part. Seems to me the prosecution would have to prove that she had NO reason to believe it. She doesn't have to prove she had a reason. Prosecutors would have to prove she did not, which is a pretty tough thing to do "beyond a reasonable doubt." It's been a year since I was in a criminal law class, but the language "reason to believe" in several cases (I'd have to drag out my casebook to cite them, I'll try to do that later) required there be something upon which the defendant could base his beliefs. If there is no documented history of abuse (no complaints, etc), then I could see the prosecution having a very easy time proving that she had no basis for believing that she would come to bodily harm. Especially because the proof that the belief was reasonable is not subjective. It's objective. QuotePennsylvania Supreme Court observed: [T]he requirement that the defendant be operating under a reasonable belief that he is in imminent danger of death, great bodily harm, or some felony, involves two elements. First, the defendant must have acted out of an honest, bona fide belief that he was in imminent danger. Second, the belief must be reasonable in light of the facts as they appeared to him. The first element is entirely subjective; the second element is entirely objective. That's from Com v. Hill, and it's the standard for reasonable belief in Pennsylvania. If the reasonableness part is objective, then I could see a jury finding that if there is no documented history of abuse, then there is no reason for her to believe that she may be abused, even if that belief was warranted. I guess I disagree that the husband gets any rights at all when it comes to having the child. He doesn't have to carry it, and he doesn't have to expose himself to the dangers of childbirth. I would never want to live in a society in which my husband could make me carry a child for nine months and have it if I truly didn't want to have it, or if it wasn't safe for me to have it. Responsibilities? It doesn't seem part of the discussion to me. We're talking about having a child, not supporting the child after it is born. That's just my take on it. I've known several women who were abused, and I would never want to be in that situation, especially if an abortion was in the picture. Brie"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brierebecca 0 #93 November 15, 2005 QuoteThe problem with belief, as rebirth was saying, is that there is not proof except for what ever belief the woman has inside her head, truth or not, it will be upheld by the courts regardless, as there is no need of "undue burden of proof" to anyone who "believes" is in danger. I'm not going to respond because you're confusing the issues of "undue burden" and "burden of proof." You're also confused between "belief" and "has reason to believe." See my post below for more clarification. brie"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #94 November 15, 2005 QuoteWe're talking about having a child, not supporting the child after it is born. Separate discussion - How do you separate the two concepts? Being able to do that seems to indicate something less than ......... I don't know what word to use here. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #95 November 15, 2005 QuoteEven if she isn't lying, she shouldn't be put in a position where she has to prove it. I'm not sure what is so hard about this.... What's so hard is that she does NOT have to prove it. She just has to say it, and sign her name to it. If you can find a case of that ever being challenged, fine. But I don't think you will. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #96 November 15, 2005 QuoteI respectfully disagree that this is an "undue burden." I'm not a pro-lifer by any means. But I'm also someone who likes to look at individual cases instead of blanket policies for and against. I personally like that this sets up a case-by-case look at it. As an aside, what choices/rights do you think a father/husband should have? None? Lots? A few? How about responsibilities? None? Lots? A few? Damn...dude...I've been waiting for you to step in. I'm no law talking guy like you. But it seems pretty clear to me, as a pro-choice, anti-establishment type of person, that this is a non-issue as far as putting a burden on anyone. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #97 November 15, 2005 I think you are getting into an issue of statutory construction. "Reasonable belief" and "Reason to believe" are entirely different things. "Reasonable" puts an objective standard on it. Let's say that there would have to be a reasonable belief of physical violence if required to notify the husband. This would mean that there would likely have to be some history of violence to establish this. On the other hand, for "reason to believe" all she needs is a reason. For example, her husband told her a few weeks ago he'd smack her if she had an abortion without telling him first. Or, if the husband has a prior arrest (but no conviction) for domestic violence for a previous girlfriend. Or, if his mother says something about his temper to the wife. All of these provide a "reason to believe." I don't think you can interchange "reason to believe" with "reasonable" any more than you can interchange "subjective" with "subject of." Of course, if I am wrong, that's what I get for actually believing that words mean what they say they mean... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #98 November 15, 2005 Everything I see on this guy continues to impress me. Granted it's just what the "left wing media" has portrayed, but he comes across as being honest, intelligent, and with integrity. Those qualities are vital in a SC justice. http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mymod/hdln/rt/sty/*http://story.news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051115/pl_nm/court_alito_dc Quote"'It was different then'," Feinstein quoted Alito as saying. "'I was an advocate seeking a job, a political job and that was 1985'." "'I'm now a judge. I've been on the circuit court for 15 years. It's very different. I'm not an advocate'," Feinstein said. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wopelao 0 #99 November 16, 2005 I agree with you, but it has come to the point where the nomination is rather discussed as to what "personal" opinion the judge has about abortion. It looks like the fact that they can rule based on law is not very important at least according to the media. Sad. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #100 November 16, 2005 I was actually being sarcastic. I think that piece I linked to from Reuters was very fair and favorable to him. Even though Gawain said yesterday that Reuters is one of the most biased liberal sources out there Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
