SCOTUS - Pretending to be a doctor = Free Speech

[Jimmy Higgins]

Okay, that might not be the fairest of paraphrases from SCOTUS's mouth, but this is effectively what they ruled in another bullshit 5-4 decision.

 

[Underseer]

This is about those "clinics" that pretend to have real doctors but are just Christians trying to discourage abortion, right?

Disgusting, but hardly surprising. Pretending to be a doctor and giving health advice is fine. What could possibly go wrong with letting non-doctors give health advice?

 

[James Madison]

Okay, that might not be the fairest of paraphrases from SCOTUS's mouth, but this is effectively what they ruled in another bullshit 5-4 decision.

To the contrary, the majority opinion is a good decision, a strong decision, consistent with prior precedent by the Court and the long standing notion by the Court that the government cannot compel speech.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

From SCOTUSBlog:

One interesting dynamic in this case is that many states have laws telling abortion providers what they need to say to women seeking abortions. Those laws have been challenged as undue burdens on the right to obtain an abortion -- and, as Breyer points out, have been upheld since Casey. But they haven't been challenged under the kind of First Amendment theory developed here. In the long run, the ruling here may limit states' ability to force doctors to provide certain kinds of information.

This alleged "free speech" shit is getting so fucking tiring.

 

[Underseer]

Okay, that might not be the fairest of paraphrases from SCOTUS's mouth, but this is effectively what they ruled in another bullshit 5-4 decision.

To the contrary, the majority opinion is a good decision, a strong decision, consistent with prior precedent by the Court and the long standing notion by the Court that the government cannot compel speech.

Really?

Pretending to be a doctor is free speech, and you find that reasonable?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Okay, that might not be the fairest of paraphrases from SCOTUS's mouth, but this is effectively what they ruled in another bullshit 5-4 decision.

To the contrary, the majority opinion is a good decision, a strong decision, consistent with prior precedent by the Court and the long standing notion by the Court that the government cannot compel speech.

Yeah, Doctors have to do backflips when it comes providing an abortion, but the second "medical" people have to provide honest info regarding abortion, it is a free speech problem.

 

[James Madison]

Okay, that might not be the fairest of paraphrases from SCOTUS's mouth, but this is effectively what they ruled in another bullshit 5-4 decision.

To the contrary, the majority opinion is a good decision, a strong decision, consistent with prior precedent by the Court and the long standing notion by the Court that the government cannot compel speech.

Really?

Pretending to be a doctor is free speech, and you find that reasonable?

Except the case was not about pretending to be a doctor.

- - - Updated - - -

From SCOTUSBlog:

One interesting dynamic in this case is that many states have laws telling abortion providers what they need to say to women seeking abortions. Those laws have been challenged as undue burdens on the right to obtain an abortion -- and, as Breyer points out, have been upheld since Casey. But they haven't been challenged under the kind of First Amendment theory developed here. In the long run, the ruling here may limit states' ability to force doctors to provide certain kinds of information.

This alleged "free speech" shit is getting so fucking tiring.

Yeah I know, the 1st Amendment Free Speech Clause is so cumbersome, if only you, as tyrant Higgins, could just delete the provision so it could no longer impede a transformation of the U.S. commensurate with your point of view.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Even if the State had presented a nonhypotheticaljustification, the FACT Act unduly burdens protected speech.It imposes a government-scripted, speaker-based disclosure requirementthat is wholly disconnected from the State’s informational interest.It requires covered facilities to post California’s precise notice,no matter what the facilities say on site or in their advertisements.And it covers a curiously narrow subset of speakers: those that primarilyprovide pregnancy-related services, but not those that provide,e.g., nonprescription birth control.

States passed laws requiring literature to patients and actual delays in providing medical services regarding an abortion. And Thomas was no where to be seen whining about that. This is one of the more blatantly BS decisions in recent memory.

- - - Updated - - -

Really?

Pretending to be a doctor is free speech, and you find that reasonable?

Except the case was not about pretending to be a doctor.

- - - Updated - - -

From SCOTUSBlog:

One interesting dynamic in this case is that many states have laws telling abortion providers what they need to say to women seeking abortions. Those laws have been challenged as undue burdens on the right to obtain an abortion -- and, as Breyer points out, have been upheld since Casey. But they haven't been challenged under the kind of First Amendment theory developed here. In the long run, the ruling here may limit states' ability to force doctors to provide certain kinds of information.

This alleged "free speech" shit is getting so fucking tiring.

Yeah I know, the 1st Amendment Free Speech Clause is so cumbersome, if only you, as tyrant Higgins, could just delete the provision so it could no longer impede a transformation of the U.S. commensurate with your point of view.

I put the term in quotes for obvious contextual reasons. Campaign finance = "free speech", pretending to be a doctor and give bullshit medical advice = "free speech". No one is saying that people shouldn't be allowed to speak against abortion.

 

[James Madison]

States passed laws requiring literature to patients and actual delays in providing medical services regarding an abortion. And Thomas was no where to be seen whining about that. This is one of the more blatantly BS decisions in recent memory.

- - - Updated - - -

Except the case was not about pretending to be a doctor.

- - - Updated - - -

From SCOTUSBlog:

One interesting dynamic in this case is that many states have laws telling abortion providers what they need to say to women seeking abortions. Those laws have been challenged as undue burdens on the right to obtain an abortion -- and, as Breyer points out, have been upheld since Casey. But they haven't been challenged under the kind of First Amendment theory developed here. In the long run, the ruling here may limit states' ability to force doctors to provide certain kinds of information.

This alleged "free speech" shit is getting so fucking tiring.

Yeah I know, the 1st Amendment Free Speech Clause is so cumbersome, if only you, as tyrant Higgins, could just delete the provision so it could no longer impede a transformation of the U.S. commensurate with your point of view.

I put the term in quotes for obvious contextual reasons. Campaign finance = "free speech", pretending to be a doctor and give bullshit medical advice = "free speech". No one is saying that people shouldn't be allowed to speak against abortion.

As usual, your point of view is divorced from the facts of the opinion.

 

[laughing dog]

As usual, your point of view is divorced from the facts of the opinion.

Regardless, if this decisions permits people to pretend to be physicians and fool people in medical decisions, then something needs to be done, because that result is wrong.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

States passed laws requiring literature to patients and actual delays in providing medical services regarding an abortion. And Thomas was no where to be seen whining about that. This is one of the more blatantly BS decisions in recent memory.

- - - Updated - - -

Except the case was not about pretending to be a doctor.

- - - Updated - - -

From SCOTUSBlog:


This alleged "free speech" shit is getting so fucking tiring.

Yeah I know, the 1st Amendment Free Speech Clause is so cumbersome, if only you, as tyrant Higgins, could just delete the provision so it could no longer impede a transformation of the U.S. commensurate with your point of view.

I put the term in quotes for obvious contextual reasons. Campaign finance = "free speech", pretending to be a doctor and give bullshit medical advice = "free speech". No one is saying that people shouldn't be allowed to speak against abortion.

As usual, your point of view is divorced from the facts of the opinion.

Taking Casey as controlling, the law’s demand for evenhandednessrequires a different answer than that perhapssuggested by Akron and Thornburgh. If a State can lawfullyrequire a doctor to tell a woman seeking an abortionabout adoption services, why should it not be able, as here,to require a medical counselor to tell a woman seeking prenatal care or other reproductive healthcare aboutchildbirth and abortion services? As the question suggests,there is no convincing reason to distinguish betweeninformation about adoption and information about abortionin this context. After all, the rule of law embodiesevenhandedness, and “what is sauce for the goose is normallysauce for the gander.” Heffernan v. City of Paterson,578 U. S. ___, ___ (2016) (slip op., at 6).

And this is the problem and show the intellectual dishonesty of both the anti-abortion crowd and their supportive Justices.

 

[Elixir]

Guess it's time to set up "Christian Counseling Centers" where pretend Doctors recommend abortions for every pregnant woman. After a generation or two, maybe there won't be so many morons genuflecting to authoritarians, and maybe even a majority of thinking people on the SCOTUS.

 

[James Madison]

States passed laws requiring literature to patients and actual delays in providing medical services regarding an abortion. And Thomas was no where to be seen whining about that. This is one of the more blatantly BS decisions in recent memory.

- - - Updated - - -

Except the case was not about pretending to be a doctor.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah I know, the 1st Amendment Free Speech Clause is so cumbersome, if only you, as tyrant Higgins, could just delete the provision so it could no longer impede a transformation of the U.S. commensurate with your point of view.

I put the term in quotes for obvious contextual reasons. Campaign finance = "free speech", pretending to be a doctor and give bullshit medical advice = "free speech". No one is saying that people shouldn't be allowed to speak against abortion.

As usual, your point of view is divorced from the facts of the opinion.

Taking Casey as controlling, the law’s demand for evenhandednessrequires a different answer than that perhapssuggested by Akron and Thornburgh. If a State can lawfullyrequire a doctor to tell a woman seeking an abortionabout adoption services, why should it not be able, as here,to require a medical counselor to tell a woman seeking prenatal care or other reproductive healthcare aboutchildbirth and abortion services? As the question suggests,there is no convincing reason to distinguish betweeninformation about adoption and information about abortionin this context. After all, the rule of law embodiesevenhandedness, and “what is sauce for the goose is normallysauce for the gander.” Heffernan v. City of Paterson,578 U. S. ___, ___ (2016) (slip op., at 6).

And this is the problem and show the intellectual dishonesty of both the anti-abortion crowd and their supportive Justices.

Do you realize how vulnerable your argument is to your own criticism? Borrowing your ponderous approach, one could just cite to the majority opinion as a response, and then conclude "this is the problem and show the intellectually dishonesty of both the abortion crowd and their supportive Justices."

Your line of reasoning is a vacuous approach, susceptible to its very own criticism.

The majority had an answer to Ginsburg's argument but it's easier to just ignore the answer, skip any thoughtful analysis of the two arguments, espouse a reasoned argument as to why one argument is stronger than the other, and just conclude one side, the side whose views most match your own, is correct.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Guess it's time to set up "Christian Counseling Centers" where pretend Doctors recommend abortions for every pregnant woman. After a generation or two, maybe there won't be so many morons genuflecting to authoritarians, and maybe even a majority of thinking people on the SCOTUS.

No, set up "Christain Life Centers" where actual clergy (from internet churches) assure worried young women that there's really nothing wrong with getting an abortion, as long as you pray for the baby's soul before, during, and after the procedure.

Also, if you pray to God during the sex, He won't let you get pregnant. And if Satan DOES get you preggers, God won't put a soul in that fetus, so an abortion is actually a mercy.

These kids are willing to believe that 'soaking' is not sinful, they'll buy anything that lets them have sex and avoid consequences afterwards.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Best to just keep quiet about it. No rocking the boat. Everyone be civil now.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

States passed laws requiring literature to patients and actual delays in providing medical services regarding an abortion. And Thomas was no where to be seen whining about that. This is one of the more blatantly BS decisions in recent memory.

- - - Updated - - -


I put the term in quotes for obvious contextual reasons. Campaign finance = "free speech", pretending to be a doctor and give bullshit medical advice = "free speech". No one is saying that people shouldn't be allowed to speak against abortion.

As usual, your point of view is divorced from the facts of the opinion.

Taking Casey as controlling, the law’s demand for evenhandednessrequires a different answer than that perhapssuggested by Akron and Thornburgh. If a State can lawfullyrequire a doctor to tell a woman seeking an abortionabout adoption services, why should it not be able, as here,to require a medical counselor to tell a woman seeking prenatal care or other reproductive healthcare aboutchildbirth and abortion services? As the question suggests,there is no convincing reason to distinguish betweeninformation about adoption and information about abortionin this context. After all, the rule of law embodiesevenhandedness, and “what is sauce for the goose is normallysauce for the gander.” Heffernan v. City of Paterson,578 U. S. ___, ___ (2016) (slip op., at 6).

And this is the problem and show the intellectual dishonesty of both the anti-abortion crowd and their supportive Justices.

Do you realize how vulnerable your argument is to your own criticism? Borrowing your ponderous approach, one could just cite to the majority opinion as a response, and then conclude "this is the problem and show the intellectually dishonesty of both the abortion crowd and their supportive Justices."

What? You mean the hypocrisy of seeing nothing wrong with laws requiring actual doctors to provide anti-abortion information... even forcing doctors to delay performing procedures verses complaining about being required to tell people you are unlicensed when offering medical related advice? That is some sort of vulnerable criticism?

 

[James Madison]

As usual, your point of view is divorced from the facts of the opinion.

Taking Casey as controlling, the law’s demand for evenhandednessrequires a different answer than that perhapssuggested by Akron and Thornburgh. If a State can lawfullyrequire a doctor to tell a woman seeking an abortionabout adoption services, why should it not be able, as here,to require a medical counselor to tell a woman seeking prenatal care or other reproductive healthcare aboutchildbirth and abortion services? As the question suggests,there is no convincing reason to distinguish betweeninformation about adoption and information about abortionin this context. After all, the rule of law embodiesevenhandedness, and “what is sauce for the goose is normallysauce for the gander.” Heffernan v. City of Paterson,578 U. S. ___, ___ (2016) (slip op., at 6).

And this is the problem and show the intellectual dishonesty of both the anti-abortion crowd and their supportive Justices.

Do you realize how vulnerable your argument is to your own criticism? Borrowing your ponderous approach, one could just cite to the majority opinion as a response, and then conclude "this is the problem and show the intellectually dishonesty of both the abortion crowd and their supportive Justices."

What? You mean the hypocrisy of seeing nothing wrong with laws requiring actual doctors to provide anti-abortion information... even forcing doctors to delay performing procedures verses complaining about being required to tell people you are unlicensed when offering medical related advice? That is some sort of vulnerable criticism?

Is that an argument? I see a lot of questions or are you treating a series of questions as argument?

 

[Elixir]

Guess it's time to set up "Christian Counseling Centers" where pretend Doctors recommend abortions for every pregnant woman. After a generation or two, maybe there won't be so many morons genuflecting to authoritarians, and maybe even a majority of thinking people on the SCOTUS.

No, set up "Christain Life Centers" where actual clergy (from internet churches) assure worried young women that there's really nothing wrong with getting an abortion, as long as you pray for the baby's soul before, during, and after the procedure.

Also, if you pray to God during the sex, He won't let you get pregnant. And if Satan DOES get you preggers, God won't put a soul in that fetus, so an abortion is actually a mercy.

These kids are willing to believe that 'soaking' is not sinful, they'll buy anything that lets them have sex and avoid consequences afterwards.

Sounds pretty damn good, Keith. Are you ordained yet? (Send before midnight tonight!)
I didn't see JM pouncing on your idea either, so it must be constitutional!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Taking Casey as controlling, the law’s demand for evenhandednessrequires a different answer than that perhapssuggested by Akron and Thornburgh. If a State can lawfullyrequire a doctor to tell a woman seeking an abortionabout adoption services, why should it not be able, as here,to require a medical counselor to tell a woman seeking prenatal care or other reproductive healthcare aboutchildbirth and abortion services? As the question suggests,there is no convincing reason to distinguish betweeninformation about adoption and information about abortionin this context. After all, the rule of law embodiesevenhandedness, and “what is sauce for the goose is normallysauce for the gander.” Heffernan v. City of Paterson,578 U. S. ___, ___ (2016) (slip op., at 6).

And this is the problem and show the intellectual dishonesty of both the anti-abortion crowd and their supportive Justices.

Do you realize how vulnerable your argument is to your own criticism? Borrowing your ponderous approach, one could just cite to the majority opinion as a response, and then conclude "this is the problem and show the intellectually dishonesty of both the abortion crowd and their supportive Justices."

What? You mean the hypocrisy of seeing nothing wrong with laws requiring actual doctors to provide anti-abortion information... even forcing doctors to delay performing procedures verses complaining about being required to tell people you are unlicensed when offering medical related advice? That is some sort of vulnerable criticism?

Is that an argument? I see a lot of questions or are you treating a series of questions as argument?

link

 

[Derec]

Okay, that might not be the fairest of paraphrases from SCOTUS's mouth, but this is effectively what they ruled in another bullshit 5-4 decision.

Do employees at Crisis Pregnancy Centers pretend to be medical doctors when they aren't?