SCOTUS - Pretending to be a doctor = Free Speech

[Keith&Co.]

Sounds pretty damn good, Keith. Are you ordained yet?

August 10, 2001. I wear my CLERGY card next to my badge to get into the building...

 

[James Madison]

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.

Does the opinion "permit people to pretend to be physicians?"

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Does the opinion "permit people to pretend to be physicians?"

It gives people the right to provide the "impression that they are qualified licensed professionals". If a person asks them if they are a doctor, they are likely not allowed to say "yes", however, there is a presumption among human beings that licensed doctors and nurses work in "clinics". SCOTUS ruled, 'buyer beware' with reproductive clinics.

 

[James Madison]

Does the opinion "permit people to pretend to be physicians?"

It gives people the right to provide the "impression that they are qualified licensed professionals". If a person asks them if they are a doctor, they are likely not allowed to say "yes", however, there is a presumption among human beings that licensed doctors and nurses work in "clinics". SCOTUS ruled, 'buyer beware' with reproductive clinics.

This is great. First, what in the hell is meant by the phrase of “qualified licensed professionals.”

Second, thanks for your speculation as to what people presume. It’s easy and comfortable to speculate facts into existence for the purpose of reaching a conclusion that you want to make.

Third, which part of the opinion allows people to play doctor?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Does the opinion "permit people to pretend to be physicians?"

It gives people the right to provide the "impression that they are qualified licensed professionals". If a person asks them if they are a doctor, they are likely not allowed to say "yes", however, there is a presumption among human beings that licensed doctors and nurses work in "clinics". SCOTUS ruled, 'buyer beware' with reproductive clinics.

This is great. First, what in the hell is meant by the phrase of “qualified licensed professionals.”

You know, doctors, nurses... people that you would expect to work in a "clinic".

Second, thanks for your speculation as to what people presume.

That is just grossly intellectually dishonest. Well how you know these people think that those in a "clinic" aren't licensed professionals.

It’s easy and comfortable to speculate facts into existence for the purpose of reaching a conclusion that you want to make.

It is even easier to shove one's head into the ground and pretend that this is merely speculation.

Third, which part of the opinion allows people to play doctor?

As I noted, it is allowing them to provide the impression.

California law required that unlicensed clinics have a notice stating:
“[t]his facility is not licensed as a medical facility by the State of California and has no licensed medical provider who provides or directly supervises the provision of services.”

And the notice needs to be noticeable.

Even if California had presented a nonhypothetical justification for the unlicensed notice, the FACT Act unduly burdens protected speech.

SCOTUS notes that they feel all unlicensed places need to be required to show this warning for it to be considered not an acute attack on a particular view and that it was unfair to require their message (CHOOSE BIRTH) to be drowned out by a State written statement that 'this place is run by frauds that hates providing support for actual babies'.

So ultimately we have a Plessy v Ferguson decision, with the majority plowing their heads right into the ground... ignoring reality (or as you call it 'mere speculation'). The clinics lie to those who come in. They do not provide enough information about pregnancy and abortion. And those that run them are likely no where to be found to help women they convinced to have a child they can't support. They are a politically motivated 'medical clinic' whose priority is propagating a political view, not the best interests of the patient.

Maybe the State of California didn't argue the case well enough. For whatever reason, SCOTUS says the right to provide the presumption of licensed services is free speech.

 

[Jarhyn]

This is great. First, what in the hell is meant by the phrase of “qualified licensed professionals.”

You know, doctors, nurses... people that you would expect to work in a "clinic".

Second, thanks for your speculation as to what people presume.

That is just grossly intellectually dishonest. Well how you know these people think that those in a "clinic" aren't licensed professionals.

It’s easy and comfortable to speculate facts into existence for the purpose of reaching a conclusion that you want to make.

It is even easier to shove one's head into the ground and pretend that this is merely speculation.

Third, which part of the opinion allows people to play doctor?

As I noted, it is allowing them to provide the impression.

California law required that unlicensed clinics have a notice stating:
“[t]his facility is not licensed as a medical facility by the State of California and has no licensed medical provider who provides or directly supervises the provision of services.”

And the notice needs to be noticeable.

Even if California had presented a nonhypothetical justification for the unlicensed notice, the FACT Act unduly burdens protected speech.

SCOTUS notes that they feel all unlicensed places need to be required to show this warning for it to be considered not an acute attack on a particular view and that it was unfair to require their message (CHOOSE BIRTH) to be drowned out by a State written statement that 'this place is run by frauds that hates providing support for actual babies'.

So ultimately we have a Plessy v Ferguson decision, with the majority plowing their heads right into the ground... ignoring reality (or as you call it 'mere speculation'). The clinics lie to those who come in. They do not provide enough information about pregnancy and abortion. And those that run them are likely no where to be found to help women they convinced to have a child they can't support. They are a politically motivated 'medical clinic' whose priority is propagating a political view, not the best interests of the patient.

Maybe the State of California didn't argue the case well enough. For whatever reason, SCOTUS says the right to provide the presumption of licensed services is free speech.

In reality, the situation is even more bleak: CPCs often can be found pressuring women into putting up their child for "adoption", which in the US almost unequivocally amounts to selling human children. The mother will never see the child she was leveraged away from being able to abort, and the CPC gets a kickback from the affiliated adoption agency.

How is it trafficking? It costs upwards of 40k to adopt a baby through an agency, when it costs 4000 or less to adopt a (usually older) foster child from the state assuming the child is being fostered by those adopting, and maybe 10k if they are adopting from an outside foster family. You can guess what's happening to that other 30k. Here's a hint: it isn't going to the child.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why are all of these decisions 5-4?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why are all of these decisions 5-4?

They are patently unsound decisions, hence 5-4. Keep in mind, with O'Connor on the bench the decision to decriminalize gay sex (not legalize gay marriage, but decriminalize consensual gay sex) was a 6-3 finding. This gives you a good feeling as to where the right-wing on the court stands when it comes to rights.