Do you think that the courts made the right decision(s) for their respective cases?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204124204577152992567818170.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday upheld a Texas law that requires women seeking an abortion to have a sonogram exam and to listen to a physician's detailed description of the fetus, including whether it has developed limbs or internal organs.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16496002

A federal court of appeals upheld a district judge's decision to block the implementation of the amendment.

The ban on Islamic law was approved by 70% of voters in a referendum in 2010.

But it was challenged by a Muslim community leader who said the amendment violated his constitutional right to freedom of religion.

Yes to both.

I'm fine with banning Sharia law, but can't we also ban the commandments in the same way?

As for the abortion thing, that just strikes me as being pointlessly cruel more than anything...

Not so sure about the first one.

The second one... I still don't fully understand "banning" Sharia law. What effect does that have? I mean, aren't the things Sharia allows that are objectionable already illegal? IE, honor killings are covered by murder, having more than one wife is covered by polygamy laws? It sounds redundant. Maybe there's something I'm missing.

Melissia wrote:I'm fine with banning Sharia law, but can't we also ban the commandments in the same way?

As for the abortion thing, that just strikes me as being pointlessly cruel more than anything...

Its hard to knock out "thou shalt not murder," and "thou shalt not steal" from criminal law.
Not sure what other commandments you're referring to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RatBot wrote:Not so sure about the first one. If not I don't have a clue which may be why it was overturned.

The second one... I still don't fully understand "banning" Sharia law. What effect does that have? I mean, aren't the things Sharia allows that are objectionable already illegal? IE, honor killings are covered by murder, having more than one wife is covered by polygamy laws? It sounds redundant. Maybe there's something I'm missing.

I thiiiink its referring to Sharia law as court precedent.

Frankly no non US law or precedent should be used (except maybe Louisiana, which of course is a foreign country anyway). The use of such is treasonous. After all what do you think the "A" stands for, France?

I'm not convinced the Texas law is actually constitutional under Casey. I think that the Sharia law is bad law, but the decision was incorrect.

Another good one is Hosanna Tabor v. EEOC. The court basically found that the ADA (either the enforcement or anti-retaliation provisions) doesn't apply to religious ministers.

See if you can guess how the court voted.

edit: ADA is the Americans with Disabilities Act. A teacher who taught religious studies was fired for having narcolepsy and not being able to work for a time.

Took me the longest time to figure out that they weren't related cases.

Anyways, the first one is stupid. It's a guilt trip plain and simple. If a mother wants to abort, let her.

As for the second one, it irks me that only 70% of voters approved the ban on islamic law. Actually, I'm going to need help on understanding it, was islamic law blocked or was the notion to block it refused?

Frazzled wrote:Not sure what other commandments you're referring to.

Was referring to the people who want to post the ten commandments (especially carvings thereof) at the front of every courthouse.

biccat wrote:I'm not convinced the Texas law is actually constitutional under [i]Casey.[/url] I think that the Sharia law is bad law, but the decision was incorrect.

Another good one is Hosanna Tabor v. EEOC. The court basically found that the ADA (either the enforcement or anti-retaliation provisions) doesn't apply to religious ministers.

See if you can guess how the court voted.

Yep. Thats a good ruling there.

Not sure if the Texas one is constitutional though either, but the argument can be made that doctors can be ordered to provide medical informaiton in other circumstances. Totally bs of course.

Frazzled wrote:
Yep. Thats a good ruling there.

Not sure if the Texas one is constitutional though either, but the argument can be made that doctors can be ordered to provide medical informaiton in other circumstances. Totally bs of course.

Its scary how often I agree with you these days.

Frazzled wrote:Not sure if the Texas one is constitutional though either, but the argument can be made that doctors can be ordered to provide medical informaiton in other circumstances. Totally bs of course.

Sure, appropriate medical advice should be given at all times. However, the law as described above is like forcing a car salesman to get you to watch some kind of death by dangerous driving video before you buy a car, or a fast food worker showing you exactly where your "food" comes from before they sell it to you or what the arteries of someone who eats lots of junk food look like with graphic surgical movies. Or perhaps more approrpaitely, the drug store clerk showing you a movie about how you are going to hell and all the tortures you will endure forever because of the pack of condoms you have just put down on the counter with the intention of purchasing them...

I'm quite surprised that such a potentially psychologically damaging practice as the one outlined in the OP is not only legal, but required. Abortions are hard enough on many women without this additional trauma.

The first one is fine, certain medical professionals notably to my mind retail pharmacists are required to counsel patients in detail on their medications and procedures. Removing the right to wave that counseling and requiring it be more in depth for abortion is acceptable as the freedom to choose to continue with the abortion remains, I also assume the same standards do not apply to Plan B, but that assumption could be faulty. It's kind of like getting the full run down on someone you're about to take of life support.
Win.
Striking down and unconstitutional law preemptively banning a set of laws that any reasonable person would also see as unconstitutional...seems like a no brainer.
Win.

That's not a consultation. It's forcing someone to take an additional, unnecessary medical procedure before they undertake the intended one.

I agree. Im christian. And i support abortion(more on the lines of i have no right to tell someone what they can or cannot do with their body)
But also someone who studies sociology and gender studies. This is wrong. The women who get abortion are rarely the selfish type who just wish to have no responsibility. For most it is a hard choice that is riddled wiith guilt and cannot support the child. It is not them just not wanting to have strech marks

Dont care about point 1, but sharia law is BS and every woman who willfully follows it in a non-islamic country is a self hating douchebag.

VanHammer wrote:Dont care about point 1, but sharia law is BS and every woman who willfully follows it in a non-islamic country is a self hating douchebag.

There he is!

The Bigot, everybody!

Everyone is so PC these days its pathetic. Im sooo sorry if I offend people who think women should have less rights and be second class citizens. Yep. Shame on me.

VanHammer wrote:Everyone is so PC these days its pathetic. Im sooo sorry if I offend people who think women should have less rights and be second class citizens. Yep. Shame on me.

It's this kind of progressive garbage that is ruining Canada for the rest of uh...you.

Canada is awesome I dont know what you are talking about.

...I might argue against that particular point, mostly out of nationalism of my own, but what I said above was obviously not serious.

Melissia wrote:I'm fine with banning Sharia law, but can't we also ban the commandments in the same way?

/cosign

Amaya wrote:

Melissia wrote:I'm fine with banning Sharia law, but can't we also ban the commandments in the same way?

/cosign

The bill stated that no religious/foreign law would have overridden the Constitution and made the practice of those laws illegal. This bill would have done just that. Its called the "sharia law ban" only because it specifically picked out sharia as an example, and because all the cool kids are doing it.

Whats the psychology behind sharia fear anyway? I'm sure it sucks and I don't want to live under it, but does anyone honestly think that the 1%, possibly 2% at most, population that is American Muslim would somehow impose this on us? And thats assuming the US muslim population is of one mind on sharia, and its interpretation/implementation( they aren't, they are as fractured as the muslim population at large) so that 1% becomes even less. You can probably count with one hand the number of majority muslim nations that practice sharia, but they'll somehow establish it here in the increasingly antireligious US?

Yep, we better start building some minarets for our muslim overlords and get used to no more bacon and beer.

Also, don't give anyone any ideas about banning the commandments, please. I like having weekends off, and if "keeping holy the sabbath" is frowned upon, a big chunk of my free time and soul will be gobbled up by the bottomless vortex that is the corporate greed monster.

NELS1031 wrote:
Whats the psychology behind sharia fear anyway?

There's a number of possible rationalizations, but I imagine its mostly something along the lines of "Muslims are really evil, and they scare me."

dogma wrote:

NELS1031 wrote:
Whats the psychology behind sharia fear anyway?

There's a number of possible rationalizations, but I imagine its mostly something along the lines of "Muslims are really evil, and they scare me."

Or, of course, I don't think women should be stoned for being "unchaste". If that makes someone a bigot, then I suppose most civilized people are guilty of bigotry .

Living in Oklahoma and dealing with that state question I will give my thoughts on it. The argument for the State Question was that "a court in Texas ruled on a divorce based on Shiria law, Muslims are taking over our laws and Government! We must stup them!"

To begin with it ignored the fact that the "court ruling based on Shiria law" was actually an arbitration case, not a real "court". Two consenting adults agreed going into the divorce that it would be handled under the law of the religion they both follow. Which is different than "courts are using Shiria instead of US law!"

The State Question also made it illegal to use "international law" in any decisions by the couts. So worst case scenario was for our courts to throw out the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, any international treaty signed by the US, etc etc etc...

The law specifically singled out Sharia law, even though none of the authors could give any example of a law that they objected to, or a single case where it was ever used in a court decision in Oklahoma, let alone a single case where anybody was hurt by it.

Getting this thing passed was basically a campaign of "If we don't do this, the courts will shred the US and Oklahoma Constitution while ruling under Shiria Law while Muslims will burn the American Flag!" Good old fear mongering and pandering to a conservative and bigoted base basically.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:

dogma wrote:

NELS1031 wrote:
Whats the psychology behind sharia fear anyway?

There's a number of possible rationalizations, but I imagine its mostly something along the lines of "Muslims are really evil, and they scare me."

Or, of course, I don't think women should be stoned for being "unchaste". If that makes someone a bigot, then I suppose most civilized people are guilty of bigotry .

Because unless we pass a law that says "courts in Oklahoma cannot use Shiria law", the courts in Oklahoma are going to ignore the Constitution and traditional laws already on the books and rule that a woman should be stoned to death for being unchaste...

I just think its funny that some people wail, and gnash their teeth over Sharia, but a mostly distinct set of people wail and gnash their teeth over Leviticus.

Melissia wrote:That's not a consultation. It's forcing someone to take an additional, unnecessary medical procedure before they undertake the intended one.

So, informing somebody of a medical procedure and exactly what is going to happen during it is unnecessary?

When doctors perform surgery, they do this same thing. They see what they are going in to do and then tell you exactly what they are going to do and what it looks like in there. They give a very detailed description so you know what will be going on inside of your body. You are not okay with that?

Dreadwinter wrote:

Melissia wrote:That's not a consultation. It's forcing someone to take an additional, unnecessary medical procedure before they undertake the intended one.

So, informing somebody of a medical procedure and exactly what is going to happen during it is unnecessary?

When doctors perform surgery, they do this same thing. They see what they are going in to do and then tell you exactly what they are going to do and what it looks like in there. They give a very detailed description so you know what will be going on inside of your body. You are not okay with that?

The amount of medical professionals when it comes to abortion is always amazing...

Monster Rain wrote:Or, of course, I don't think women should be stoned for being "unchaste". If that makes someone a bigot, then I suppose most civilized people are guilty of bigotry .

So American Muslims need to have their belief system restricted and regulated by the government because you think they'll start stoning sluts at will? I absolutely agree stoning is barbaric, but its practiced by an unpopular extremist minority in a few muslim countries and isn't indicative of mainstream Islam as far as I'm aware. Torah/Old Testament also call for stoning for what its worth.

NELS1031 wrote:
So American Muslims need to have their belief system restricted and regulated by the government because you think they'll start stoning sluts at will?

Why the word "sluts?"

Melissia wrote:I'm fine with banning Sharia law, but can't we also ban the commandments in the same way?

As for the abortion thing, that just strikes me as being pointlessly cruel more than anything...

I agree wholeheartedly.

The commandments could be banned the the same way, but culturally the commandments are a lot more compatible with our civilization and culture. They're also a lot less... involved, than Sharia. There's not much to debate about the Commandments. It's a fairly straight forward list. Sharia law is not.

It's like comparing a shopping list to the US Constitution.

The Constitution is written very badly/ambiguously.

Dreadwinter wrote:

Melissia wrote:That's not a consultation. It's forcing someone to take an additional, unnecessary medical procedure before they undertake the intended one.

So, informing somebody of a medical procedure and exactly what is going to happen during it is unnecessary?

I am not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse, or if you truly misunderstand the situation. The required, medically unnecessary sonogram is not a "consultation" or "advising them of the procedure". Here's what it actually entails:



That's a transvaginal ultrasound That's how they will look at a fetus in the case of an abortion at the average time a woman would be getting one. Remember, since it's medically unnecessary, insurance won't cover it - women in Texas will have to pay out of their pockets for the State to figuratively rape and humiliate them.

Once that's done, THEN these women can finally have their abortions.

There is absolutely no difference between this bill, and requiring a man to have a prostate exam before he has a tooth pulled.

Ouze wrote: Remember, since it's medically unnecessary, insurance won't cover it - women in Texas will have to pay out of their pockets for the State to figuratively rape and humiliate them.

Holy wow, really? Rape and humiliate them by giving them an ultrasound? This is the same thing women go through when they go to the gynecologist. If they feel something is wrong, this is what they will order to get a clear picture of their reproductive organs. I wonder if they feel raped and humiliated then. Might explain some malpractice suites.

Politifact Article wrote:Matt Romberg, a Round Rock ob-gyn who also opposes the proposals, told us that he performs a sonogram to verify the location of the fetus, its viability and the stage of the pregnancy on women who are up to 10 weeks pregnant before performing the abortion. Ninety-nine percent of the time, he said, "I have to do a transvaginal" sonogram.

That is from your own article. A doctor who performs abortions says that he does the sonogram for other reasons. Such as actually finding the location of the fetus, as mentioned above. This is medically relevant.

As for insurance not covering it. Are they covering the abortion? If so, they should probably be required to cover all procedures involved in getting the abortion. If not, then, why should they have to? This is an elective thing. It is a choice.

Your understanding of the medical field is staggeringly off.

Dreadwinter wrote:

Ouze wrote: Remember, since it's medically unnecessary, insurance won't cover it - women in Texas will have to pay out of their pockets for the State to figuratively rape and humiliate them.

Holy wow, really? Rape and humiliate them by giving them an ultrasound? This is the same thing women go through when they go to the gynecologist. If they feel something is wrong, this is what they will order to get a clear picture of their reproductive organs. I wonder if they feel raped and humiliated then. Might explain some malpractice suites.

Politifact Article wrote:Matt Romberg, a Round Rock ob-gyn who also opposes the proposals, told us that he performs a sonogram to verify the location of the fetus, its viability and the stage of the pregnancy on women who are up to 10 weeks pregnant before performing the abortion. Ninety-nine percent of the time, he said, "I have to do a transvaginal" sonogram.

That is from your own article. A doctor who performs abortions says that he does the sonogram for other reasons. Such as actually finding the location of the fetus, as mentioned above. This is medically relevant.

As for insurance not covering it. Are they covering the abortion? If so, they should probably be required to cover all procedures involved in getting the abortion. If not, then, why should they have to? This is an elective thing. It is a choice.

Your understanding of the medical field is staggeringly off.

The simple truth of the matter is that the people writing these laws are not doctors. They are politicians who are slowly learning that they cannot forbit women from having an abortion, so instead of banning abortions they now focus on using whatever means they can to make an abortion as physically and emotionally scaring as possible to hopefully either scare women away or shame them enough to not have an abortion. Metaphorically speaking it is a way for them to demean a woman they think is wrong in one of the worst ways possible, while making her look at screen and screaming at her "look what you are trying to kill you immoral excuse for a human".

There may very well be a medical reason for a transvaginal ultrasound before an abortion. And if so then that should be a decision between the patient and her physician, not because a politician things it should be done. Which is especially ironic because every one of these laws is usually written by the party of "keep government out of our business..."

Dreadwinter wrote:Holy wow, really? Rape and humiliate them by giving them an ultrasound? This is the same thing women go through when they go to the gynecologist. If they feel something is wrong, this is what they will order to get a clear picture of their reproductive organs. I wonder if they feel raped and humiliated then. Might explain some malpractice suites.

Just because you have to put up with something being pushed up your ass for a prostrate exam doesn't mean you should be therefore be happy to agree to stuff being poked up there just to justify a non-related operation.

You're not showing much empathy if you think women are comfortable with having these things done to them, even when necessary.

d-usa wrote:The State Question also made it illegal to use "international law" in any decisions by the couts. So worst case scenario was for our courts to throw out the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, any international treaty signed by the US, etc etc etc...

No it wouldn't, because the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a treaty signed by the US, and therefore it is incorporated into US law.

Opposition to this act was basically a lot of fearmongering and pandering to a liberal and bigoted base.

biccat wrote:

d-usa wrote:The State Question also made it illegal to use "international law" in any decisions by the couts. So worst case scenario was for our courts to throw out the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, any international treaty signed by the US, etc etc etc...

No it wouldn't, because the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a treaty signed by the US, and therefore it is incorporated into US law.

Opposition to this act was basically a lot of fearmongering and pandering to a liberal and bigoted base.

There was not a single documented case in Oklahoma where codified US and State law was ignored and/or violated in favor of Sharia law. There was no need for this law other than to satisfy the "Muslims are scary" crowd.

d-usa wrote:There was not a single documented case in Oklahoma where codified US and State law was ignored and/or violated in favor of Sharia law. There was no need for this law other than to satisfy the "Muslims are scary" crowd.

Irrelevant, laws are proscriptive, not prescriptive. As you well know (or I hope you should, living in Oklahoma), the law doesn't merely ban the use of Sharia law, it bans the use of all religious and international law. Further, there are cases where international law (Justice Ginsberg specifically) has been cited as relevant to statutory or constitutional interpretation.

I would agree that this is bad law, but it's certainly not unconstitutional.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Dreadwinter wrote:Holy wow, really? Rape and humiliate them by giving them an ultrasound? This is the same thing women go through when they go to the gynecologist. If they feel something is wrong, this is what they will order to get a clear picture of their reproductive organs. I wonder if they feel raped and humiliated then. Might explain some malpractice suites.

Just because you have to put up with something being pushed up your ass for a prostrate exam doesn't mean you should be therefore be happy to agree to stuff being poked up there just to justify a non-related operation.

You're not showing much empathy if you think women are comfortable with having these things done to them, even when necessary.

It is a related operation. I already covered that.

Being poked and prodded sucks, but it is necessary. So why whine about it?

biccat wrote:

d-usa wrote:There was not a single documented case in Oklahoma where codified US and State law was ignored and/or violated in favor of Sharia law. There was no need for this law other than to satisfy the "Muslims are scary" crowd.

Irrelevant, laws are proscriptive, not prescriptive. As you well know (or I hope you should, living in Oklahoma), the law doesn't merely ban the use of Sharia law, it bans the use of all religious and international law. Further, there are cases where international law (Justice Ginsberg specifically) has been cited as relevant to statutory or constitutional interpretation.

I would agree that this is bad law, but it's certainly not unconstitutional.

It may have stated that it applied to all international and religious laws. But it singled out Sharia Law, and unless it was labeled as the "Save our State Act". And listening to all the "we need to stop the Muslims" propaganda last year made it pretty clear what the purpose of the law was.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dreadwinter wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Dreadwinter wrote:Holy wow, really? Rape and humiliate them by giving them an ultrasound? This is the same thing women go through when they go to the gynecologist. If they feel something is wrong, this is what they will order to get a clear picture of their reproductive organs. I wonder if they feel raped and humiliated then. Might explain some malpractice suites.

Just because you have to put up with something being pushed up your ass for a prostrate exam doesn't mean you should be therefore be happy to agree to stuff being poked up there just to justify a non-related operation.

You're not showing much empathy if you think women are comfortable with having these things done to them, even when necessary.

It is a related operation. I already covered that.

Being poked and prodded sucks, but it is necessary. So why whine about it?

Why is it necessary? Because a patient and her physician made an informed decision that an additional medical procedure is needed? Or because a politician thought that it should be done?

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Yep. Thats a good ruling there.

Not sure if the Texas one is constitutional though either, but the argument can be made that doctors can be ordered to provide medical informaiton in other circumstances. Totally bs of course.

Its scary how often I agree with you these days.

d-usa wrote:

Dreadwinter wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Dreadwinter wrote:Holy wow, really? Rape and humiliate them by giving them an ultrasound? This is the same thing women go through when they go to the gynecologist. If they feel something is wrong, this is what they will order to get a clear picture of their reproductive organs. I wonder if they feel raped and humiliated then. Might explain some malpractice suites.

Just because you have to put up with something being pushed up your ass for a prostrate exam doesn't mean you should be therefore be happy to agree to stuff being poked up there just to justify a non-related operation.

You're not showing much empathy if you think women are comfortable with having these things done to them, even when necessary.

It is a related operation. I already covered that.

Being poked and prodded sucks, but it is necessary. So why whine about it?

Why is it necessary? Because a patient and her physician made an informed decision that an additional medical procedure is needed? Or because a politician thought that it should be done?

Because it is something that needs to be done in this situation. You do not walk in to a hospital or clinic and say, "I need an abortion!" and the doctor go "Alright, I got the tools right here just sit on the table. Might feel a little pinch."

Doctors need to see exactly what they are doing, where they are going. A girl could go in there, saying she is pregnant, then not be at all. Then a doctor just tried to perform an abortion on a girl who is not pregnant at all. Contrary to popular belief, doctors cannot completely diagnose you just by looking at you. You see what I am getting at here? You see why doctors need to do this procedure?

The only thing that people are complaining about is that it is required by law to do it. It is required by law to do something that a doctor is going to do anyways.

d-usa wrote:It may have stated that it applied to all international and religious laws. But it singled out Sharia Law, and unless it was labeled as the "Save our State Act". And listening to all the "we need to stop the Muslims" propaganda last year made it pretty clear what the purpose of the law was.

The law didn't single out Sharia law except by example:
"The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law"

Singling out Sharia law as an example of law that shouldn't be used does not make the law unconstitutional.

Assuming, arguendo, that this law is a problem, do you think Sharia law should play a part in judicial decisions?

biccat wrote:

d-usa wrote:It may have stated that it applied to all international and religious laws. But it singled out Sharia Law, and unless it was labeled as the "Save our State Act". And listening to all the "we need to stop the Muslims" propaganda last year made it pretty clear what the purpose of the law was.

The law didn't single out Sharia law except by example:
"The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law"

Singling out Sharia law as an example of law that shouldn't be used does not make the law unconstitutional.

Assuming, arguendo, that this law is a problem, do you think Sharia law should play a part in judicial decisions?

I think "for example" is a very different word than "specifically".

If Shiria law does not conflict with US and State law, then I don't see a reason why a judge cannot use it in his/her decision. I don't think it should ever trump codified law though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dreadwinter wrote:

d-usa wrote:

Dreadwinter wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Dreadwinter wrote:Holy wow, really? Rape and humiliate them by giving them an ultrasound? This is the same thing women go through when they go to the gynecologist. If they feel something is wrong, this is what they will order to get a clear picture of their reproductive organs. I wonder if they feel raped and humiliated then. Might explain some malpractice suites.

Just because you have to put up with something being pushed up your ass for a prostrate exam doesn't mean you should be therefore be happy to agree to stuff being poked up there just to justify a non-related operation.

You're not showing much empathy if you think women are comfortable with having these things done to them, even when necessary.

It is a related operation. I already covered that.

Being poked and prodded sucks, but it is necessary. So why whine about it?

Why is it necessary? Because a patient and her physician made an informed decision that an additional medical procedure is needed? Or because a politician thought that it should be done?

Because it is something that needs to be done in this situation. You do not walk in to a hospital or clinic and say, "I need an abortion!" and the doctor go "Alright, I got the tools right here just sit on the table. Might feel a little pinch."

Doctors need to see exactly what they are doing, where they are going. A girl could go in there, saying she is pregnant, then not be at all. Then a doctor just tried to perform an abortion on a girl who is not pregnant at all. Contrary to popular belief, doctors cannot completely diagnose you just by looking at you. You see what I am getting at here? You see why doctors need to do this procedure?

The only thing that people are complaining about is that it is required by law to do it. It is required by law to do something that a doctor is going to do anyways.

What exactly is your medical expertise here? Because I don't really hear a lot of talking points from somebody that is medically trained here.

Dreadwinter wrote:Because it is something that needs to be done in this situation. You do not walk in to a hospital or clinic and say, "I need an abortion!" and the doctor go "Alright, I got the tools right here just sit on the table. Might feel a little pinch."

Doctors need to see exactly what they are doing, where they are going. A girl could go in there, saying she is pregnant, then not be at all. Then a doctor just tried to perform an abortion on a girl who is not pregnant at all. Contrary to popular belief, doctors cannot completely diagnose you just by looking at you. You see what I am getting at here? You see why doctors need to do this procedure?

The only thing that people are complaining about is that it is required by law to do it. It is required by law to do something that a doctor is going to do anyways.

You do know that women can't just walk in off the street, demand an abortion and get one done that afternoon, right? Because it doesn't doesn't work like that. Like any other procedure there are standard checks that have long been in place.

It's not the way they need to do medical checks is the issue, it's the way they want to make the experience as emotive as possible. In Utah, IIRC, they wanted to make it a requirement that a women has to see images of the foetus and go through prolonged explanations of how developed it is, which appears in part to be what they are doing here. This aspect is just a guilt trip, nothing more.

Pregnancy tests are pretty straightforward, they do them all the time in hospital because it can determine the course of all sorts of treatment and lots of women don't know they are pregnant in the early stages. They don't however need to stick a probe in to prove this point so your idea that a girl could come in and have an abortion operation performed when not pregnant is utter nonsense.

d-usa wrote:I think "for example" is a very different word than "specifically".

The second sentence doesn't contradict the first nor does it change the interpretation of the first. Therefore the first remains valid.

"What exactly is your [legal] expertise here? Because I don't really hear a lot of talking points from someone that is [legally] trained here."

d-usa wrote:If Shiria law does not conflict with US and State law, then I don't see a reason why a judge cannot use it in his/her decision. I don't think it should ever trump codified law though.

Hypothetically, say a man and woman are married by civil and religious traditions. The man seeks (and obtains) a civil divorce. However, the man does not seek a religious divorce (and therefore the woman would be unable to remarry according to her religious traditions). Should (or could) the court apply religious law and require the man to seek a religious divorce?

Under the Oklahoma law, the court would not intervene.

biccat wrote:

d-usa wrote:There was not a single documented case in Oklahoma where codified US and State law was ignored and/or violated in favor of Sharia law. There was no need for this law other than to satisfy the "Muslims are scary" crowd.

Irrelevant, laws are proscriptive, not prescriptive. As you well know (or I hope you should, living in Oklahoma), the law doesn't merely ban the use of Sharia law, it bans the use of all religious and international law. Further, there are cases where international law (Justice Ginsberg specifically) has been cited as relevant to statutory or constitutional interpretation.

I would agree that this is bad law, but it's certainly not unconstitutional.

Wait it bans all use of non US law? Then how on earth is that unconstitutional? The state congress has the authority to regulate its court system. I should probably read the actual law and decision and not the news article interpretation.

biccat wrote:

d-usa wrote:I think "for example" is a very different word than "specifically".

The second sentence doesn't contradict the first nor does it change the interpretation of the first. Therefore the first remains valid.

"What exactly is your [legal] expertise here? Because I don't really hear a lot of talking points from someone that is [legally] trained here."

d-usa wrote:If Shiria law does not conflict with US and State law, then I don't see a reason why a judge cannot use it in his/her decision. I don't think it should ever trump codified law though.

Hypothetically, say a man and woman are married by civil and religious traditions. The man seeks (and obtains) a civil divorce. However, the man does not seek a religious divorce (and therefore the woman would be unable to remarry according to her religious traditions). Should (or could) the court apply religious law and require the man to seek a religious divorce?

Under the Oklahoma law, the court would not intervene.

For civil purposes (all the "legal" benefits of being married) the court should follow civil law. What the man and women do from a religious standpoint should be between them and their god(s). For all legal purposes they should be considered divorced. If her adherence to her religion makes her feel that she cannot marry again than that is between her and her god.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

biccat wrote:

d-usa wrote:There was not a single documented case in Oklahoma where codified US and State law was ignored and/or violated in favor of Sharia law. There was no need for this law other than to satisfy the "Muslims are scary" crowd.

Irrelevant, laws are proscriptive, not prescriptive. As you well know (or I hope you should, living in Oklahoma), the law doesn't merely ban the use of Sharia law, it bans the use of all religious and international law. Further, there are cases where international law (Justice Ginsberg specifically) has been cited as relevant to statutory or constitutional interpretation.

I would agree that this is bad law, but it's certainly not unconstitutional.

Wait it bans all use of non US law? Then how on earth is that unconstitutional? The state congress has the authority to regulate its court system. I should probably read the actual law and decision and not the news article interpretation.

The actual full text of the actual law (and not just the question on the ballot) can be found here.

I don't see a problem with a court "considering" sharia law. Surely courts are meant to consider all sorts of issues. The problem would be if it is binding.

As for the abortion thing, it just sounds like one of those ridiculous pro-life things. I have no idea of the constitutional legality of it, but presumably it will be appealed up to the supreme court.

On point 1:

I do not agree with abortion per se but I do believe that the alternative to legal abortion is far more repugnant.

On Point 2.

I thought that the constitution of the US states that church and state should be seperate.

Sharia courts are allowed here in the UK and are recognised as mediation services by civil courts. The courts still adjudicate on all matters that come to them and will take Sharia court recommendations into consideration.

Sharia courts over here mainly deal with divorce and property disputes anyway.

I have heard argument made by female muslim lawyers that they are a good thing as many women who go to the sharia court wouldn't know where to begin with the British legal system.

Please note: I am not a Muslim and I still believe that there is compromise to be had between Secular law for all and religious law for those who choose it.

d-usa wrote:For civil purposes (all the "legal" benefits of being married) the court should follow civil law. What the man and women do from a religious standpoint should be between them and their god(s). For all legal purposes they should be considered divorced. If her adherence to her religion makes her feel that she cannot marry again than that is between her and her god.

So then you agree that the court should not interpret divorce law on "the legal precepts of other nations or cultures"? Because according to religious law she's not divorced.

biccat wrote:

d-usa wrote:For civil purposes (all the "legal" benefits of being married) the court should follow civil law. What the man and women do from a religious standpoint should be between them and their god(s). For all legal purposes they should be considered divorced. If her adherence to her religion makes her feel that she cannot marry again than that is between her and her god.

So then you agree that the court should not interpret divorce law on "the legal precepts of other nations or cultures"? Because according to religious law she's not divorced.

Does not being "religiously divorced" have any impact on her legal and civil affairs?

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't see a problem with a court "considering" sharia law. Surely courts are meant to consider all sorts of issues. The problem would be if it is binding.

As for the abortion thing, it just sounds like one of those ridiculous pro-life things. I have no idea of the constitutional legality of it, but presumably it will be appealed up to the supreme court.

Sharia law, Catholic law, German law, British law post revolution, and Leichtensteinian law are not valid. The only valid concepts are what is legally encoded in statutes, stare decisis, and the Federal/relevant state constitution.

To me it boils down to this:

If codified US and State law says A, and religious law says B. Then religious law should not be considered or trump US and State law.

If codified law is not clear on an issue, or has no precedent or binding opinon, and religious law says B. Then the court should be able to consider it if it applies.

d-usa wrote:The actual full text of the actual law (and not just the question on the ballot) can be found here.

Thanks D. The proposed bill is twitchy in a few sections (aka poorly written) but not seeing how its particularly unconstitutional. Yes Sharia law is noted, but its under the penumbra of other law sources not permitted.

if that is indeed the crux of it, then it could be rewritten simply to include only the first part aka US/state constitutions and appropriate stare decisis only then it would have been fine.

d-usa wrote:Does not being "religiously divorced" have any impact on her legal and civil affairs?

She is precluded from getting remarried by her church. If she wanted to get married again then she would either need to get the ex-husband to consent or abandon her faith (with which she may have strong ties).

Sonophos wrote:Please note: I am not a Muslim and I still believe that there is compromise to be had between Secular law for all and religious law for those who choose it.

+1

This really should have been 2 different threads.

biccat wrote:

d-usa wrote:Does not being "religiously divorced" have any impact on her legal and civil affairs?

She is precluded from getting remarried by her church. If she wanted to get married again then she would either need to get the ex-husband to consent or abandon her faith (with which she may have strong ties).

Is she legally (US law) prevented from getting remarried, or is it purely a religious/cultural thing? If she were to apply for a marriage license, would it be withheld because the church doesn't think she is divorced?

Ouze wrote:This really should have been 2 different threads.

indeed.

Sharia is referred to specifically twice.

Not sure why that should be so specific when it was not considered necessary to specify other religious law, such as Jewish.

It makes it look kind of like a deliberate slap at muslims. A bit like the Swiss law banning minarets for being tall while allowing other tall buildings.

I am sure that was not the intention.

d-usa wrote:

biccat wrote:

d-usa wrote:Does not being "religiously divorced" have any impact on her legal and civil affairs?

She is precluded from getting remarried by her church. If she wanted to get married again then she would either need to get the ex-husband to consent or abandon her faith (with which she may have strong ties).

Is she legally (US law) prevented from getting remarried, or is it purely a religious/cultural thing? If she were to apply for a marriage license, would it be withheld because the church doesn't think she is divorced?

technically if Shariua law were implied then under the precepts of Sharia law she wouldn't be divorced legally unless following its precepts. Or put it another way, if following Catholic law, she couldn't get divorced, well, ever.

d-usa wrote:

biccat wrote:

d-usa wrote:Does not being "religiously divorced" have any impact on her legal and civil affairs?

She is precluded from getting remarried by her church. If she wanted to get married again then she would either need to get the ex-husband to consent or abandon her faith (with which she may have strong ties).

Is she legally (US law) prevented from getting remarried, or is it purely a religious/cultural thing? If she were to apply for a marriage license, would it be withheld because the church doesn't think she is divorced?

No, she is not legally prevented from getting remarried.

Also, reading the law, the part preventing the use of foreign law where it incorporates Sharia law is a problem.

Kilkrazy wrote:Sharia is referred to specifically twice.

Not sure why that should be so specific when it was not considered necessary to specify other religious law, such as Jewish.

It makes it look kind of like a deliberate slap at muslims. A bit like the Swiss law banning minarets for being tall while allowing other tall buildings.

I am sure that was not the intention.

It is the intention, if you look at the supporting material for the ballot. Thats the twitchy part. If the actual ballot law didn't get speciific like that, it should (in my opinon which means there of course can be no dispute) have been fine.

biccat wrote:

d-usa wrote:

biccat wrote:

d-usa wrote:Does not being "religiously divorced" have any impact on her legal and civil affairs?

She is precluded from getting remarried by her church. If she wanted to get married again then she would either need to get the ex-husband to consent or abandon her faith (with which she may have strong ties).

Is she legally (US law) prevented from getting remarried, or is it purely a religious/cultural thing? If she were to apply for a marriage license, would it be withheld because the church doesn't think she is divorced?

No, she is not legally prevented from getting remarried.

Also, reading the law, the part preventing the use of foreign law where it incorporates Sharia law is a problem.

If she is legally divorced and legally able to get remarried, then I think at that point the civil court has done it's job. Anything after that is between her, her (according to religiou still husband) and her church/mosque/whatever.

biccat wrote:

d-usa wrote:

biccat wrote:

d-usa wrote:Does not being "religiously divorced" have any impact on her legal and civil affairs?

She is precluded from getting remarried by her church. If she wanted to get married again then she would either need to get the ex-husband to consent or abandon her faith (with which she may have strong ties).

Is she legally (US law) prevented from getting remarried, or is it purely a religious/cultural thing? If she were to apply for a marriage license, would it be withheld because the church doesn't think she is divorced?

No, she is not legally prevented from getting remarried.

Also, reading the law, the part preventing the use of foreign law where it incorporates Sharia law is a problem.

That depends doesn't biccat. If the courts in fact use Sharia law in some future notation then they could in fact limit divorce.

d-usa wrote:If she is legally divorced and legally able to get remarried, then I think at that point the civil court has done it's job. Anything after that is between her, her (according to religiou still husband) and her church/mosque/whatever.

So then you would agree that the court has no business using the precepts of religious law. Then, aside from the perceived anti-Muslim bigotry, what is your objection to this law?

Frazzled wrote:

d-usa wrote:The actual full text of the actual law (and not just the question on the ballot) can be found here.

Thanks D. The proposed bill is twitchy in a few sections (aka poorly written) but not seeing how its particularly unconstitutional. Yes Sharia law is noted, but its under the penumbra of other law sources not permitted.

if that is indeed the crux of it, then it could be rewritten simply to include only the first part aka US/state constitutions and appropriate stare decisis only then it would have been fine.

There is a push by the original author of the law to get it rewritten, but it has not gained much traction. Quick story on that here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

d-usa wrote:If she is legally divorced and legally able to get remarried, then I think at that point the civil court has done it's job. Anything after that is between her, her (according to religiou still husband) and her church/mosque/whatever.

So then you would agree that the court has no business using the precepts of religious law. Then, aside from the perceived anti-Muslim bigotry, what is your objection to this law?

What if there is a case that has no clear cut codified US law, but could be ruled based on international/cultural/religious laws?

What if there is a case where both parties to the suit (as in divorce) want to have their religion/culture taken into consideration? This would probably fall more into arbitration, but still.

d-usa wrote:If she wanted to get married again then she would .. abandon her faith

Too bad under sharia this means she should be killed.
A rational person cannot logically defend sharia if he actually knows what it entails, unless you are afraid of being labelled a "bigot" which seems to get thrown around a lot on here. Being critical of something is a good thing if you have facts to back up your arguement.

Same as Jewish law, small story in a certain book where lots of people were pissed because some Jesus fellow wouldn't let them stone somebody.

Which of course is totally irrelevant to this story because this law was about saying that a court could not take Sharia into consideration when deciding if stoning a woman would be an acceptable outcome in a civil proceeding even though there is no legal basis for stoning in existing US law.

Most forms of Sharia set out weather a woman can marry again as part of the divorce settlement.

As for death penalties; I do not think that this would be handed out by a Sharia court in a western democracy. It would probably be a figurative death where the woman is "excommunicated".

VanHammer wrote:
Too bad under sharia this means she should be killed.
A rational person cannot logically defend sharia if he actually knows what it entails, unless you are afraid of being labelled a "bigot" which seems to get thrown around a lot on here. Being critical of something is a good thing if you have facts to back up your arguement.

An excellent post.

KK banned me for a week for pointing out that Islam is inherently prejudiced towards women.

It is. I could prove it in a court of law and provide hundreds of examples as to why, and there are literally millions of left leaning individuals that agree with me.

In the same vein, being critical of sharia law is logical. If we have any regard at all for fairness and equality it must be resisted as aggressively as possible.

Speaking of fairness and logic, I now look forward to the adult behavior of being banned from a website by a middle aged man for the crime of disagreeing with him.

mattyrm wrote:

VanHammer wrote:
Too bad under sharia this means she should be killed.
A rational person cannot logically defend sharia if he actually knows what it entails, unless you are afraid of being labelled a "bigot" which seems to get thrown around a lot on here. Being critical of something is a good thing if you have facts to back up your arguement.

An excellent post.

KK banned me for a week for pointing out that Islam is inherently prejudiced towards women.

It is. I could prove it in a court of law and provide hundreds of examples as to why, and there are literally millions of left leaning individuals that agree with me.

In the same vein, being critical of sharia law is logical. If we have any regard at all for fairness and equality it must be resisted as aggressively as possible.

Speaking of fairness and logic, I now look forward to the adult behavior of being banned from a website by a middle aged man for the crime of disagreeing with him.

I'd ban you, but I don't want to be killed with a roll of toilet paper. Frazzled knows not to tug on Superman's cape.

It's 7am and i drank 3 bottles of wine and 5 pints of beer yesterday mate..

Your mom could beat me up.

mattyrm wrote:It's 7am and i drank 3 bottles of wine and 5 pints of beer yesterday mate..

Your mom could beat me up.

Dude mom would kick the crap out of a Kodiak bear...and then eat it. Not many women can boast of running over their husband...twice.

You can tell the truth, we both know by yesterday you mean "in the last hour"

As disturbing as this is, I think this thread is responsible for all my google ads to be trying to direct me to "singlemuslims.com"...

What the hell google ads?!

mattyrm wrote:

VanHammer wrote:
Too bad under sharia this means she should be killed.
A rational person cannot logically defend sharia if he actually knows what it entails, unless you are afraid of being labelled a "bigot" which seems to get thrown around a lot on here. Being critical of something is a good thing if you have facts to back up your arguement.

An excellent post.

KK banned me for a week for pointing out that Islam is inherently prejudiced towards women.

It is. I could prove it in a court of law and provide hundreds of examples as to why, and there are literally millions of left leaning individuals that agree with me.

In the same vein, being critical of sharia law is logical. If we have any regard at all for fairness and equality it must be resisted as aggressively as possible.

Speaking of fairness and logic, I now look forward to the adult behavior of being banned from a website by a middle aged man for the crime of disagreeing with him.

You were suspended for pointing out that Islam is prejudiced against women without bothering to mention that so is Judaism, Christianity, and western and Japanese society (etc.)

In other words for making discriminatory comments biased against one particular religion.

d-usa wrote:Because unless we pass a law that says "courts in Oklahoma cannot use Shiria law", the courts in Oklahoma are going to ignore the Constitution and traditional laws already on the books and rule that a woman should be stoned to death for being unchaste...

I was speaking about Sharia in a more general sense than whatever happened in Oklahoma, and I was using an extreme example of why I have an issue with that system of law.

I can only imagine that you knew that, though, and are just trying to be cute here.

Can anyone point to any examples of a US civil or criminal court actually adjudicating based on Sharia law rather than state/federal law?

From following it when it was first up for discussion, it was because "some state in the US set up a separate Shiria Court apart from 'real' courts".

Which it turned out that these "sharia courts" were pretty much simple Arbitration courts. Which means that both parties involved voluntarily went there and decided to settle their case in this manner.

d-usa wrote:From following it when it was first up for discussion, it was because "some state in the US set up a separate Shiria Court apart from 'real' courts".

Which it turned out that these "sharia courts" were pretty much simple Arbitration courts. Which means that both parties involved voluntarily went there and decided to settle their case in this manner.

Well. the voluntary nature of the participants can always be in dispute, but yea thats the only thing I've seen so far.

In the UK we have Jewish and Sharia courts which can perform "voluntary" arbitration.

The agreement is embodied in a contract.

The validity of the contract is tested by a real British court, and British law denies or enforces it as necessary.

The only real case example of this is a co-worker of mine who ended up getting divorced the "sharia" way, and the arbitration found heavily in favor of his ex wife. He is a doctor working two jobs now to pay for her and his kids. (And now, I don't know the details other than him telling me that "Islam thinks that what I did was wrong and I am paying for it")

Kilkrazy wrote:In the UK we have Jewish and Sharia courts which can perform "voluntary" arbitration.

The agreement is embodied in a contract.

The validity of the contract is tested by a real British court, and British law denies or enforces it as necessary.

I'm ok with that.

Seaward wrote:Can anyone point to any examples of a US civil or criminal court actually adjudicating based on Sharia law rather than state/federal law?

Nationwide Resources v. Massabni, 694 P.2d 290 (Ct. Ap. Az 1984) - determining whether property acquired belonged to the husband separately or jointly to the husband and wife.

Ivaldi v. Ivaldi, 672 A.2d 1226 (N.J. Superior Ct. 1996) - Court defers to the determination of a Moroccan court (applying Islamic law) as to child custody.

In Re Aramco Services Co., No. 01-­‐09-­‐00624-­‐CV. (Ct. App. Texas 2010) - Court enforcing an arbitration agreement requiring arbitration under Saudi (Sharia) law.

Contracts, child custody, and marriage dissolution are going to be the only areas where you see decisions referring to Islamic law.

biccat wrote:In Re Aramco Services Co., No. 01-­‐09-­‐00624-­‐CV. (Ct. App. Texas 2010) - Court enforcing an arbitration agreement requiring arbitration under Saudi (Sharia) law.

Contracts, child custody, and marriage dissolution are going to be the only areas where you see decisions referring to Islamic law.

I think that case is what started the whole "Save our State" bill in Oklahoma. A lot of "They have Muslim Courts! Everybody Panic!" when that happened.

That and a divorce case from New Jersey or something like that I want to say. It's been a few years now since it was all over the news here.

Melissia wrote:I'm fine with banning Sharia law, but can't we also ban the commandments in the same way?

As for the abortion thing, that just strikes me as being pointlessly cruel more than anything...

As to the abortion thing, its making sure that the parent(s) are knowledgeable of what they're doing.

As to the Ten Commandments, they have their background in religious text but they were the code of law of a people in ancient times and one of the first codes of law to exist. The Ten Commandments are closer to the Code of Hammurabi in context of history, yet we don't impose the laws of the Ten Commandments upon a group of people similar to the draconian views of the Code of Hammurabi. Sharia Law is similar to the Ten Commandments, but when you seek to enforce those laws you are then imposing them on all people.

Sharia Law is against the US Constitution, it restrains the rights of individuals and would conflict with the law of the United States or the state.

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:In the UK we have Jewish and Sharia courts which can perform "voluntary" arbitration.

The agreement is embodied in a contract.

The validity of the contract is tested by a real British court, and British law denies or enforces it as necessary.

I'm ok with that.

Yeah but Frazz, you shouldn't be.

It sounds fine on the surface, no harm can be done if it's all voluntary right?

Im a big follower of Maryam Namazi and the One law for all campaign, and some of the stories I have read on her website are truly disturbing. Make no bones about it, there is very little choice in the matter for a great many vulnerable women.
That's alien to tough blokes like us.

halonachos wrote:

Melissia wrote:I'm fine with banning Sharia law, but can't we also ban the commandments in the same way?

As for the abortion thing, that just strikes me as being pointlessly cruel more than anything...

As to the abortion thing, its making sure that the parent(s) are knowledgeable of what they're doing.

Actually, depending on what state you are in pregnant minors are considered emancipated and can make any and all informed decisions about their healthcare and by informing their parents you might be violating some major privacy rights. Of course this varies from state to state, so consult your local laws or speak to your friendly neighborhood lawyer.

halonachos wrote:As to the abortion thing, its making sure that the parent(s) are knowledgeable of what they're doing.

No it's not. This law in specific does not do that.

biccat wrote:

Seaward wrote:Can anyone point to any examples of a US civil or criminal court actually adjudicating based on Sharia law rather than state/federal law?

Nationwide Resources v. Massabni, 694 P.2d 290 (Ct. Ap. Az 1984) - determining whether property acquired belonged to the husband separately or jointly to the husband and wife.

Ivaldi v. Ivaldi, 672 A.2d 1226 (N.J. Superior Ct. 1996) - Court defers to the determination of a Moroccan court (applying Islamic law) as to child custody.

In Re Aramco Services Co., No. 01-­‐09-­‐00624-­‐CV. (Ct. App. Texas 2010) - Court enforcing an arbitration agreement requiring arbitration under Saudi (Sharia) law.

Contracts, child custody, and marriage dissolution are going to be the only areas where you see decisions referring to Islamic law.

The child custody one is very disturbing. The state's interest in the rights of the child should preclude applying anything but duly adjudicated state law.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:

Melissia wrote:I'm fine with banning Sharia law, but can't we also ban the commandments in the same way?

As for the abortion thing, that just strikes me as being pointlessly cruel more than anything...

As to the abortion thing, its making sure that the parent(s) are knowledgeable of what they're doing.

Know what they're doing? What would they NOT know they are doing actually?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:In the UK we have Jewish and Sharia courts which can perform "voluntary" arbitration.

The agreement is embodied in a contract.

The validity of the contract is tested by a real British court, and British law denies or enforces it as necessary.

I'm ok with that.

Yeah but Frazz, you shouldn't be.

It sounds fine on the surface, no harm can be done if it's all voluntary right?

Im a big follower of Maryam Namazi and the One law for all campaign, and some of the stories I have read on her website are truly disturbing. Make no bones about it, there is very little choice in the matter for a great many vulnerable women.
That's alien to tough blokes like us.

I agree completely. Coercion is typically a basis for blowing out an arbitration. Even a hint of it should get the arbitration thrown out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ODG I just realized I may be on the same side as Melissia...

RUN! Its the end times! Sound the Horn of Wienerdog Summoning!

First the majority of Dakkanauts reviewing the possible 6th edition rule set things that GW is actually doing a swell job, and now this?

I am getting scared...

halonachos wrote:

Melissia wrote:I'm fine with banning Sharia law, but can't we also ban the commandments in the same way?

As for the abortion thing, that just strikes me as being pointlessly cruel more than anything...

As to the abortion thing, its making sure that the parent(s) are knowledgeable of what they're doing.

That could be done through school biology lessons.

The real effect is to compel women by law to submit to an additional expensive medical procedure in the course of procuring an abortion, thus reducing their ability to obtain one.

Also they want to emotionally traumatize them even more than they already would be, because they view them as barely human.

Melissia wrote:Also they want to emotionally traumatize them even more than they already would be, because they view them as barely human.

Who's they and them?

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:Also they want to emotionally traumatize them even more than they already would be, because they view them as barely human.

Who's they and them?

I'm guessing it has something to do with Tim Tebow.

Monster Rain wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:Also they want to emotionally traumatize them even more than they already would be, because they view them as barely human.

Who's they and them?

I'm guessing it has something to do with Tim Tebow.

Speaking of Tim's anyone get a fine maple glazed donut from Tim Horton's recently? Mmmm!

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Dreadwinter wrote:Because it is something that needs to be done in this situation. You do not walk in to a hospital or clinic and say, "I need an abortion!" and the doctor go "Alright, I got the tools right here just sit on the table. Might feel a little pinch."

Doctors need to see exactly what they are doing, where they are going. A girl could go in there, saying she is pregnant, then not be at all. Then a doctor just tried to perform an abortion on a girl who is not pregnant at all. Contrary to popular belief, doctors cannot completely diagnose you just by looking at you. You see what I am getting at here? You see why doctors need to do this procedure?

The only thing that people are complaining about is that it is required by law to do it. It is required by law to do something that a doctor is going to do anyways.

You do know that women can't just walk in off the street, demand an abortion and get one done that afternoon, right? Because it doesn't doesn't work like that. Like any other procedure there are standard checks that have long been in place.

It's not the way they need to do medical checks is the issue, it's the way they want to make the experience as emotive as possible. In Utah, IIRC, they wanted to make it a requirement that a women has to see images of the foetus and go through prolonged explanations of how developed it is, which appears in part to be what they are doing here. This aspect is just a guilt trip, nothing more.

Pregnancy tests are pretty straightforward, they do them all the time in hospital because it can determine the course of all sorts of treatment and lots of women don't know they are pregnant in the early stages. They don't however need to stick a probe in to prove this point so your idea that a girl could come in and have an abortion operation performed when not pregnant is utter nonsense.

Yes, I realize you cannot walk in off the street and get an abortion and that you cannot have an abortion when you are not actually pregnant because of these standard checks. Because they do this specific thing to make sure that this is not the case, as well as to tell other things about the fetus. I am getting the sneaking suspicion you are not reading my posts at all.....

This is something that is very emotionally taxing on a female. This is something that the doctor should discuss with them before they do the procedure. It is not something that could be reversed, so the doctor needs to get them to understand that there is no going back.

Look at it this way, a doctor will not perform a vasectomy on me.(Not that I have tried to get one) They just will not, not at my age, plus I have no children. They would tell me to go home, think about it, come back in 10 years. They do not want to take that away from me right now. Because I could want kids later on, then what? It is pretty much the same thing. A girl can go in for an abortion and a month or two later, she could be kicking herself all over the place emotionally because that one person did not step up and talk to her about it. A doctor talking to her about what is going on and having her understand the procedure, what will be done, and the gravity of the situation? Gods forbid.

Melissia wrote:

halonachos wrote:As to the abortion thing, its making sure that the parent(s) are knowledgeable of what they're doing.

No it's not. This law in specific does not do that.

Obviously, that is why they are explaining absolutely everything to them. The fetus and the procedure.

Melissia wrote:Also they want to emotionally traumatize them even more than they already would be, because they view them as barely human.

Really? Because for somebody they view as barely human, they are going well out of their way to make sure they know exactly what is going on. I mean, look in the past and see at what people have done to others they view as barely human. This seems pretty great in comparison.

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:Also they want to emotionally traumatize them even more than they already would be, because they view them as barely human.

Who's they and them?

They: some sort of combination of Republicans, Christians and old men.

Them: Women and/or homosexuals.

Haven't you been paying attention Frazzled? These posts practically write themselves!

Kilkrazy wrote:The real effect is to compel women by law to submit to an additional expensive medical procedure in the course of procuring an abortion, thus reducing their ability to obtain one.

Actually at 10 weeks the vaginal ultrasound is the best way to determine whether you're pregnant or not and the location of the fetus. Which, presumably, would be necessary if you're going to get an abortion.

They let the parent(s) as in the person getting the abortion know what exactly they are terminating or ending. If you have an idea of how long the fetus has developed it may change the mind of the person planning on getting the abortion. Most people do not see what they are planning on aborting and just imagine some sort of clump of cells inside of them which is what a fetus starts out as. If the person sees that there is some resemblance to an actual human it may change their mind to not go forward with the abortion.

So if the only thing you have seen of the fetus is the outside of your own body and some morning sickness then its that much easier to be disconnected from the whole thing. If you see that the thing is starting to look like a little person then it may change your mind. Its more or less a test of conviction, kind of like what they do to people seeking sex change operations.

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:Also they want to emotionally traumatize them even more than they already would be, because they view them as barely human.

Who's they and them?

They: some sort of combination of Republicans, Christians and old men.

Them: Women and/or homosexuals.

Haven't you been paying attention Frazzled? These posts practically write themselves!

Kilkrazy wrote:The real effect is to compel women by law to submit to an additional expensive medical procedure in the course of procuring an abortion, thus reducing their ability to obtain one.

Actually at 10 weeks the vaginal ultrasound is the best way to determine whether you're pregnant or not and the location of the fetus. Which, presumably, would be necessary if you're going to get an abortion.

That isn't the stated reason and purpose of the law, though.

It also isn't a standard procedure as I know from experience.

Kilkrazy wrote:

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:Also they want to emotionally traumatize them even more than they already would be, because they view them as barely human.

Who's they and them?

They: some sort of combination of Republicans, Christians and old men.

Them: Women and/or homosexuals.

Haven't you been paying attention Frazzled? These posts practically write themselves!

Kilkrazy wrote:The real effect is to compel women by law to submit to an additional expensive medical procedure in the course of procuring an abortion, thus reducing their ability to obtain one.

Actually at 10 weeks the vaginal ultrasound is the best way to determine whether you're pregnant or not and the location of the fetus. Which, presumably, would be necessary if you're going to get an abortion.

That isn't the stated reason and purpose of the law, though.

It also isn't a standard procedure as I know from experience.

Up until 12 weeks if you are getting an ultrasound, this is what you will be getting. It is possible to get one with a pelvic ultrasound, but it is very unlikely you will get a clear picture or even a picture at all.

As for the stated reason and purpose, can we get a link of the law so we can see exactly what it says in there?

biccat wrote:
The law didn't single out Sharia law except by example:
"The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law"

One doesn't use the word "specifically" when singling something out by example, particularly when the category which it belongs to (cultures) is rather vague. This reads as a guiding principle, and a pair of things one absolutely should not do, one of which is with respect to religion.

If adherents of Sharia are citizens of the United States, are they not part of this nation, or its culture?

I'm pretty sure a chemical abortion is possible at 10 weeks is it not? I' m not what you might call an abortion expert, and whilst I may sharpen my knives with research for other arguments I'm just not that invested in this one.

Kilkrazy wrote:That isn't the stated reason and purpose of the law, though.

It also isn't a standard procedure as I know from experience.

First, the stated reason and purpose of the law are largely irrelevant (Lemon test notwithstanding).

Second, I'm not comfortable discussing this any further. My experiences differ.

Dreadwinter wrote:As for the stated reason and purpose, can we get a link of the law so we can see exactly what it says in there?

Remember, you asked for it.

Kilkrazy wrote:

The real effect is to compel women by law to submit to an additional expensive medical procedure in the course of procuring an abortion, thus reducing their ability to obtain one.

after a quick read this are not true. The State offers a list of locations that do sonograms for free.
In addition I see that the abortion provider must also tell the patient the potential risks or carrying the pregnancy to term as well.
And women are exempt from the laws provisions in the reasonable cases of sexual assault, incest, and other violations of the penal code.
Thats just wat I caught on a quick read, all of which are far from the inhuman draconian treatment I'm sure has been painted by it's opponents.

AustonT wrote:I'm pretty sure a chemical abortion is possible at 10 weeks is it not?

Technically chemical abortions are possible right up until the baby is born (though at some point there is significant risk to the mother). The transfer from chemical to surgical has more to do with national practice (which is itself based on numerous factors) than any particular medical determination. For example, there's a large gap in the way abortions are performed in the US and Canada.

I see

biccat wrote:[

Dreadwinter wrote:As for the stated reason and purpose, can we get a link of the law so we can see exactly what it says in there?

Remember, you asked for it.

Thank you.

Okay, so, the doctor must provide a list of places that the patient can go to in order to get a sonogram free of charge? So the expensive procedure thing is out, if they can get it for free.

They have the option to view the sonogram images and hear the heartbeat. They are not forced to do either. They are only required by law to hear a description of the fetus. So, they are only required by law to listen to a doctor describe what is in their body?

Plus, they only have to listen to it if they do not fall under three categories which involve rape/sexual assault/incest, them being a minor, and their child having an irreversible medical condition or abnormality?

Plus they are providing information on contraceptives and state assistance if they decide to keep the child.

So what it seems like is they are trying to give the woman every option so that she does not feel like it is necessary for her to abort the child. Being provided with information is considered awful now?

Dreadwinter wrote:
Okay, so, the doctor must provide a list of places that the patient can go to in order to get a sonogram free of charge? So the expensive procedure thing is out, if they can get it for free.

Providing 'a list' isn't the same as providing access. From the experiences of others I know that it can be quite difficult getting access to certain treatments in the US, particularly fee of charge. I know one person who had to travel to the next state for an abortion. There's no point in telling someone young or with little money to go 200 miles to get to a free clinic.

Part of the law that I read was that you had to live within 100 miles of the abortion provider.