Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.