Well... there are tests courts apply to determine if the speech is protected or not by the 1st amendment or not. An example is the "imminent lawless action" test: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action. Providing general advice on how to obtain abortion.... probably is protected speech - but if it's intended to produce imminent lawless action, then maybe not. |
Prosecutors don't have medical training, are they not going to trust doctors to do their best I can understand a doctor's decision being reviewed by another doctor, but a prosecutor who hasn't studied medicine |
Today in totally predictable outcomes:
A challenge for antiabortion states Doctors reluctant to work there: Recruiters say OB/GYNs are turning down offers, a warning for conservative-dominated states already experiencing shortages Link with no paywall https://wapo.st/3Sw59PS |
She couldn't get pregnant if he kept it in his pants, right? Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. |
Why would it need review at all. It's not like we have thousands of extra doctors sitting around doing nothing all day, while the medical system just zips along quickly and efficiently. Do you want to add another layer of bureaucracy - and, frankly, tyranny - to your medical care? Given that there are increasingly strict time limits for when an abortion is even legal, where it is even legal, do you think adding more time and bureaucracy is a good idea? Is that good for this life you are trying to protect, allegedly seeking to protect, either? |
Good luck red states. Maybe you can go back to the 1800s and just call the midwife to your house whenever you’re ready to give birth. I for one look forward to all the OB/GYNs moving to blue states where they will be most welcome. |
The bad news is that idiots like this make laws
[twitter]https://twitter.com/sltrib/status/1557480043345059840?s=21&t=2MQFGRitwXmSqa9quUhhIg[/twitter |