Dobbs comes down

[tlynn78]

I find your commentary interesting.

It seems you are justifying the availability of abortion on demand by providing an example of the most justified (based on a personal assessment) but one of the least occuring situations.

This is the same approach used by many to justify gun ownership, to justify lax voting rules, or stricter voting rules, or to justify about anything. I'm not a fan of this type of argument for anything. We should not make decisions, laws, operate as a society based on the slightest exception.

No, I'm using this as an example of the utter lack of compassion shown by most elected Republicans, who would instead set us on the path to Gilead. It illustrates that things really are just as bad as I've been saying. And the more voters who understand that, the stronger the recoil will become, and the sooner we can turn away from a path that leads to Handmaids.

And let me be clear -- this is clearly a performative act on the part of the Indiana Attorney General. Even if he thought that the doctor had done something to justify an investigation, there was no non-political reason to announce the investigation. The fact of an announcement makes it clear that the Attorney General's goal is to give pause to other Indiana doctors who are considering helping 10-year-old girls not carry their rapists' babies to term. --Bob

Performative? I was going to apologize for calling you an asshole, cause that was an assholey thing for me to do.
But using the new hot meaningless neologism just to show your coolness?
Hmm

Social justice warrioring and virtue signalling at the same time must be exhausting, but at least he can multi-task.

[flocks lawyer]

No, I'm using this as an example of the utter lack of compassion shown by most elected Republicans, who would instead set us on the path to Gilead. It illustrates that things really are just as bad as I've been saying. And the more voters who understand that, the stronger the recoil will become, and the sooner we can turn away from a path that leads to Handmaids.

And let me be clear -- this is clearly a performative act on the part of the Indiana Attorney General. Even if he thought that the doctor had done something to justify an investigation, there was no non-political reason to announce the investigation. The fact of an announcement makes it clear that the Attorney General's goal is to give pause to other Indiana doctors who are considering helping 10-year-old girls not carry their rapists' babies to term. --Bob

Performative? I was going to apologize for calling you an asshole, cause that was an assholey thing for me to do.
But using the new hot meaningless neologism just to show your coolness?
Hmm

Social justice warrioring and virtue signalling at the same time must be exhausting, but at least he can multi-task.

That would qualify him for above-average asshole status. (AAA Certification). Congratulations!

[Bob78164]

I find your commentary interesting.

It seems you are justifying the availability of abortion on demand by providing an example of the most justified (based on a personal assessment) but one of the least occuring situations.

This is the same approach used by many to justify gun ownership, to justify lax voting rules, or stricter voting rules, or to justify about anything. I'm not a fan of this type of argument for anything. We should not make decisions, laws, operate as a society based on the slightest exception.

No, I'm using this as an example of the utter lack of compassion shown by most elected Republicans, who would instead set us on the path to Gilead. It illustrates that things really are just as bad as I've been saying. And the more voters who understand that, the stronger the recoil will become, and the sooner we can turn away from a path that leads to Handmaids.

And let me be clear -- this is clearly a performative act on the part of the Indiana Attorney General. Even if he thought that the doctor had done something to justify an investigation, there was no non-political reason to announce the investigation. The fact of an announcement makes it clear that the Attorney General's goal is to give pause to other Indiana doctors who are considering helping 10-year-old girls not carry their rapists' babies to term. --Bob

Performative? I was going to apologize for calling you an asshole, cause that was an assholey thing for me to do.
But using the new hot meaningless neologism just to show your coolness?
Hmm

The clearest sign that you (and others) have no response to my substantive point is your attempt to deflect attention from it by changing the subject. I don't think I'll play along.

The Attorney General of Indiana is using his office to attempt to intimidate doctors who want to help 10-year-old girls not carry their rapists' babies to term. I consider that an appalling abuse of governmental power. Do you support Indiana's Attorney General in this attempt or not? --Bob

[flocks lawyer]

No, I'm using this as an example of the utter lack of compassion shown by most elected Republicans, who would instead set us on the path to Gilead. It illustrates that things really are just as bad as I've been saying. And the more voters who understand that, the stronger the recoil will become, and the sooner we can turn away from a path that leads to Handmaids.

And let me be clear -- this is clearly a performative act on the part of the Indiana Attorney General. Even if he thought that the doctor had done something to justify an investigation, there was no non-political reason to announce the investigation. The fact of an announcement makes it clear that the Attorney General's goal is to give pause to other Indiana doctors who are considering helping 10-year-old girls not carry their rapists' babies to term. --Bob

Performative? I was going to apologize for calling you an asshole, cause that was an assholey thing for me to do.
But using the new hot meaningless neologism just to show your coolness?
Hmm

The clearest sign that you (and others) have no response to my substantive point is your attempt to deflect attention from it by changing the subject. I don't think I'll play along.

The Attorney General of Indiana is using his office to attempt to intimidate doctors who want to help 10-year-old girls not carry their rapists' babies to term. I consider that an appalling abuse of governmental power. Do you support Indiana's Attorney General in this attempt or not? --Bob

Counselor. It seems as if you are taking it upon yourself, once again, to be the judge and jury in this matter without knowing very many facts.

It is now settled law of the land that laws pertaining to the act of abortion are in the hands of the states. Apparently, the State of Indiana's current laws permit the act of abortion up to six weeks from conception. It also requires that the person who performs the abortion to report it to the appropriate authorities. From what I can gather from the chaotic reporting on this issue, that is what the investigation by the Indiana AG is about. Whether state law, as it is currently written, was complied with. As far as I know, that is his job. Now you are free to conjecture that his motive for doing so is tainted, but, sir, that is only your opinion. Other people are also entitled to their opinions. Some opinions may well be correct, some may well be wrong. Who knows if we will ever find out in this case? That is, unfortunately, how politics works these days because of the extreme polarization of one side against the other.

I don't really think there are many people who believe that this situation is anything but appalling. As was pointed out earlier, this is a very rare occurrence, thank goodness. But now that the responsibility for laws regulating abortions lie with the state, it is up to the state itself, and the people of that state, to decide what happens in rare cases like this. I would hope that they can come up with and enact laws that will, if not satisfy, at least placate, most fair-minded people in the state. I would also hope that you, as a lawyer, would understand and respect that.

[Beebs52]

Well said.

[Bob Juch]

Performative? I was going to apologize for calling you an asshole, cause that was an assholey thing for me to do.
But using the new hot meaningless neologism just to show your coolness?
Hmm

The clearest sign that you (and others) have no response to my substantive point is your attempt to deflect attention from it by changing the subject. I don't think I'll play along.

The Attorney General of Indiana is using his office to attempt to intimidate doctors who want to help 10-year-old girls not carry their rapists' babies to term. I consider that an appalling abuse of governmental power. Do you support Indiana's Attorney General in this attempt or not? --Bob

Counselor. It seems as if you are taking it upon yourself, once again, to be the judge and jury in this matter without knowing very many facts.

It is now settled law of the land that laws pertaining to the act of abortion are in the hands of the states. Apparently, the State of Indiana's current laws permit the act of abortion up to six weeks from conception. It also requires that the person who performs the abortion to report it to the appropriate authorities. From what I can gather from the chaotic reporting on this issue, that is what the investigation by the Indiana AG is about. Whether state law, as it is currently written, was complied with. As far as I know, that is his job. Now you are free to conjecture that his motive for doing so is tainted, but, sir, that is only your opinion. Other people are also entitled to their opinions. Some opinions may well be correct, some may well be wrong. Who knows if we will ever find out in this case? That is, unfortunately, how politics works these days because of the extreme polarization of one side against the other.

I don't really think there are many people who believe that this situation is anything but appalling. As was pointed out earlier, this is a very rare occurrence, thank goodness. But now that the responsibility for laws regulating abortions lie with the state, it is up to the state itself, and the people of that state, to decide what happens in rare cases like this. I would hope that they can come up with and enact laws that will, if not satisfy, at least placate, most fair-minded people in the state. I would also hope that you, as a lawyer, would understand and respect that.

Reporting an abortion to the state is prevented by the federal Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPPA).

[Bob78164]

The clearest sign that you (and others) have no response to my substantive point is your attempt to deflect attention from it by changing the subject. I don't think I'll play along.

The Attorney General of Indiana is using his office to attempt to intimidate doctors who want to help 10-year-old girls not carry their rapists' babies to term. I consider that an appalling abuse of governmental power. Do you support Indiana's Attorney General in this attempt or not? --Bob

Counselor. It seems as if you are taking it upon yourself, once again, to be the judge and jury in this matter without knowing very many facts.

It is now settled law of the land that laws pertaining to the act of abortion are in the hands of the states. Apparently, the State of Indiana's current laws permit the act of abortion up to six weeks from conception. It also requires that the person who performs the abortion to report it to the appropriate authorities. From what I can gather from the chaotic reporting on this issue, that is what the investigation by the Indiana AG is about. Whether state law, as it is currently written, was complied with. As far as I know, that is his job. Now you are free to conjecture that his motive for doing so is tainted, but, sir, that is only your opinion. Other people are also entitled to their opinions. Some opinions may well be correct, some may well be wrong. Who knows if we will ever find out in this case? That is, unfortunately, how politics works these days because of the extreme polarization of one side against the other.

I don't really think there are many people who believe that this situation is anything but appalling. As was pointed out earlier, this is a very rare occurrence, thank goodness. But now that the responsibility for laws regulating abortions lie with the state, it is up to the state itself, and the people of that state, to decide what happens in rare cases like this. I would hope that they can come up with and enact laws that will, if not satisfy, at least placate, most fair-minded people in the state. I would also hope that you, as a lawyer, would understand and respect that.

Reporting an abortion to the state is prevented by the federal Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPPA).

She was required to report the rape (not the abortion) to Indiana Child Services. Which she did. So the investigation won't go anywhere.

None of which changes the fact that the public announcement of the investigation was obviously intended to intimidate future Indiana doctors who want to help 10-year-old girls not carry their rapists' pregnancies to term. And that's a despicable abuse of public power.

As for rarity, by the way, apparently Ohio averaged approximately 1 abortion per week performed on girls 15 years old or younger. That doesn't account for the girls who did carry their rapists' babies to term. So maybe not quite so rare as one might hope.

By the way, Flock's lawyer is apparently as stupid as his client. Right now abortions are legal in Indiana through 22 weeks of pregnancy. --Bob

[Beebs52]

You're making/assuming shit up. It's amazing.

[Bob78164]

You're making/assuming shit up. It's amazing.

Which part am I making up? Here (from the Ohio Department of Health) are the numbers about Ohio children who received abortions in 2020. (See Table 2 on page 14.) One correction. There were 52 girls younger than 15 (in other words, 14 or younger), not 52 girls who were 15 years old or younger.

In 2010 the number was more than 3 times that high. I don't know whether that's because fewer girls got raped or, as I suspect, abortions became increasingly harder to get so that more of those girls had to carry their rapists' babies to term.

Or maybe you think that I'm making up the part about the doctor following the law by making the required report. Wrong again. Not that the existence of this proof that the doctor followed the law is going to stop Indiana's Attorney General from continuing his campaign of intimidation by extending the investigation. Because the bottom line is that he wants to force 10-year-old girls to carry their rapists' babies to term. And he's not alone in trying to make that happen. --Bob

[Beebs52]

"None of which changes the fact that the public announcement of the investigation was obviously intended to intimidate future Indiana doctors who want to help 10-year-old girls not carry their rapists' pregnancies to term. And that's a despicable abuse of public power."

You know this how?

[Bob78164]

"None of which changes the fact that the public announcement of the investigation was obviously intended to intimidate future Indiana doctors who want to help 10-year-old girls not carry their rapists' pregnancies to term. And that's a despicable abuse of public power."

You know this how?

Because I'm awake at the moment.

Why did he publicly announce the investigation? Why is he continuing the investigation even after learning that the doctor in fact filed the legally required report? Why did he publicly announce that he's continuing the investigation after learning that the doctor in fact filed the legally required report? What more could he do to abuse his office in an effort to intimidate doctors who want to help 10-year-old girls not carry their rapists' babies to term? --Bob

[BackInTex]

"None of which changes the fact that the public announcement of the investigation was obviously intended to intimidate future Indiana doctors who want to help 10-year-old girls not carry their rapists' pregnancies to term. And that's a despicable abuse of public power."

You know this how?

Because I'm awake at the moment.

Reminds me of a joke, that's funny because as all in all funny jokes, there is some truth.

"How do you know when a lawyer is lying?"

[flockofseagulls104]

"None of which changes the fact that the public announcement of the investigation was obviously intended to intimidate future Indiana doctors who want to help 10-year-old girls not carry their rapists' pregnancies to term. And that's a despicable abuse of public power."

You know this how?

Because I'm awake at the moment.

Reminds me of a joke, that's funny because as all in all funny jokes, there is some truth.

"How do you know when a lawyer is lying?"

Well, he ain't lying in this particular case. He is merely showing his insanity in public again by stating his incredibly warped, self-righteous mindset.

[Bob Juch]

Counselor. It seems as if you are taking it upon yourself, once again, to be the judge and jury in this matter without knowing very many facts.

It is now settled law of the land that laws pertaining to the act of abortion are in the hands of the states. Apparently, the State of Indiana's current laws permit the act of abortion up to six weeks from conception. It also requires that the person who performs the abortion to report it to the appropriate authorities. From what I can gather from the chaotic reporting on this issue, that is what the investigation by the Indiana AG is about. Whether state law, as it is currently written, was complied with. As far as I know, that is his job. Now you are free to conjecture that his motive for doing so is tainted, but, sir, that is only your opinion. Other people are also entitled to their opinions. Some opinions may well be correct, some may well be wrong. Who knows if we will ever find out in this case? That is, unfortunately, how politics works these days because of the extreme polarization of one side against the other.

I don't really think there are many people who believe that this situation is anything but appalling. As was pointed out earlier, this is a very rare occurrence, thank goodness. But now that the responsibility for laws regulating abortions lie with the state, it is up to the state itself, and the people of that state, to decide what happens in rare cases like this. I would hope that they can come up with and enact laws that will, if not satisfy, at least placate, most fair-minded people in the state. I would also hope that you, as a lawyer, would understand and respect that.

Reporting an abortion to the state is prevented by the federal Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPPA).

She was required to report the rape (not the abortion) to Indiana Child Services. Which she did. So the investigation won't go anywhere.

None of which changes the fact that the public announcement of the investigation was obviously intended to intimidate future Indiana doctors who want to help 10-year-old girls not carry their rapists' pregnancies to term. And that's a despicable abuse of public power.

As for rarity, by the way, apparently Ohio averaged approximately 1 abortion per week performed on girls 15 years old or younger. That doesn't account for the girls who did carry their rapists' babies to term. So maybe not quite so rare as one might hope.

By the way, Flock's lawyer is apparently as stupid as his client. Right now abortions are legal in Indiana through 22 weeks of pregnancy. --Bob

It seems that the report kept the names of the girl and her rapist confidential.

[Estonut]

Reporting an abortion to the state is prevented by the federal Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPPA).

Look at the letters, moron. It's "HIPAA."

[wbtravis007]

WAJ.

[Bob Juch]

Reporting an abortion to the state is prevented by the federal Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPPA).

Look at the letters, moron. It's "HIPAA."

I see my stalker is up in the middle of the night trying to find something to bitch about.

[BackInTex]

Reporting an abortion to the state is prevented by the federal Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPPA).

Look at the letters, moron. It's "HIPAA."

I see my stalker is up in the middle of the night trying to find something to bitch about.

I figured, given your age, the extra 'p' was just a prostate issue.

[flocks lawyer]

Reporting an abortion to the state is prevented by the federal Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPPA).

Look at the letters, moron. It's "HIPAA."

I see my stalker is up in the middle of the night trying to find something to bitch about.

I have noted that my client now has a viable case of copyright infringement and plagiarism against you, if he chooses to pursue it. The title of 'stalker' in all its uses and forms has been copyrighted on this bored to refer to only one individual.

[Bob Juch]

Look at the letters, moron. It's "HIPAA."

I see my stalker is up in the middle of the night trying to find something to bitch about.

I have noted that my client now has a viable case of copyright infringement and plagiarism against you, if he chooses to pursue it. The title of 'stalker' in all its uses and forms has been copyrighted on this bored to refer to only one individual.

I'd love for you to meet my lawyer.

[tlynn78]

I see my stalker is up in the middle of the night trying to find something to bitch about.

I have noted that my client now has a viable case of copyright infringement and plagiarism against you, if he chooses to pursue it. The title of 'stalker' in all its uses and forms has been copyrighted on this bored to refer to only one individual.

I'd love for you to meet my lawyer.

LMAO! I'm sure he's a "very fine" lawyer.

[Bob Juch]

I have noted that my client now has a viable case of copyright infringement and plagiarism against you, if he chooses to pursue it. The title of 'stalker' in all its uses and forms has been copyrighted on this bored to refer to only one individual.

I'd love for you to meet my lawyer.

LMAO! I'm sure he's a "very fine" lawyer.

He is. He's the only person I know who scored higher than I did on the LSAT.

[Bob78164]

I'd love for you to meet my lawyer.

LMAO! I'm sure he's a "very fine" lawyer.

He is. He's the only person I know who scored higher than I did on the LSAT.

No he's not. --Bob

[Bob Juch]

LMAO! I'm sure he's a "very fine" lawyer.

He is. He's the only person I know who scored higher than I did on the LSAT.

No he's not. --Bob

Oh, good.

[tlynn78]

He is. He's the only person I know who scored higher than I did on the LSAT.

No he's not. --Bob

Oh, good.