Arizona's newest crazy law: SB1359

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Saw this mentioned on the Daily Show the other day and had no idea about it.

Apparently earlier this year the great state of Arizona passed a law that allows doctors to withhold information and even lie to pregnant mothers about potential birth defects their child might/will have :lmao

This is why state rights people don't know shit. When you give states the right to pass legislation on constitutional matters, batshit laws like this happen.

[TeyshaBlue]

I don't expect the Daily Show to do alot of in depth analysis. You really shouldn't either.

[TeyshaBlue]

http://d20b91ibeoos7k.cloudfront.net/static/billtext/38772.pdf

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I don't expect the Daily Show to do alot of in depth analysis. You really shouldn't either.
I didn't leave it at that. I've researched the law itself. That really is what the law does.


http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/2r/bills/sb1359s.htm&Session_ID=107

[TeyshaBlue]

Language seems applicable to a pretty narrow set of conditions.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Language seems applicable to a pretty narrow set of conditions.

Cool, the "playing dumb" routine even though you're smart enough to know the law has an obvious Christian right agenda.

[TeyshaBlue]

Cool, the "playing dumb" routine even though you're smart enough to know the law has an obvious Christian right agenda.

No, just looking at the language. Regardless of it's "agenda", it appears to be restricted to matters contained in civil suits, no?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

No, just looking at the language. Regardless of it's "agenda", it appears to be restricted to matters contained in civil suits, no?

Why do you act like that's different from what I said/makes it better?

Because of this law, doctors can omit/lie about birth defects and not face any civil liability. I think that's totally batshit.

Do you agree with the law?

[TeyshaBlue]

Why do you act like that's different from what I said/makes it better?


Not sure if srs.

[TeyshaBlue]

D. THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO ANY CIVIL ACTION FOR DAMAGES FOR AN
15 INTENTIONAL OR GROSSLY NEGLIGENT ACT OR OMISSION, INCLUDING AN ACT OR
16 OMISSION THAT VIOLATES A CRIMINAL LAW.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I'm actually not sure if you're seriously defending this law or just playing devil's advocate for team red.

[TeyshaBlue]

tbh, I haven't even heard of this law before you brought it up. A very cursory examination of it has not set my hair on fire yet.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

D. THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO ANY CIVIL ACTION FOR DAMAGES FOR AN
15 INTENTIONAL OR GROSSLY NEGLIGENT ACT OR OMISSION, INCLUDING AN ACT OR
16 OMISSION THAT VIOLATES A CRIMINAL LAW.
Yes, I'm well aware the law only applies to civil suits. As far as the "intentional or grossly negligent act or omission" you're kidding yourself if doctors can't easily get around that.

I'll ask again (even though you'll continue to not answer), do you agree with the law?

[TeyshaBlue]

tbh, I haven't even heard of this law before you brought it up. A very cursory examination of it has not set my hair on fire yet.

which is why I haven't lept to adopt a pre-packaged narrative from a comedy show.

[TeyshaBlue]

Yes, I'm well aware the law only applies to civil suits. As far as the "intentional or grossly negligent act or omission" you're kidding yourself if doctors can't easily get around that.

I'll ask again (even though you'll continue to not answer), do you agree with the law?

On first blush, no.

[TeyshaBlue]

Yes, I'm well aware the law only applies to civil suits. As far as the "intentional or grossly negligent act or omission" you're kidding yourself if doctors can't easily get around that.

You're kidding yourself, unless you really are prescient, that you can make this statement unless propped up by The Daily Show.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

which is why I haven't lept to adopt a pre-packaged narrative from a comedy show.

It was talked about on the daily show by a state legislator from Arizona during an interview. It's not like it was something Stewart took out of context to make fun of.

Cool ad-hominem argument though.

[TeyshaBlue]

It was talked about on the daily show by a state legislator from Arizona during an interview. It's not like it was something Stewart took out of context to make fun of.

Cool ad-hominem argument though.

Not really an argument. Observation, perhaps.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

You're kidding yourself, unless you really are prescient, that you can make this statement unless propped up by The Daily Show.

Again with the ad-hominem argument regarding the daily show.

It was mentioned for like 10 seconds on the daily show and I did more research about it online. Nothing on the daily show addressed the "intentionally or grossly" negligent part.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

On first blush, no.

So you're just arguing for the sake of defending team red :lol

[TeyshaBlue]

I think, if you paused for a moment, you would realize I haven't offered on single point in defense of team red.

I'm probably more socially liberal than you are base upon the posts I've read from you.

[TeyshaBlue]

Nothing on the daily show addressed the "intentionally or grossly" negligent part.

Exactly.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

You're kidding yourself, unless you really are prescient, that you can make this statement unless propped up by The Daily Show.

As far as the actual content of this post, Arizona has passed of kinds of crazy batshit laws in the last four years. Ever since Jan Brewer took office Arizona has been one of the most right-wing states in the country with the laws its passed. Part D is nothing more than a qualifier they add to make the law's agenda less obvious/to prevent national outrage.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Exactly.

Meaning the conclusions I came to about it were on my own and the result of what I know about Arizona legislators.

[TeyshaBlue]

As far as the actual content of this post, Arizona has passed of kinds of crazy batshit laws in the last four years. Ever since Jan Brewer took office Arizona has been one of the most right-wing states in the country with the laws its passed. Part D is nothing more than a qualifier they add to make the law's agenda less obvious/to prevent national outrage.

I won't disagree with Brewer's tenure. Part D contains the burden of proof found in any civil wrongful death claim....negligence / incompetence. Not sure how this law changes anything, tbh.

[TeyshaBlue]

Meaning the conclusions I came to about it were on my own and the result of what I know about Arizona legislators.

You live in AZ, right?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I won't disagree with Brewer's tenure. Part D contains the burden of proof found in any civil wrongful death claim....negligence / incompetence. Not sure how this law changes anything, tbh.
Before the law: If a child is born with a birth defect, all the plaintiff had to do was show that a competent doctor would have detected the defect, so whether or not the doctor is either dishonest or incompetent, he's liable.

After the law: The plaintiff now has to prove the doctor knew about the birth defect and deliberately ignored it. Now, the doctor can plead incompetence whether or not he actually was incompetent or if he knew about it.

Do you see the difference? Also, this law takes away "Wrongful Life" malpractice where if a doctor performs a vasectomy or ties a woman's tubes (don't know the medical term) and then the patient ends up pregnant/being a father, the doctor isn't liable at all. So basically doctors can perform a procedure and not be liable if the sole purpose of the procedure wasn't served.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

You live in AZ, right?

Yes.

[TeyshaBlue]

Before the law: If a child is born with a birth defect, all the plaintiff had to do was show that a competent doctor would have detected the defect, so whether or not the doctor is either dishonest or incompetent, he's liable.

After the law: The plaintiff now has to prove the doctor knew about the birth defect and deliberately ignored it. Now, the doctor can plead incompetence whether or not he actually was incompetent or if he knew about it.

Do you see the difference? Also, this law takes away "Wrongful Life" malpractice where if a doctor performs a vasectomy or ties a woman's tubes (don't know the medical term) and then the patient ends up pregnant/being a father, the doctor isn't liable at all. So basically doctors can perform a procedure and not be liable if the sole purpose of the procedure wasn't served.

Yeah, I can see the application of incompetence as a defense since incompetence <> negligence, Good point.

[TeyshaBlue]

Yes.

I play in an annual music festival in Wikieup every year.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I'm guessing that's somewhere in Northern Arizona since I have no idea where it is and it's rare I ever go North of Phoenix :lol

[mavs>spurs]

there are much bigger problems tbh. call me whenever you feel like you're ready to complain about NDAA which is infinitely times worse.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

there are much bigger problems tbh. call me whenever you feel like you're ready to complain about NDAA which is infinitely times worse.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187345

tenks!

[mavs>spurs]

one thread and not a peep since. the entire focus of everyones bitching should be on that and the deficit, nothing else really matters right now.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

the entire focus of everyones bitching should be on that and the deficit, nothing else really matters right now.

I'm assuming you get a personal exemption from this when you feel like bitching about gun rights the NRA insists Obama plans to take away, or when you feel like bitching about be@ners getting jobs that you'd never take anyway.

:lmao pretending all you bitch about is the NDAA and national deficit

[mavs>spurs]

the be@ner invasion and gun rights are both much more important than this type of crap you routinely harp on because of your personal agenda against religion. you worry about religion more than even people who attend church twice a week it's not normal.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

the be@ner invasion and gun rights are both much more important than this type of crap you routinely harp on because of your personal agenda against religion.
That's a matter of opinion. Seeing that Obama has repeatedly said he has no plans to take away gun rights and hasn't yet, it's not an issue I view as important, at all.

lol wanting to hold doctors liable for malpractice = an agenda against religion

[mavs>spurs]

Cool, the "playing dumb" routine even though you're smart enough to know the law has an obvious Christian right agenda.

this post explains why you care

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Do you deny that the bill has an obvious Christian right agenda?

Do you personally agree with the law?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

this post explains why you care
Yes, I care when religious beliefs lead to laws that affect people who don't share those beliefs. If that means I have an agenda against religion, then yeah, guilty as charged.

[mavs>spurs]

Do you deny that the bill has an obvious Christian right agenda?

Do you personally agree with the law?

i couldn't answer that question because i automatically tune out anything having to do with women's rights or reproductive rights i'm tired of hearing about that shit i'm not worried about it right now whenever they're threatening WW3 and debasing the fuck out of our currency while we all happily march toward a police state. my civil rights >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some woman's rights to terminate another life or anything having to do with pregnancies that's not something i plan to be a part of anytime soon.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

i couldn't answer that question because i automatically tune out anything having to do with women's rights or reproductive rights i'm tired of hearing about that shit i'm not worried about it right now whenever they're threatening WW3 and debasing the fuck out of our currency while we all happily march toward a police state. my civil rights >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some woman's rights to terminate another life or anything having to do with pregnancies that's not something i plan to be a part of anytime soon.

Recent quotes where you take a stance on woman's/reproductive rights:


and if she doesn't want to go through child birth and have the responsibility of raising a kid, she should keep her legs closed then right?

Or is it that only she gets an out but he doesn't?


how hard is it to go to the store on your way home from the police station and buy a fucking morning after pill :rollin

i'd even support government paid for morning after pills for rape victims wayyyyyyyyyyyy before i ever supported government paid for abortion. i ain't paying a couple g's for you to go be a slut and kill babies, but i'll sure support preventing such a shitty mother from ever conceiving one.


i'm calling women who get fucked and have abortions sluts, not rape victims. it's pretty easy for a rape victim to get a morning after pill and not ever get pregnant from a rape tbh.


not only should they not get aid but we shouldn't pay for their abortions and contraceptives either

You seem really tuned out of the women's/reproductive rights topic and not worried about it at all one way or another :tu

[LnGrrrR]

one thread and not a peep since. the entire focus of everyones bitching should be on that and the deficit, nothing else really matters right now.

tbh, hope you'll donate some spare money to the deficit when you're making those six figures, since the deficit is so important

[boutons_deux]

the deficit! :lol

Real Americans poll as JOBS being the most important, they don't GAS about the deficit.

[Wild Cobra]

Saw this mentioned on the Daily Show the other day and had no idea about it.

Apparently earlier this year the great state of Arizona passed a law that allows doctors to withhold information and even lie to pregnant mothers about potential birth defects their child might/will have :lmao

This is why state rights people don't know shit. When you give states the right to pass legislation on constitutional matters, batshit laws like this happen.
Look on the bright side.

Arizona is trying to increase the medical industry business in neighboring states.

[Wild Cobra]

Just did a quick look-see of the bill. It is a tort reform that keeps them from being sues if they misdiagnose a pregnancy. The bill isn't designed to allow doctors not to inform women of potential birth defects, but protects the doctors from liability.


SB 1359 is an important tort reform measure that helps avoid frivolous lawsuits. This bill protects the medical community against predatory lawsuits filed against a medical provider who did nothing wrong.

link: SB 1359 – CIVIL LIABILITY; WRONGFUL LIFE; BIRTH (http://blog.azpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/f12-13-WrongfulLife.pdf)

This bill was signed into law on 4/17/12.

From AZ gov site: SENATE BILL 1359 (http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/2r/laws/0284.htm&Session_ID=107):


A. A person is not liable for damages in any civil action for wrongful birth based on a claim that, but for an act or omission of the defendant, a child or children would not or should not have been born.

B. A person is not liable for damages in any civil action for wrongful life based on a claim that, but for an act or omission of the defendant, the person bringing the action would not or should not have been born.

C. This section applies to any claim regardless of whether the child is born healthy or with a birth defect or other adverse medical condition.

D. This section does not apply to any civil action for damages for an intentional or grossly negligent act or omission, including an act or omission that violates a criminal law.

[angrydude]

tort reform helps keep the cost of medical malpractice down which keeps medical costs down which health insurance down, which allows poor people to go to the hospital, which helps them not die

why are you trying to kill poor people?

[Jeff Van Gundy]

I'm surprised people read mavs>spurs post tbh, usually ends up lowering your IQ.

[boutons_deux]

"tort reform helps keep the cost of medical malpractice down"

link? didn't work in TX

[Wild Cobra]

"tort reform helps keep the cost of medical malpractice down"

link? didn't work in TX
Not all tort reform is equal...

[boutons_deux]

if the right wing/VRWC/Repugs are for tort reform (helps the 1%), you know the 99% are gonna get screwed.

In TX, personal injury lawyers won't take cases because of the reward cap, so the legitimately injured patients have the court house door slammed in their faces.

[DMC]

the deficit! :lol

Real Americans poll as JOBS being the most important, they don't GAS about the deficit.

"real Americans"...


lol

[DMC]

I don't think the law has a Christian agenda. I think it could benefit them in a backhanded way, but I think it's agenda is to protect doctors from lawsuits.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I don't think the law has a Christian agenda.

Then you're not familiar with Jan Brewer and her gang of nutty bible thumpers