Reply With Quote
I don't expect the Daily Show to do alot of in depth analysis. You really shouldn't either.
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
This is why state rights people don't know . When you give states the right to pass legislation on cons utional matters, bat laws like this happen.
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//FormatDo ent...Session_ID=107
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.
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 bat .
Do you agree with the law?
Not sure if srs.
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.
I'm actually not sure if you're seriously defending this law or just playing devil's advocate for team red.
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.
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?
which is why I haven't lept to adopt a pre-packaged narrative from a comedy show.
On first blush, no.
You're kidding yourself, unless you really are prescient, that you can make this statement unless propped up by The Daily 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.
Not really an argument. Observation, perhaps.
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.
So you're just arguing for the sake of defending team red
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.
Exactly.
As far as the actual content of this post, Arizona has passed of kinds of crazy bat 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.
Meaning the conclusions I came to about it were on my own and the result of what I know about Arizona legislators.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
