Author Topic: Lying for Jesus passes Judicial Test  (Read 4352 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DiscoBerry

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1081
    • Has the Hadron Collider Destroyed the Earth Yet?
Lying for Jesus passes Judicial Test
« on: July 09, 2012, 12:30:55 am »
US 4th Circuit Court of Appeals says its ok to lie to women in Pregnancy Crisis Centers...And can impersonate doctors.  I don't see how that works some care to explain?

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NiU0in7mZk" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NiU0in7mZk</a>

Offline ironbite

  • Overlord of all that is good in Iacon City
  • Kakarot
  • ******
  • Posts: 10686
  • Gender: Male
  • Stuck in the middle with you.
Re: Lying for Jesus passes Judicial Test
« Reply #1 on: July 09, 2012, 12:46:38 am »
Cause the 4th Circuit is....stupid?

Ironbite-wait...what?

Offline ThunderWulf

  • Strange, even crazy, but never dull
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2920
  • Gender: Male
  • By Odin's beard!
Re: Lying for Jesus passes Judicial Test
« Reply #2 on: July 09, 2012, 12:48:28 am »
 ???


The fuck?  This is seriously one of those times where you almost wonder what the judges were smoking when they made that decision.
a.k.a. TGRwulf
"hehehehe. you said member." ~ Shepard/Booker
"it's kind of like my right left hand on a sunday every night. How so? It beats the fuck out of me!" ~ Saturn500
"Drinking, fighting, fucking...they basically outlawed 99% of the lifestyle of your typical Irishman.  Much less your typical Viking." ~ RavynousHunter

Offline ironbite

  • Overlord of all that is good in Iacon City
  • Kakarot
  • ******
  • Posts: 10686
  • Gender: Male
  • Stuck in the middle with you.
Re: Lying for Jesus passes Judicial Test
« Reply #3 on: July 09, 2012, 12:50:04 am »
Oh and they're located in Virginia....oh...oh god.

Ironbite-I might need to sit down for a few.

Offline The Right Honourable Mlle Antéchrist

  • The Very Punny Punisher and Owner of the Most Glorious Chest
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 4316
  • Gender: Female
  • And I fired two warning shots... into his head.
    • Tumblr Image Blog
Re: Lying for Jesus passes Judicial Test
« Reply #4 on: July 09, 2012, 12:59:32 am »
The bits about lying to women are bad enough as it is, but I'm particularly floored by the decision to allow these people to impersonate doctors.
"Je me presse de rire de tout, de peur d'être obligé d'en pleurer."

My Blog (Sometimes NSFW)

Offline kefkaownsall

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3253
  • Gender: Male
Re: Lying for Jesus passes Judicial Test
« Reply #5 on: July 09, 2012, 01:01:55 am »
does this mean if i work at a crisis center i can abuse my client by telling them to do something stupid cause I'm a "doctor"

Offline Her3tiK

  • Suffers in Sanity
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1940
  • Gender: Male
  • Learn to Swim
    • HeretiK Productions
Re: Lying for Jesus passes Judicial Test
« Reply #6 on: July 09, 2012, 01:21:32 am »
Does that mean I can lie about being a church and not pay taxes? Cuz that seems fair.
Her3tik, you have groupies.
Ego: +5

There are a number of ways, though my favourite is simply to take them by surprise. They're just walking down the street, minding their own business when suddenly, WHACK! Penis to the face.

Offline Fpqxz

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 903
  • Gender: Male
  • Generic forum poster #666
Re: Lying for Jesus passes Judicial Test
« Reply #7 on: July 09, 2012, 04:18:03 am »
Can we get an article source on this please?  I checked on Jurist and found nothing.
Read some real news:  Allgov.com, JURIST

Quote
Step down Mr. and Mrs. Politically Correct.
It's so easy to be "punk" and "aware" living at home.
You can't change shit, you're too self-righteous;
you're the bigots you flaunt to loathe.
--Thought Industry, Boil

QueenofHearts

  • Guest
Re: Lying for Jesus passes Judicial Test
« Reply #8 on: July 09, 2012, 04:27:22 am »
Can we get an article source on this please?  I checked on Jurist and found nothing.

Here's the court's decision. Hope this is along the lines of what you wanted.

shykid

  • Guest
Re: Lying for Jesus passes Judicial Test
« Reply #9 on: July 09, 2012, 04:40:17 am »
I'm almost scared to see this go to SCOTUS. If they uphold it, then wouldn't it be officially legal for anyone to pretend to be a doctor, fuck up, and kill their "patients"? But I guess that's ok to pro-life people because "PLZ THINK OF THE UNBORNED BAYBEEZ" or something? Why is everything these "pro-life" people do so patently anti-life?

Offline Fpqxz

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 903
  • Gender: Male
  • Generic forum poster #666
Re: Lying for Jesus passes Judicial Test
« Reply #10 on: July 09, 2012, 05:10:31 am »
Can we get an article source on this please?  I checked on Jurist and found nothing.

Here's the court's decision. Hope this is along the lines of what you wanted.

Thanks.  (+1)
Read some real news:  Allgov.com, JURIST

Quote
Step down Mr. and Mrs. Politically Correct.
It's so easy to be "punk" and "aware" living at home.
You can't change shit, you're too self-righteous;
you're the bigots you flaunt to loathe.
--Thought Industry, Boil

Offline Vypernight

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1778
  • Gender: Male
  • Stubborn, pig-headed skeptic
Re: Lying for Jesus passes Judicial Test
« Reply #11 on: July 09, 2012, 05:40:07 am »
So a priest pushed for this law and it passed?

But Obamacare is unconstitutional?

Whenever I hear a politician speaking strongly for or against abortion, all I hear is, "I have no idea how to fix the economy!"

Offline Askold

  • Definitely not hiding a dark secret.
  • Global Moderator
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 8358
  • Gender: Male
Re: Lying for Jesus passes Judicial Test
« Reply #12 on: July 09, 2012, 08:55:05 am »
HOW? WHY? AAAGH!

So a priest pushed for this law and it passed?

But Obamacare is unconstitutional?

That too. One step forward, two steps back. Way to go USA.
No matter what happens, no matter what my last words may end up being, I want everyone to claim that they were:
"If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."
Aww, you guys rock. :)  I feel the love... and the pitchforks and torches.  Tingly!

Offline Kit Walker

  • Pope
  • ****
  • Posts: 413
  • Gender: Male
  • Grand Master Brain Wizard*
Re: Lying for Jesus passes Judicial Test
« Reply #13 on: July 09, 2012, 10:14:26 pm »
1) I did not read the whole ruling, but it says not one damned word about these places being allowed to lie to women. Here's what the law stated:
Quote
Under the ordinance,
"[a] limited-service pregnancy center must provide its clients
and potential clients with a disclaimer substantially to the
effect that the center does not provide or make referral for
abortion or birth-control services." Id. § 3-502(a). This disclaimer
must be made through one or more "easily readable"
signs that are "conspicuously posted in the center’s waiting
room" and written in English and Spanish. Id. § 3-502(b). The
failure to comply with the terms of the ordinance is punishable
by a citation carrying a maximum civil penalty of $150.

2) The Pregnancy Center, one such establishment, argued that this ordinance unfairly infringed upon their right to the freedom of speech by requiring them to tacitly support abortion as a moral choice. The city did not argue that they weren't compelling them to "speak" against their principles, but instead argued that they had the right to regulate it as commercial speech, the same legal theory that lets us regulate advertising claims and the like. However:
Quote
The Supreme Court has defined commercial speech as "expression
related solely to the economic interests of the
speaker and its audience." Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp.
v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of N.Y., 447 U.S. 557, 561 (1980).
Stated in another way, the hallmark of commercial speech is
that it "does no more than propose a commercial transaction."

As such, the city's reasoning is kinda bullshit because:
Quote
there is no indication that
the Pregnancy Center is motivated by any economic interest
or that it is proposing any commercial transaction. The Pregnancy
Center seeks to provide free information about pregnancy,
abortion, and birth control as informed by a religious
and political belief. This kind of ideologically driven speech
has routinely been afforded the highest levels of First Amendment
protection, even when accompanied by offers of commercially
valuable services.

Likewise, the city's other argument, that it was like the disclosure laws for abortion clinics, was similarly shaky:
Quote
The differing contexts of the speech restrictions in those
cases, however, render the cases inapplicable to the compelled
speech before us. In Casey, the mandatory disclosures focused
on the speech of licensed medical professionals, and the regulations
were upheld because, even though they implicated a
physician’s right not to speak, they did so "only as part of the
practice of medicine, subject to reasonable licensing and regulation
by the State." Casey, 505 U.S. at 884. More particularly,
the regulations there were permissible because they
facilitated the process of obtaining a patient’s informed consent
prior to performing a medical procedure. Thus the regulation
of such professional speech was imposed incidental to the
broader governmental regulation of a profession and was justified
by this larger context. In contrast, the pregnancy centers
that are subject to Ordinance 09-252 do not practice medicine,
are not staffed by licensed professionals, and need not satisfy
the informed consent requirement.3

As to the city's compelling interest, they simply could not prove it:
Quote
Here, the record establishes, at most, only isolated
instances of misconduct by pregnancy centers generally, and,
as the City concedes, none by the Pregnancy Center itself.
Indeed, the record contains no evidence that any woman has
been misled into believing that any pregnancy center subject
to Ordinance 09-252 was a medical clinic or that a woman in
Baltimore delayed seeking medical services because of such
a misconception. The City instead cites allegations of deceptive
practices occurring in other locations or second-hand
reports of "stories about harassment." The City’s failure to
provide more than speculative evidence of problems at Baltimore’s
pregnancy centers strongly suggests that the need for
regulation of those centers is not as pressing as the City
asserts.

While I certainly agree with the intentions of the law, the city didn't put together a good law. Had they sought to specifically prohibit the explicit or implicit misleading of patients or had the requirement been that establishments that dispense medical advice without a doctor present put up signs to the effect of "The staff of this clinic does not include licensed physicians and patients are advised to consult with a licensed physician before beginning suggested treatments" (such a law would apply to crisis pregnancy center, homeopathy clinics, "cleansing" services, even certain branches of planned parenthood), the outcome might have been different. But they did not.  They made a law that blatantly sought to restrict the speech of one particular group, under the shoddy legal theory that any "commercially valuable" services were automatically commercial speech and without any hard evidence to back up their claims of compelling interest. Unless the Supreme Court rules otherwise, I'm forced to side with the court here.

3) That Young Turks report is on par with Right Wingers who blather that the ACLU argued NAMBLA could legally molest children or that the Supreme Court just legalized death panels. If it's not OK when the other guys do it, it is not OK when we do it.

Question: Would we prefer the appeals court rule that the city doesn't have to present hard evidence when banning or restricting certain forms of speech? Or that narrowly tailored precedent can be reinterpreted and expanded by anyone less than the nine supremes?
« Last Edit: July 09, 2012, 10:33:34 pm by Kit Walker »
"Well believe me, Mike, I calculated the odds of this succeeding versus the odds I was doing something incredibly stupid... and I went ahead anyway." - Crow T. Robot

*Actual title from the Universal Life Church Monastery, the outfit that ordained me as a wedding officiant.

Offline Damen

  • That's COMMODORE SPLATMASTER Damen, Briber of Mods
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1800
  • Gender: Male
  • The Dark Sex God
    • John Damen's Photography
Re: Lying for Jesus passes Judicial Test
« Reply #14 on: July 09, 2012, 10:32:51 pm »
I hope everyone at one of these CPCs gets charged with practicing medicine without a license.
"Fear my .45"

"If the liberties of the American people are ever destroyed, they will fall by the hands of the clergy" ~ Marquis De Lafayette

'Till Next Time,
~John Damen