SB159 is a specific law applying to clinics dealing with IVF. Peter, can you think of any situations where this could serve as a legal precedent for other types of clinics? For example, a gender-change clinic could argue in court that they didn’t ‘intend’ any harm when they changed sexual aspects of a patient, so the patient can’t come b…
SB159 is a specific law applying to clinics dealing with IVF. Peter, can you think of any situations where this could serve as a legal precedent for other types of clinics? For example, a gender-change clinic could argue in court that they didn’t ‘intend’ any harm when they changed sexual aspects of a patient, so the patient can’t come back years later to sue them. It seems to me that SB159 is specific enough to NOT be used as a legal precedent, but your grasp of legal thinking is more comprehensive than mine....
With respect to reproductive rights and the rights of the unborn, I believe this legislation is a first of its kind. That makes it a precedent by definition.
The real question is how viable is the statute as written. Congress could pass a law immunizing a certain subset of the citizenry from charges of homicide, but that would never pass Constitutional muster. While it is uncertain if there will be any challenges to this law, it is equally uncertain if this law passes constitutional muster in Alabama. Remember, Alabama has language written into its Constitution asserting the sanctity of the unborn. One could make the case this law fails to measure up to that standard.
But in one sense I am somewhat optimistic about the legislation: for better or worse, the Alabama State Legislature took the bull by the horns and sought to equalize the law without explicitly rejecting the personhood of the unborn. That aspect of the LePage ruling is left very much intact by this legislation (and is one reason it might not be constitutional within Alabama). Is this THE way to resolve such issues? Probably not. But it's a better first step than what the Democrats were proposing, which was to legislate away the personhood of embryos stored in cryogenic nurseries at IVF clinics.
Does this legislation set a precedent for other types of healthcare rights? I don't think so. The specificity of the language runs against that argument. This was a narrowly crafted law to address a specific set of legal circumstances. Could legislatures pass similar laws to indemnify and hold harmless gender change clinics? Yes, but that has always been within their ambit. This was not needed as a precedent for that.
(Ever since vaccine manufacturers were given legal immunity, I get a little nervous whenever Congress starts giving other medical people immunity from lawsuits.)
And as for people waking up to the NEED for a smaller, more limited government, boy, these past few years of Covid restrictions might bring it about! More information about the governmental lies, abuses and harms is reaching people every day. If it explodes into the nation’s awareness - maybe after the Election - there could be a true upwelling of demands from We the People!
Frankly I am dubious about the Constitutionality of the legal immunities given to vaccine manufacturers. At a minimum, I have to wonder how that squares with the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of the equal protection of the laws.
More broadly, I question also whether such grants of immunity are within the defined powers of Congress. Nowhere do I find within Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution the authority to prescribe arbitrary and especial modes of redress for specific grievances against specific entities. It's one thing to craft in law defined duties of care. It is quite another to unlaterally waive responsibility for such duties, which is what vaccine manufacturer immunity does. Not only do I see Fifth Amendment due process problems with that approach, but there is also a potential First Amendment issue abridging the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances.
As a country, we have come to believe that if Congress passes a law, then that is the law. We have forgotten what John Marshall wrote in Marbury v Madison, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the Constitution is void--meaning that such an act of the legislature never has any legal substance or meaning regardless of what the Supreme Court (or any court) rules.
No legislature has unlimited capacity to legislate in this country. Our Republic is one of limited government at every level. I hope people will wake up to that reality and demand that government return to its Constitutional confines.
Brilliant! Now if someone with deep pockets could mount a legal challenge and take this all the way to the Supreme Court we could ultimately, possibly, end up with the sort of Constitutional medical freedom amendment that Dr. Benjamin Rush originally proposed. I would love it if you could someday email what you have written here to lawyer Aaron Siri of the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN). They are raising millions and winning lawsuits for medical freedom. Siri’s legal staff might benefit from hearing your reasoning, Peter. You would have made an astoundingly good jurist!
SB159 is a specific law applying to clinics dealing with IVF. Peter, can you think of any situations where this could serve as a legal precedent for other types of clinics? For example, a gender-change clinic could argue in court that they didn’t ‘intend’ any harm when they changed sexual aspects of a patient, so the patient can’t come back years later to sue them. It seems to me that SB159 is specific enough to NOT be used as a legal precedent, but your grasp of legal thinking is more comprehensive than mine....
With respect to reproductive rights and the rights of the unborn, I believe this legislation is a first of its kind. That makes it a precedent by definition.
The real question is how viable is the statute as written. Congress could pass a law immunizing a certain subset of the citizenry from charges of homicide, but that would never pass Constitutional muster. While it is uncertain if there will be any challenges to this law, it is equally uncertain if this law passes constitutional muster in Alabama. Remember, Alabama has language written into its Constitution asserting the sanctity of the unborn. One could make the case this law fails to measure up to that standard.
But in one sense I am somewhat optimistic about the legislation: for better or worse, the Alabama State Legislature took the bull by the horns and sought to equalize the law without explicitly rejecting the personhood of the unborn. That aspect of the LePage ruling is left very much intact by this legislation (and is one reason it might not be constitutional within Alabama). Is this THE way to resolve such issues? Probably not. But it's a better first step than what the Democrats were proposing, which was to legislate away the personhood of embryos stored in cryogenic nurseries at IVF clinics.
Does this legislation set a precedent for other types of healthcare rights? I don't think so. The specificity of the language runs against that argument. This was a narrowly crafted law to address a specific set of legal circumstances. Could legislatures pass similar laws to indemnify and hold harmless gender change clinics? Yes, but that has always been within their ambit. This was not needed as a precedent for that.
You have such a great mind, Peter.
(Ever since vaccine manufacturers were given legal immunity, I get a little nervous whenever Congress starts giving other medical people immunity from lawsuits.)
https://roy.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-roy-fights-remove-federal-liability-protections-covid-19-vaccines
And as for people waking up to the NEED for a smaller, more limited government, boy, these past few years of Covid restrictions might bring it about! More information about the governmental lies, abuses and harms is reaching people every day. If it explodes into the nation’s awareness - maybe after the Election - there could be a true upwelling of demands from We the People!
Frankly I am dubious about the Constitutionality of the legal immunities given to vaccine manufacturers. At a minimum, I have to wonder how that squares with the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of the equal protection of the laws.
More broadly, I question also whether such grants of immunity are within the defined powers of Congress. Nowhere do I find within Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution the authority to prescribe arbitrary and especial modes of redress for specific grievances against specific entities. It's one thing to craft in law defined duties of care. It is quite another to unlaterally waive responsibility for such duties, which is what vaccine manufacturer immunity does. Not only do I see Fifth Amendment due process problems with that approach, but there is also a potential First Amendment issue abridging the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances.
As a country, we have come to believe that if Congress passes a law, then that is the law. We have forgotten what John Marshall wrote in Marbury v Madison, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the Constitution is void--meaning that such an act of the legislature never has any legal substance or meaning regardless of what the Supreme Court (or any court) rules.
No legislature has unlimited capacity to legislate in this country. Our Republic is one of limited government at every level. I hope people will wake up to that reality and demand that government return to its Constitutional confines.
Brilliant! Now if someone with deep pockets could mount a legal challenge and take this all the way to the Supreme Court we could ultimately, possibly, end up with the sort of Constitutional medical freedom amendment that Dr. Benjamin Rush originally proposed. I would love it if you could someday email what you have written here to lawyer Aaron Siri of the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN). They are raising millions and winning lawsuits for medical freedom. Siri’s legal staff might benefit from hearing your reasoning, Peter. You would have made an astoundingly good jurist!