In article , "J. Clarke" wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "J. Clarke"
wrote:
Paul B Deemer wrote:

Medically necessary - a majority of people find it appropriate that 3rd
trimester abortions must be medically necessary, but have no clue on what
medically necessary means in practice as guided by judicial mandate. Read
more on the Doe v. Dalton case, which gets at the definition of what
constitutes a risk to the health of the mother. "Health" includes direct
bodily risk....along with psychological well being and emotions - just a
couple of the several vagaries and ambiguities.

To say abortion is available on demand is not a lie. And to say 3rd
trimester abortions only occur when medically necessary uses an absurd
definition of both "medical" and "necessary".

Get some cortisone in that knee Deemer before it jerks into the frame of
your Unisaw and you break your foot.

Ad hominem arguments are *so* persuasive...

Now, go out and read the statutes, not what people tell you is the law.

The law is for all practical purposes what the courts say that the statues
*mean*. What they actually *say* is sadly of little relevance.

So how many state abortion statutes contain the words "medically necessary"
and what leads you to believe that a Supreme Court definition of "medically
necessary" has any relevance when the term defined does not appear in the
statute?

While SCOTUS might rule on the definition of "medical necessity" in the
absence of a statutory definition, a statutory definition, unless found to
be discriminatory or otherwise unconstitutional, overrides the definition
provided by SCOTUS.

This is absolute nonsense. *Nothing* overrides the Supreme Court.

Nothing? Not even a Constitutional Amendment? Sorry, but the Supreme Court
is a court, it is not God.

Regardless, the Supreme Court would not define "medically necessary" unless
there was some question as to its meaning. And if it was defined clearly
by the statute then there would not have been such question. And if a
subsequent statute contains a statement to the effect that "for the
purposes of this statute 'medically necessary' shall be defined to
mean . . ." then unless there is a separate finding that invalidates that
definition the definition in the statute stands. You may find this
inconvenient but it does not alter the fact.

Further, if you had in fact read what I wrote and thought about it instead
of flailing your own knee you would have realized this and not put your
foot in your mouth.

And don't bother to get back to me--life is too short to waste arguing
with
empty-headed advocates of this and that. If you don't like what SCOTUS
has ruled then get yourself admitted to the Federal bar and find a test
case and take it up with _them_ if they're willing to listen to you.

You're contradicting yourself here, you know... In the previous paragraph,
you claim erroneously that statutory definitions override Supreme Court
decisions, but in this paragraph you recognize correctly that Supreme
Court rulings take precedence. I wish you'd make up your mind.

Only in your mind. If the Supreme Court says that "ironwood is wood of the
following species" and the Congress enacts a statute that says "for the
purpose of this statute 'ironwood' shall be defined as being wood of (some
other list of species) then the Supreme Court definition of ironwood will
not apply to that statute unless and until the Supreme Court decides that
there is some reason to invalidate the list that the Congress has chosen to
use. That does not mean that the Supreme Court cannot alter the list, just
that it remains in force until they _do_ alter it. There is no
contradiction between the _fact_ that if a statute defines a word then that
definition is the one that stands even if is is different from the default
definition established by the courts and even if it is completely at
variance with common usage unless and until that definition is specifically
overturned by a _subsequent_ court ruling and the fact that the Supreme
Court can specifically overturn that definition if they find it appropriate
to do so.


I wish you'd make up your mind. Can the Court be overruled by a statute, or
does the Court have the power to overrule any statute it wishes? You're
stating both things at different times when it serves your purposes... and
completely ignoring the fact that, for practical purposes, any statute means
what the court(s) say it means, whether or not that bears any discernable
relationship to what the statute actually *says*.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.