(05-20-2019 09:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 09:23 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-18-2019 11:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually, the regime set in place has NO liabilities. Neither, criminal, civil, administrative, nor professional. It literally has *zero* teeth.

I don't mean to be coming off as a strong supporter of the New York law or even giving it a vigorous defense. I found the Alabama law repulsive and asked you why you found the New York law equally repulsive. I am trying to figure out why they law was put in place and what their reasoning was in terms of taking out the criminal repercussions.

Their reasoning was simple. To make actions like Gosnell's legal. There can be no other logical rationale.

Quote:

Quote:If you would, a simple yes or no answer: does the New York law put into place a legal and administrative regime that promotes the actions of a Gosnell to act as he did with no recourse (zero cost, zero downside). Yes, or No?

I doubt it. He would have been acting way outside the bounds of the standard of medical care so I would assume that at the very least the medical board would find his actions worthy of losing his license.

To answer Tanq, not only yes but hell yes. That is exactly the purpose of the New York law. There can be no other purpose. It is way overkill and beyond scope for any other purpose.

Do you really believe that a New York board would take his license for performing a legally acceptable procedure? Really? Seriously?

Professionals in all industries lose their licenses all of the time for doing something that is technically legal...