The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

What even is this conversation that's happening? Holy cow.

RunningGame, it might be time to step away from the keyboard and reassess.

I'm not sure where you're getting your news from (I can make some guesses), but this interpretation that an amendment about abortion is somehow legalizing statutory rape and incest is...bonkers. It's absurd. It's ridiculous. It's embarrassing. I honestly can't believe what I'm reading. Be reasonable, brother. If you're opposed to abortion, fine. But don't throw out basic reason and logic to try to attack this amendment.

I'm gonna need some more popcorn for this thread. Wow.

(09-09-2022 12:11 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  "Pregnancy" and "sex" have different meanings in the eyes of the law. They just do. You can get pregnant without having sex. You can have sex without getting pregnant. They are separate issues, separate acts. Matters relating to pregnancy begin once pregnant.

The "individual" in question with the right to reproductive freedom is the pregnant individual. Not the guy who violated age of consent and will still end up paying the consequences.

I would bet my life savings on this and take out loans for more if you're interested.

Thanks for engaging on the language. "They just do" isn't very reassuring, but as I said earlier, it's possible to make that argument. However, a 14-year-old girl can still get pregnant, a 20-year-old dude still can get her pregnant, and this right doesn't just apply to a pregnant women, it clearly applies to EVERYONE making their autonomous decisions about ALL matters related to pregnancy. Nowhere in it does it say it applies to only pregnant women, and some of the things it explicitly mentions like sterilizations does not apply to pregnant women.

Again, it says the state can't restrict someone's autonomous decision making in regards to ALL matters related to pregnancy, whether they are on the giving end or the receiving end.

(09-09-2022 12:28 PM)ColinApocalypse Wrote:  What even is this conversation that's happening? Holy cow.

RunningGame, it might be time to step away from the keyboard and reassess.

I'm not sure where you're getting your news from (I can make some guesses), but this interpretation that an amendment about abortion is somehow legalizing statutory rape and incest is...bonkers. It's absurd. It's ridiculous. It's embarrassing. I honestly can't believe what I'm reading. Be reasonable, brother. If you're opposed to abortion, fine. But don't throw out basic reason and logic to try to attack this amendment.

I didn't write it that way. Anyone who tries to put something in the constitution that says the state can't restrict someone's "autonomous decision-making" on a broad topic like this needs to step away and reassess their intelligence level.

Don't be intellectually lazy and pretend the words don't matter, just emotions about abortion in general. No person in their right mind should support this recklessly irresponsible language.

Keep in mind the people writing this were the same people who had two previous petitions rejected by the Canvassers for silly errors, and then didn't proofread their own petition before spending $6 million collecting signatures. These are not careful, measured, bright people.

If you don't want to accept that, how about this: should anyone be able to perform an abortion?

The amendment text never says doctor or physician. It does say "health care professional," which in Michigan includes a lot of professionals like massage therapist, trainer, vet, etc. Can a massage therapist make an informed pregnancy diagnosis?

Then it includes this section: "Nor shall the state penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against someone for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising their right to reproductive freedom with their voluntary consent."

So, if you want to help perform an abortion (or, heck, a c-section) on the woman, you can never be punished for it. As long as the pregnant woman "consented" to you doing it, you get a get out of jail free card. Even if you harm her, the state can't penalize you, prosecute you, and arguably even investigate it as that would be an "adverse action." With this wording, you probably can't even be successfully sued for malpractice, since if you refuse to pay or abide by the terms of the lawsuit or settlement, the state is left with no enforcement mechanism—that would constitute an adverse action, right?

Again, call me a "forced birther," but should back alley abortions be enshrined in the state constitution? You can pretend that future judges will just absurdly ignore the constitution and rule however they want, but at least come out and admit this language looks like it was drafted by a high school junior whose legal training was reading a John Grisham novel.

(09-09-2022 01:46 PM)RunningGame Wrote:  If you don't want to accept that, how about this: should anyone be able to perform an abortion?

The amendment text never says doctor or physician. It does say "health care professional," which in Michigan includes a lot of professionals like massage therapist, trainer, vet, etc. Can a massage therapist make an informed pregnancy diagnosis?

Then it includes this section: "Nor shall the state penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against someone for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising their right to reproductive freedom with their voluntary consent."

So, if you want to help perform an abortion (or, heck, a c-section) on the woman, you can never be punished for it. As long as the pregnant woman "consented" to you doing it, you get a get out of jail free card. Even if you harm her, the state can't penalize you, prosecute you, and arguably even investigate it as that would be an "adverse action." With this wording, you probably can't even be successfully sued for malpractice, since if you refuse to pay or abide by the terms of the lawsuit or settlement, the state is left with no enforcement mechanism—that would constitute an adverse action, right?

Again, call me a "forced birther," but should back alley abortions be enshrined in the state constitution? You can pretend that future judges will just absurdly ignore the constitution and rule however they want, but at least come out and admit this language looks like it was drafted by a high school junior whose legal training was reading a John Grisham novel.

They would be prosecuted for practicing without a license. That is a separate charge. You're really bad at this. Again, just say you're anti-abortion and stop grasping at straws.

The point, BTW, of the "aiding and assisting" part is so you can't arrest someone for driving them to a clinic or something.

Also even if your word salad and lack of legal understanding had any basis there's no reason to believe back alley abortions would be a thing when there's a safe, private and accessible alternative.

Man, with the vagaries in many of our US Constitutional clauses and amendments it must be a miracle we haven't descended into chaos with people like RG running around and interpreting wild-ass stuff like this.

Sorry to post so much, this is just crazy though

(09-09-2022 01:53 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  The point, BTW, of the "aiding and assisting" part is so you can't arrest someone for driving them to a clinic or something.

Also even if your word salad and lack of legal understanding had any basis there's no reason to believe back alley abortions would be a thing when there's a safe, private and accessible alternative.

It doesn't matter what you want the point to be, it's what the words say. Anyone assisting a woman having an abortion can't be penalized or prosecuted for practicing without a license, because they are aiding them. Aiding obviously has a very firm, long-standing legal definition considering laws regarding accessories to crimes: it simply means helping. The "someone" providing the abortion is helping.

You don't believe me because of your preconceived notion about my views, OK, but here they are saying it themselves:

"The proposal also would invalidate current, medically unnecessary abortion restrictions, including: Physician-only laws, which only allow licensed-physicians to provide abortion care"

https://michiganadvance.com/2022/01/07/b...stitution/

(09-09-2022 01:54 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Man, with the vagaries in many of our US Constitutional clauses and amendments it must be a miracle we haven't descended into chaos with people like RG running around and interpreting wild-ass stuff like this.

Sorry to post so much, this is just crazy though

We're not too far from it. Kids can get guns before they can vote. Gerrymandering (and the electoral college) is just fine and dandy. Corporations are people. Fertilized eggs are children. Presidents can incite insurrections with no repercussions. Christians should control government (even though government is the enemy). The department of defense is the only government agency that shouldn't be cut to the bone.

(09-09-2022 02:10 PM)RunningGame Wrote:  

(09-09-2022 01:53 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  The point, BTW, of the "aiding and assisting" part is so you can't arrest someone for driving them to a clinic or something.

Also even if your word salad and lack of legal understanding had any basis there's no reason to believe back alley abortions would be a thing when there's a safe, private and accessible alternative.

It doesn't matter what you want the point to be, it's what the words say. Anyone assisting a woman having an abortion can't be penalized or prosecuted for practicing without a license, because they are aiding them. Aiding obviously has a very firm, long-standing legal definition considering laws regarding accessories to crimes: it simply means helping. The "someone" providing the abortion is helping.

You don't believe me because of your preconceived notion about my views, OK, but here they are saying it themselves:

"The proposal also would invalidate current, medically unnecessary abortion restrictions, including: Physician-only laws, which only allow licensed-physicians to provide abortion care"

https://michiganadvance.com/2022/01/07/b...stitution/

First part is wrong. They can't be prosecuted for aiding an abortion. They can still be for the separate crime of practicing medicine illegally.

Second part, well: https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2013/01/98759/...assistants

Like, do you think this clause means you can just get hammered and go run over a few people and then shoot at the cops chasing you and then you're cleared of all charges because you were driving someone to get an abortion?

Is that how you believe the courts will interpret this amendment?

(09-09-2022 02:45 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(09-09-2022 02:10 PM)RunningGame Wrote:  

(09-09-2022 01:53 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  The point, BTW, of the "aiding and assisting" part is so you can't arrest someone for driving them to a clinic or something.

Also even if your word salad and lack of legal understanding had any basis there's no reason to believe back alley abortions would be a thing when there's a safe, private and accessible alternative.

It doesn't matter what you want the point to be, it's what the words say. Anyone assisting a woman having an abortion can't be penalized or prosecuted for practicing without a license, because they are aiding them. Aiding obviously has a very firm, long-standing legal definition considering laws regarding accessories to crimes: it simply means helping. The "someone" providing the abortion is helping.

You don't believe me because of your preconceived notion about my views, OK, but here they are saying it themselves:

"The proposal also would invalidate current, medically unnecessary abortion restrictions, including: Physician-only laws, which only allow licensed-physicians to provide abortion care"

https://michiganadvance.com/2022/01/07/b...stitution/

First part is wrong. They can't be prosecuted for aiding an abortion. They can still be for the separate crime of practicing medicine illegally.

Second part, well: https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2013/01/98759/...assistants

No, the constitution takes precedent over state law. Clearly you can't use free speech to say, commit assault or blackmail someone, but think carefully about the wording: the 1st Amendment says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech; it doesn't say Congress may not penalize or prosecute someone for speaking. They chose to word it that way.

The amendment even includes this handy section to close off such a backdoor "forced birthers" like myself would be happy to exploit to convict back-alley abortionists: "The state shall not discriminate in the protection or enforcement of this fundamental right." It isn't just a broad negative right like, say our right to free speech; it creates a positive right that precludes the state from interfering in it in any way.

Second, I disagree with the source, but accepting it for a moment, they could have included NPs and PAs in the amendment, however, they went with "health care professionals" for some parts, and then a blanket get out of jail free card in the section we are discussing.

That's the words they went with, not words I am imagining.

And, to get back to the wording, what part of the amendment are they referencing when they say it will let non-doctors perform abortions? Where is this section that just limits it to licensed medical professionals like PAs and NPs and not anyone else?

Or are the authors wrong and it won't do what they said it would do?

What you're imagining is that this extends to other crimes. Yes, the constitution supercedes state law. The laws superceded have to do with reproductive rights.

Again, the clause is "Nor shall the state penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against someone for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising their right to reproductive freedom with their voluntary consent."

You can't take adverse action against someone specifically for exercising their right to an abortion. YOU are adding BS in with your handwaving. Nowhere does it say that just anyone can do it, because you still have to provide a medical service which is a distinct law.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(sopzu0w...-333-16294

To interpret that statute as being null and void with this amendment if an abortion is the procedure is an insane interpretation that sounds perfect for right wing lunatic talk radio. I don't care how many walls of text you write about it.

BTW, at least 18 states already do not require a physician to perform abortions.

Grasping at straws, and completely disingenuous.

Anyway I'm not gonna keep going in circles with this, the intellectual dishonesty is too much.

(09-09-2022 03:10 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  What you're imagining is that this extends to other crimes. Yes, the constitution supercedes state law. The laws superceded have to do with reproductive rights.

Again, the clause is "Nor shall the state penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against someone for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising their right to reproductive freedom with their voluntary consent."

You can't take adverse action against someone specifically for exercising their right to an abortion. YOU are adding BS in with your handwaving. Nowhere does it say that just anyone can do it, because you still have to provide a medical service which is a distinct law.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(sopzu0w...-333-16294

To interpret that statute as being null and void with this amendment if an abortion is the procedure is an insane interpretation that sounds perfect for right wing lunatic talk radio. I don't care how many walls of text you write about it.

"For aiding or assisting." You missed those words in repeating it. You are saying the state law you reference would override the MI Constitution. That's not how state laws work.

The random unqualified person will point to this amendment and say "I was assisting this woman with her abortion; you can't prosecute me because the woman gave consent," and they would be correct.

I swear to god you're either functionally illiterate or intentionally being obtuse and I'm pretty sure I know it's the latter.

Aiding and assisting and practicing medicine without a license are two different ideas. If you are charged for practicing medicine illegally you can't just point to an unrelated amendment and say "but it was an abortion". You are not being charged with aiding an abortion.

Seriously I gotta be done with this now, I already am getting dumber having participated

(09-09-2022 03:37 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  I swear to god you're either functionally illiterate or intentionally being obtuse and I'm pretty sure I know it's the latter.

Aiding and assisting and practicing medicine without a license are two different ideas.

Seriously I gotta be done with this now, I already am getting dumber having participated

Here's an analogy for you to understand on a different level: you can't have the freedom of speech and then have federal laws creating free speech licenses and prosecute people for speaking without a license.

This is even more explicit than that: if the Michigan constitution says nobody can be prosecuted for performing an abortion, then that's what it means. You can't find a creative way to prosecute them and discriminate against this right the constitution has bestowed on them.

You can't agree that the authors are right that this amendment will repeal laws that say only doctors can do abortions, and then somehow say that only means it includes NPs and PAs, when the amendment includes no such wording.

You aren't even in the realm of being obtuse; you can't seem to emotionally accept what this amendment says beyond "abortion good."

You are inventing things to get mad at and the courts will not see it your way

Offer is still open btw I will bet literally any amount of money on this