The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
2. And I think Fringe already made the point that "conspiracy" is not itself a crime (nor is "attempt"). It's a conspiracy to commit a crime, in this case performing an abortion. Inchoate offenses are not themselves offenses, only in conjunction with something otherwise unlawful.

If I pay you to rob a bank for me, I have committed a crime, even if there are good and sound reasons why I cannot be charged with robbing a bank.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I see that. But read it again:

"Nothing in this Act may be construed to subject the pregnant mother upon whom any abortion is performed or attempted to any criminal conviction and penalty."

Nothing in this Act may be construed to subject the pregnant mother ... to any criminal conviction and penalty. What if some other law, on its face, may be construed to subject the pregnant mother to criminal conviction and penalty?

OH MY GOD YOU ARE NOT THIS STUPID!!!! Read Burger's inchoate crimes thing regarding conspiracy and aiding and abetting. As I said earlier, to get to conspiracy or aiding and abetting doesn't there have to be some other crime involved (I suppose possibly not, under SD law, but do you know the ins-and-outs of SD law? I think not.) -- and if so, this basically is directing the prosecutor or judge or whatever to say, there is no such thing as a pregnant mother aiding and abetting or conspiring in connection with the criminal activity under THIS statute. They have to go back to this statute to describe what the conspiracy is about, or what is being aided and abetted, and when they go back to the abortion statute, it shakes its (note punctuation, Burger) statutory finger and says "not for preggos (or previously preggos), you naughty prosecutor/judge/jury!!"

Jesus God Christ Almighty, get some fucking sleep or something.

[Replaced_Texan]

I posted this article in the New York Review of Books, by Paul Krugman and Robin Wells yesterday, but I think it's important to read today in the context of this study that will be published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

BOSTON - Startling research from the biggest study ever of U.S. health care quality suggests that Americans — rich, poor, black, white — get roughly equal treatment, but it's woefully mediocre for all.

"This study shows that health care has equal-opportunity defects," said Dr. Donald Berwick, who runs the nonprofit Institute for Healthcare Improvement in Cambridge, Mass.

The survey of nearly 7,000 patients, reported Thursday in the New England Journal of Medicine, considered only urban-area dwellers who sought treatment, but it still challenged some stereotypes: These blacks and Hispanics actually got slightly better medical treatment than whites.

***

The researchers, who included U.S. Veterans Affairs personnel, first published their findings for the general population in June 2003. They reported the breakdown by racial, income, and other social groups on Thursday.

They examined medical records and phone interviews from 6,712 randomly picked patients who visited a medical office within a two-year period in 12 metropolitan areas from Boston to Miami to Seattle. The group was not nationally representative but does convey a broad picture of the country's health care practices.

The survey examined whether people got the highest standard of treatment for 439 measures ranging across common chronic and acute conditions and disease prevention. It looked at whether they got the right tests, drugs and treatments.

Overall, patients received only 55 percent of recommended steps for top-quality care — and no group did much better or worse than that.

Blacks and Hispanics as a group each got 58 percent of the best care, compared to 54 percent for whites. Those with annual household income over $50,000 got 57 percent, 4 points more than people from households of less than $15,000. Patients without insurance got 54 percent of recommended steps, just one point less than those with managed care.

As to gender, women came out slightly ahead with 57 percent, compared to 52 percent for men. Young adults did slightly better than the elderly.

There were narrow snapshots of inequality: An insured white woman, for example, got 57 percent of the best standard of care, while an uninsured black man got just 51 percent.

The New York Review of Books article is long, but I think that it's essential reading to help understand what the fuck is wrong with our healthcare system.

The good news is that we know more about the economics of health care than we did when Clinton tried and failed to remake the system. There's now a large body of evidence on what works and what doesn't work in health care, and it's not hard to see how to make dramatic improvements in US practice. As we'll see, the evidence clearly shows that the key problem with the US health care system is its fragmentation. A history of failed attempts to introduce universal health insurance has left us with a system in which the government pays directly or indirectly for more than half of the nation's health care, but the actual delivery both of insurance and of care is undertaken by a crazy quilt of private insurers, for-profit hospitals, and other players who add cost without adding value. A Canadian-style single-payer system, in which the government directly provides insurance, would almost surely be both cheaper and more effective than what we now have. And we could do even better if we learned from "integrated" systems, like the Veterans Administration, that directly provide some health care as well as medical insurance.

The bad news is that Washington currently seems incapable of accepting what the evidence on health care says. In particular, the Bush administration is under the influence of both industry lobbyists, especially those representing the drug companies, and a free-market ideology that is wholly inappropriate to health care issues. As a result, it seems determined to pursue policies that will increase the fragmentation of our system and swell the ranks of the uninsured.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What if some other law, on its face, may be construed to subject the pregnant mother to criminal conviction and penalty?

THen go challenge that law. For example, if SD tries to apply its murder law to abortion, then challenge it as applied.

What about this law is creating the problem you point to? I see nothing.

BTW, fringe, fuck y'ou.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If I pay you to rob a bank for me, I have committed a crime, even if there are good and sound reasons why I cannot be charged with robbing a bank.

What is the crime you have committed?

It's probably conspiracy to rob a bank. Or solicitation of same.

Paying me money is not a crime. Paying me money to commit a crime is either a conspiracy or a solicitation of a criminal act.

JFC, Ty.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
THen go challenge that law. For example, if SD tries to apply its murder law to abortion, then challenge it as applied.

What about this law is creating the problem you point to? I see nothing.

BTW, fringe, fuck y'ou.

"f'uck you" works better for me -- looks kinda Klingon-y.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
OH MY GOD YOU ARE NOT THIS STUPID!!!! Read Burger's inchoate crimes thing regarding conspiracy and aiding and abetting. As I said earlier, to get to conspiracy or aiding and abetting doesn't there have to be some other crime involved (I suppose possibly not, under SD law, but do you know the ins-and-outs of SD law? I think not.) -- and if so, this basically is directing the prosecutor or judge or whatever to say, there is no such thing as a pregnant mother aiding and abetting or conspiring in connection with the criminal activity under THIS statute. They have to go back to this statute to describe what the conspiracy is about, or what is being aided and abetted, and when they go back to the abortion statute, it shakes its (note punctuation, Burger) statutory finger and says "not for preggos (or previously preggos), you naughty prosecutor/judge/jury!!"

Jesus God Christ Almighty, get some fucking sleep or something.

Ummmm, simpler answer. The fact of abortion statutes imply the state can control the pregnant woman choice of how to live. That means a pregnant woman is chattel. Chattel cannot commit a crime. QED.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Ummmm, simpler answer. The fact of abortion statutes imply the state can control the pregnant woman choice of how to live. That means a pregnant woman is chattel. Chattel cannot commit a crime. QED.

Shut up, consort.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Government is weighing its options.

Are there only three people at TSA who could so testify, or are they barred from adding witnesses at this point? In other words, surely there are untainted witnesses.

If you were the judge, would you allow the Govt. to introduce brand-new witnesses, not previously disclosed, in the penalty phase of a capital trial?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
What is the crime you have committed?

It's probably conspiracy to rob a bank. Or solicitation of same.

Paying me money is not a crime. Paying me money to commit a crime is either a conspiracy or a solicitation of a criminal act.

JFC, Ty.

No shit. I don't read the statute as creating a safe harbor. I suspect that's what the legislature intended, but if so they could have worded it better. It doesn't say she didn't commit a crime, it says she can't be charged under *this* statute, which invites a prosecutor to try another. If you think I'm whacked, think about what's happened with RICO, which is being applied in all sorts of ways not originally intended.

I think a judge could go either way on the question, especially under facts where the mother does more than just pay a doctor for her own abortion.

Whatever. Sorry to piss you both off.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It doesn't say she didn't commit a crime, it says she can't be charged under *this* statute, which invites a prosecutor to try another.

No, it doesn't say she can't be charged under that statute, it says "Nothing in this Act may be construed to subject . . . " And that means it can't be used as a predicate for an inchoate crime. Nor could it be used against a woman under RICO if she did it four times for gain. What escapes me is how one could read that phrase to mean that a woman not a doctor engaging in conduct prohibited by the statute could be "subject" to criminal liability for something else, using this statute as a basis for that something else crime. If that other crime is free-standing, sure, but that's not what you're positing.

Did you go to the same law school as Str8?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Spanky, why do you think other countries do just as good a job at protecting the rights we protect through the Fourth Amendment?

From a cost benefit perspective this is an absurd question.. The exclusionary rule is a drastic measure that can only be justified to stop something that is extraordinarily heinous. The consequence of letting cleary guilty defendents go free requires that such an act also provide a serious benefit to society. Otherwise such an act is not worth the cost. The exclusionary rule is meant to prevent aggregious violations of the fourth amendment, not to slighty increase the effectiveness of the fourth amenmdent.

In countrys that don't have the exclusionary rule they do seem to be able to protect peoples rights and yet they don't let Child molesters or murderers go free when they have evidence that clearly shows that the defendent is guilty. In all these countrys there doesn't seem to be a huge outcry or a serious problem concerning Police searches.

The issue is not whether, on balance, if all these countrys protect against searches and seizures as well as we do, the question is whether without the exclusionary rule there is massive police misconduct.

There is no such outcry, which demonstrates that the heinouse and drastic consequences of the application of the exclusionary rule are clearly not necessary.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No shit. I don't read the statute as creating a safe harbor. I suspect that's what the legislature intended, but if so they could have worded it better. It doesn't say she didn't commit a crime, it says she can't be charged under *this* statute, which invites a prosecutor to try another. If you think I'm whacked, think about what's happened with RICO, which is being applied in all sorts of ways not originally intended.

I think a judge could go either way on the question, especially under facts where the mother does more than just pay a doctor for her own abortion.

Whatever. Sorry to piss you both off.

Ty, I hear you on this. I don't think it's the best interpretation, but I don't think you do either. It's an interpretation that a prosecuter in the real world who wants to prosecute the mother would use.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Spanky
From a cost benefit perspective this is an absurd question.. The exclusionary rule is a drastic measure that can only be justified to stop something that is extraordinarily heinous. The consequence of letting cleary guilty defendents go free requires that such an act also provide a serious benefit to society. Otherwise such an act is not worth the cost. The exclusionary rule is meant to prevent aggregious violations of the fourth amendment, not to slighty increase the effectiveness of the fourth amenmdent.

In countrys that don't have the exclusionary rule they do seem to be able to protect peoples rights and yet they don't let Child molesters or murderers go free when they have evidence that clearly shows that the defendent is guilty. In all these countrys there doesn't seem to be a huge outcry or a serious problem concerning Police searches.

The issue is not whether, on balance, if all these countrys protect against searches and seizures as well as we do, the question is whether without the exclusionary rule there is massive police misconduct.

There is no such outcry, which demonstrates that the heinouse and drastic consequences of the application of the exclusionary rule are clearly not necessary.

Where are the facts! Stats! Anything? I've watched you all go round and round on this the last few days and no one is pulling any facts from anywhere.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Ty, I hear you on this. I don't think it's the best interpretation, but I don't think you do either. It's an interpretation that a prosecuter in the real world who wants to prosecute the mother would use.

Ding ding ding ding ding ding ding.

We have a winner. Ty's interpretation is a bit strained but not entirely far-fetched. It's not consistent with legislative intent, I would guess, but a whole lotta judges think legislative intent is irrelevant.

I would add to Club's statement: And that a pro-life judge might buy.