Ruth Bader Ginsburg wasn’t really fond of Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that in 1973
established a constitutional right to abortion. She didn’t like how it was structured.

The ruling, she noted in a lecture at New York University in 1992, tried to do too much, too fast — it essentially
made every abortion restriction in the country at the time illegal in one fell swoop — leaving it open to fierce attacks.

Seems like you had a 12-24 hr bug. . .

 

I will agree with both,  its a privacy right of the patient and the doctor.  What's wrong with that?  The government has no right to snoop into my computer much less the right to snoop into my medical files or procedures. It extends to both patients and doctors as intended.  And i think it perfectly fits in the 14th amendment.

I am completely open to changing the constitution to update to our times.  I think that would be a wonderful thing.  We can add to the second to clariy without a doubt all arms.  We can expand free speech.  We can guarantee the right to our own bodies.  We can cancel the patriot act and permanently restore more rights to Americans.

But for now, like the 1st and 2nd.  The 14th and all the prochoice it brings should be federally protected.  Until it comes to a time where we change the constitution to fit.  I hope we lean to a more freedom based changes but the prolife side like yourself might change it in that direction.

Gun rights are natural, god-given rights protected under the Constitution.  Therefore, a federal issue.

Abortion is not a natural, god-given right, nor is it protected under the Constitution.  Therefore, a state issue.

DOCTORS are not covered by privacy laws (doctor-patient privilege).  The privilege applies only to the patient.  If a patient waives their right, the doctor has no choice but to provide the information being sought by the government. 
              ^^^^
In short, THIS is what's wrong with THAT.

Gun rights are natural, God-given ? God handed handed Adam a 12 gauge and said go forth and kill that rabbit? Adam picked that 12 gauge off a tree.

SNIP

Damn missed 2 days and over 100 post.

No, duh. Such blasphemy is mind boggling.

It was a Glock 😝

Nah, maybe a Colt SAA

many of which don't actually exist, like the right to free healthcare and college

Gun rights are natural, God-given ? God handed handed Adam a 12 gauge and said go forth and kill that rabbit? Adam picked that 12 gauge off a tree.
  Are you talking about?
It is a Constitutional Right.

Supreme Court decided abortion was a Constitutional Right.

If a patient doesn’t waive it, then it is doctor-patient privilege. The Doctor has the privilege not to release any info based on patient privilege.

he Doctor has the privilege not to release any info based on patient privilege.

Physician–patient privilege is a legal concept, related to medical confidentiality, that protects communications
between a patient and their doctor from being used against the patient in court.

In the United States, the Federal Rules of Evidence do not recognize doctor–patient privilege.

At the state level, the extent of the privilege varies depending on the law of the applicable jurisdiction. For example, in
Texas there is only a limited physician–patient privilege in criminal proceedings, and the privilege is limited in civil cases
as well.[4]

Gun rights are natural, God-given ? God handed handed Adam a 12 gauge and said go forth and kill that rabbit? Adam picked that 12 gauge off a tree.
  Are you talking about?
It is a Constitutional Right.

Supreme Court decided abortion was a Constitutional Right.

If a patient doesn’t waive it, then it is doctor-patient privilege. The Doctor has the privilege not to release any info based on patient privilege.

The Supreme Court made a decision based on lies and a flimsy Constitutional redefining of privacy rights.  Doesn't make it a perfect, or even a good, decision.

Are you really this ignorant?

Oh, yeah ...... you are.

The doctor has no "privilege", whether or not the patient waives privacy rights.  The doctor has a DUTY to follow the law and protect the PATIENT'S right to privacy.

But, don't just take my word for it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physician%E2%80%93patient_privilege

Just because a doctor may use the physician-patient rules of evidence to conceal unethical or criminal behavior doesn't make the privilege his. 

If the patient waives their privilege, then the doctor has no protection.  Hence, the doctor had no such privilege at all -- ever.

@omnigun

Answer this question.

Q:  Should the state or federal government arrest and punish someone who tortures their own cat or dog to death? 

Based on your "values", the individual's freedom to do what they want should reign supreme as long as he's not violating the rights of another human being.

What's your answer?

Shh don't tell flap.  He disagrees with that is a supreme court judge dont you know?

The issue about abortion has nothing to do with gun rights. 

The pro-choice / pro-life issue is about whose right supersedes the other (the mother’s or the baby’s)?

An abortion choice is a death sentence for the child who will have no future after that. A life choice is not necessarily a life ending experience for the mom, it may be harder and a long inconvenience but not necessarily a fatal result for the mom.

A rhetorical question...  Whose right is more important - your daughter’s right to abort your grandchild or your grandchild’s right to live?

I do not want to belabor this and do not expect an answer from you but I just want you to think about it.

So you are flat out saying you want to put a judge in to overturn that "wrong" dicision you disagree with. You are as bias as you claim I am.  But the difference is you have many people who agree with your views on abortion.

DOCTORS are not covered by privacy laws (doctor-patient privilege).  The privilege applies only to the patient.  If a patient waives their right, the doctor has no choice but to provide the information being sought by the government. 
              ^^^^
In short, THIS is what's wrong with THAT.