A State-by-State List of the Lies Abortion Doctors Are Forced to Tell Women
A State-by-State List of the Lies Abortion Doctors Are Forced to Tell Women
In 26 states, abortion providers are required to carry "informed consent" brochures devised by conservative politicians, who say they're simply trying to help women make a difficult decision. But others are forcing doctors to give inaccurate info.
By Callie Beusman
When she worked at an abortion clinic in South Dakota, Dr. Diane Horvath-Cosper was legally required to tell prospective patients that there was a chance that abortion would increase their risk of breast cancer and suicide.
Immediately afterwards, she'd tell them that neither of those statements had any actual basis in medical science. "What I would say was, 'The state requires me to give you this information. ... snip.
More at the link.
https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/nz88gx/a-state-by-state-list-of-the-lies-abortion-doctors-are-forced-to-tell-women
= new reply since forum marked as read
Of course you're correct that the BoR does say 'Congress' ... but ... the Law of the Land has changed over time.
For a decent history of how it has evolved, here's a well-written history:
http://faculty.smu.edu/jkobylka/supremecourt/Nationalization_BoRs.pdf
Basically, the 14th Amendment has been interpreted to mean that States also have to adhere to the Constitution.
A relevant passage on the 1A portion of this process:
"It is no longer open to doubt," Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote in the Near case, "that the liberty of the press and of speech is within the liberty safeguarded by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It was found impossible to conclude that this essential liberty of the citizen was left unprotected by the general guaranty of fundamental rights of person and property."
After the freedoms of speech and press had been nationalized, the question remained about other rights in the First Amendment. Did they come under the Court's definition in the Twining case, as fundamental principles of liberty and justice which inhere "in the very idea of free government" and which are "the inalienable right of a citizen to such a government"?
The Court addressed these questions in short order. The right of assembly and petition, the free exercise of religion and the prohibition of an establishment of religion were held to be applicable to the states via the due process clause in the Court's decisions in DeJonge v. Oregon (1937), Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) and Everson v. Board of Education (1947).
By 1947, therefore, the nationalization of the First Amendment was complete, with all of the rights in that amendment having been held to be applicable to the states via the due process clause.
Not sure how the 1st really applies. Obviously there's all kinds of exceptions carved into our 1A rights ... people acting in their professional capacities/at work have all kinds of restrictions on 'what they can say legally' placed upon them. I don't think you could reasonably argue 'you can't make Doctors say this' ... based on the 1A, basically. Which is what I thought you were arguing from the start as well
In many ways it'd be fundamentally similar to a cop arguing he doesn't have to read anyone their Miranda Rights "Because 1st Amendment!". Yeah ... no.
That said, States cannot violate the 1A any more than the Feds can, as described in the document I shared in my last post. That was my main point from the start.