Texas not totally backwards

[uebermann]

[Bauce]

Regardless of ones opinion on abortion, I would imagine judges should be disturbed by the tactics being used by republican-controlled legislative bodies to get around Roe v Wade without explicitly saying abortion is illegal but making it impossible to get a legal abortion in a given state.

[Professor]

Without seeing the opinion, I can imagine the reasoning behind it. And, he's correct (the judge).

There is no law saying that a doctor must have admitting privileges at a hospital. In fact, for several specialties admitting privileges would be in no way beneficial. Think of a chiropractors.

Also, having admitting privileges at a hospital is a matter of contracting and contract law. Just as with any other contract as a general rule, the government cannot force one party to enter into a contract with another party. By saying that a doctor cannot perform their professional duties without contracting with a hospital would be improper.

[exploited]

[Gremlin]

[Professor]

Speaking of Texas and abortion . . . anyone keep up with that story about how a woman was brain dead, got put on life support, but had an advance directive saying that she shouldn't be kept alive (actually, she didn't have it in writing, but it doesn't matter under the law), but a TX law said that a hospital can't turn off the machines if she's pregnant?

Here was my take on it. In TX, an abortion is legal. By saying that you want to be taken off life support, even if pregnant, is simply another way of saying, "I don't want to be kept alive artificially, and I want to have an abortion" all at the same time. But, by not allowing life support to be removed, the state is denying her right to an abortion. They are forcing her to keep the baby to term, if possible.

I don't understand how the law is legal, in that sense.