site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   24728 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 18, 2024

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Is that true?

I gave you the link to the Supreme Court's decision.

Supreme Court insists that “believing the medical exception applies” isn’t good enough. It has to actually apply, and the only way to find that out is to risk going to court.

No, the Supreme Court insists that the doctor make a reasonable medical judgement that the medical exception applies. The doctor did not claim this; she claimed only a good faith belief that the exception applied. The original pleading goes into great detail why the plaintiff doesn't think requiring a "reasonable medical judgement" is a good standard, but the Supreme Court did not agree. The doctor could, of course, have -- without risk to herself -- asserted a "reasonable medical judgement" in the pleading.

Do you seriously believe that the court would have ruled differently if the doctor had simply used different language in the motion? That all this case boils down to is semantics?

If the doctor had claimed that in her reasonable medical judgement, Cox was covered by the medical exception, most likely the issue of whether such judgement was reasonable would have been litigated. But you yourself MadMonzer gives the real reason for Cox's wanting an abortion here; it was the non-viability of the fetus, not the threat to the mother.

That wasn't me.

Oops, sorry.

Yes, we're reading the same decision.

But how is "believes in good faith, exercising her best medical judgment...that the medical exception to Texas’ abortion bans and laws permits an abortion in Ms. Cox’s circumstances" not asserting a "reasonable medical judgment"?

Though the statute affords physicians discretion, it requires more than a doctor’s mere subjective belief. By requiring the doctor to exercise “reasonable medical judgment,” the Legislature determined that the medical judgment involved must meet an objective standard.
...the statute requires that judgment be a “reasonable medical” judgment, and Dr. Karsan has not asserted that her “good faith belief” about Ms. Cox’s condition meets that standard.

So the state accepts that Karsan asserted her judgement in good faith, but insists that it wasn't a "reasonable medical" judgment, because it didn't meet their standard. What standard? An "objective" one. Okay, but what standard? What magic words would she have to say to clear the bar?

Dr. Karsan did not assert that Ms. Cox has a “life-threatening physical condition” or that, in Dr. Karsan’s reasonable medical judgment, an abortion is necessary because Ms. Cox has the type of condition the exception requires.

Checking the complaint, then, what's this?

(138) Dr. Karsan has met Ms. Cox, reviewed her medical records, and believes in good faith, exercising her best medical judgment, that a D&E abortion is medically recommended for Ms. Cox.

Oh, that "good faith" only extends to a recommendation. She chickened out and wouldn't commit to--

(139) It is also Dr. Karsan’s good faith belief and medical recommendation that that the Emergent Medical Condition Exception to Texas’s abortion bans and laws permits an abortion in Ms. Cox’s circumstances, as Ms. Cox has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from her current pregnancy that places her at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of her reproductive functions if a D&E abortion is not performed.

So Karsan literally used all the magic words from the statute except "reasonable." This gives the state Supreme Court license to ignore her recommendation, revoke her legal protection, and send her employer a threatening letter about how she's still risking their accreditation. All while insisting that "Only a doctor can exercise 'reasonable medical judgment'."

But how is "believes in good faith, exercising her best medical judgment...that the medical exception to Texas’ abortion bans and laws permits an abortion in Ms. Cox’s circumstances" not asserting a "reasonable medical judgment"?

Because those "good faith" and "reasonableness" are two different standards in law, and the plaintiffs were trying to get the courts to accept a "good faith" standard when the statute required a "reasonableness" one.

So Karsan literally used all the magic words from the statute except "reasonable." This gives the state Supreme Court license to ignore her recommendation, revoke her legal protection, and send her employer a threatening letter about how she's still risking their accreditation. All while insisting that "Only a doctor can exercise 'reasonable medical judgment'."

Her legal protection was not revoked; she just didn't have it because she refused to commit to a "reasonable medical judgement". And yes, that means all three words.

No, it doesn’t. In the first footnote of their response, the Supreme Court defines “reasonable medical judgment.”

a medical judgment made by a reasonably prudent physician, knowledgeable about a case and the treatment possibilities for the medical condition involved.

Which of these did Dr. Karsan not attest? More importantly, why doesn’t the Supreme Court specify?

Even if you don’t think the abortion was necessary—isn’t this perverse? The state is shooting down every attempt to clarify its laws before committing a potentially criminal act.

She did not attest to a medical judgement made by a reasonably prudent physician, only to a "good faith belief". This isn't mere words, they're different legal standards, and the pleading goes into this.

Even if you don’t think the abortion was necessary—isn’t this perverse? The state is shooting down every attempt to clarify its laws before committing a potentially criminal act.

It shot down an attempt to lower the standard of judgement that was required by statute. This seems legally correct.

I agree with @MadMonzer that even if Texas prohibits abortion, they should have an exception for non-viability of the fetus. But they don't, and trying to add one by allowing physicians to lie without consequence about the danger to the mother (which is no doubt how Paxton views this) isn't legally sound.

No, the Supreme Court insists that the doctor make a reasonable medical judgement that the medical exception applies. The doctor did not claim this; she claimed only a good faith belief that the exception applied. The original pleading goes into great detail why the plaintiff doesn't think requiring a "reasonable medical judgement" is a good standard, but the Supreme Court did not agree. The doctor could, of course, have -- without risk to herself -- asserted a "reasonable medical judgement" in the pleading.

Word games.

Yes, it's law.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats