SUPER precedent.....seriously????

Try reading albeit slowly , what you, yourself has posted as a reference to buttress your position.

Here's a hint from your 10+ paragraph post or should I say citation from the New Yorker.
Cut and paste is not a very good argument, especially when you don't read what you have cut and pasted.
What you posted is from this thread.

"Roughly ten to twenty per cent of known pregnancies end in miscarriage. Yet none of the state bans overtly differentiate between the management of miscarriage and abortion, which share the same objective: to empty the uterus. The two procedures also employ the same tools and techniques, depending on the stage of the pregnancy and the health of the pregnant person: medication or dilation and curettage (D. & C.) for early abortions; and dilation and evacuation (D. & E.) or induced labor for later abortions. (In his draft opinion reversing Roe, Justice Samuel Alito refers to D. & E. as “a barbaric practice.”) Although the two sets of care are near-identical in their mechanics, “when someone is starting to bleed, their cervix is open, their water breaks—that’s not an induced abortion,” Ghazaleh Moayedi, an ob-gyn and complex family-planning specialist in Dallas, said. “This is not a person who comes to you and says, ‘I want to end this pregnancy.’ This is a person who is saying, ‘I am having a pregnancy complication, and I need you to help me.’ ”

Note: you posted the link, did you not think to make a copy of it?

After you read your own reference, please then find the remark in question, in the 98 page draft opinion,
that you also posted.

ramage wrote: Try reading albeit slowly , what you, yourself has posted as a reference to buttress your position.

Here's a hint from your 10+ paragraph post or should I say citation from the New Yorker.
Cut and paste is not a very good argument, especially when you don't read what you have cut and pasted.
What you posted is from this thread.

"Roughly ten to twenty per cent of known pregnancies end in miscarriage. Yet none of the state bans overtly differentiate between the management of miscarriage and abortion, which share the same objective: to empty the uterus. The two procedures also employ the same tools and techniques, depending on the stage of the pregnancy and the health of the pregnant person: medication or dilation and curettage (D. & C.) for early abortions; and dilation and evacuation (D. & E.) or induced labor for later abortions. (In his draft opinion reversing Roe, Justice Samuel Alito refers to D. & E. as “a barbaric practice.”) Although the two sets of care are near-identical in their mechanics, “when someone is starting to bleed, their cervix is open, their water breaks—that’s not an induced abortion,” Ghazaleh Moayedi, an ob-gyn and complex family-planning specialist in Dallas, said. “This is not a person who comes to you and says, ‘I want to end this pregnancy.’ This is a person who is saying, ‘I am having a pregnancy complication, and I need you to help me.’ ”

Note: you posted the link, did you not think to make a copy of it?

After you read your own reference, please then find the remark in question, in the 98 page draft opinion,
that you also posted.

bolded....clear cut and concise,apparently u skimmed over THIS

)G) (quoting Gonzales v. Carhart, 560 U. S. 124, 160 (2007). It found that most abortions after fifteen weeks employ “dilation andevacuationprocedureswhich involve the useofsurgical instrumentsto crush and tear the unbornchild,” anditcon- cluded that the “intentional commitment of such acts for nontherapeutic or elective reasons is a barbaric practice, dangerous for the maternal patient, and demeaning to the medical profession.” §2(b)Gi).

try page 6 and 7,very early into the doc.......SORRY that u missed that and ATTEMPTED TO 'CALL ME OUT'....DIDN'T WORK. HE QUOTED A CITED CASE GONZALES VS. CARHART....560 US 124,160 IN
2007.....AS HIS PROOF OF DESCEND...DO NOT TRY TO FUCK WITH ME.

Once again, it is a good idea to read what you are citing. The opinion in Gonzalez v. Carhart was written by Justice Kennedy.

AS to your last comment, which I do not need to repeat, it never entered my mind and now that you have brought it up, I shuddered at the thought.

ramage wrote: Once again, it is a good idea to read what you are citing. The opinion in Gonzalez v. Carhart was written by Justice Kennedy.

AS to your last comment, which I do not need to repeat, it never entered my mind and now that you have brought it up, I shuddered at the thought.

LET ME EXPLAIN.....yes the case was WRITTEN by Judge Kennedy, it was USED as a case citation by ALITO.....for bolstering his descend. U r NOT communicating with a UNINFORMED poster,so your
supercilious statement...."it is a good idea to read what u cite" is EXACTLY what I expect from u....it appears
that a"gotcha" mindset is your M.O. and I have to wonder if U attempted that with your colleagues in the medical field....(SOME physicians are in solo practice for a reason.... they don't play nice in the sandbox)

I am very much aware that Gonzalez v. Carhart was cited in the draft. Yet you cited a reference that said
", Justice Samuel Alito refers to D. & E. as “a barbaric practice.”.
If you interpret the fact that your citation deliberately attributed a quote to Judge Alito as something Judge Alito said, I can readily understand your animus to the "corporate world" that terminated you.

Perhaps you can tell me what this means "..for bolstering his descend. "

As to the medical world, yes, exactness is an admirable quality in a physician.

DONE.....u dance alone.