Excerpts:
“Seattle responded to the request by filing a lawsuit in Travis County, stating they cannot comply because Texas has no jurisdiction in Washington State, and no care was provided by the hospital in Texas. They also point out that the Dormant Commerce Clause, protected by the United States Constitution, “protects the right to interstate travel, including to obtain healthcare services.” By targeting out-of-state hospitals for enforcement of laws that only apply within the jurisdiction of Texas, they “discriminate against healthcare based on an interstate element,” violating constitutional protections, according to the legal filing. Lastly, Seattle Children’s Hospital cannot comply due to a shield law passed by Washington State. This law bars the hospital from providing any patient data and from responding to subpoenas pursuant to “protected healthcare services” obtained within the jurisdiction of Washington. Protected healthcare services include abortion, reproductive care, and gender-affirming care.”
“This case promises to be extraordinarily complex. Seattle Children’s Hospital is challenging the jurisdiction of the demands directly in a Texas state court. Regardless of what the local court decides, the claims are likely to go to the Texas Supreme Court. Given that the claims also have a time limit on them and that appeals in Texas automatically favor the attorney general due to an automatic lifting of stays in the state, Seattle Children’s Hospital workers and providers for trans patients from Texas could be under legal jeopardy. Ultimately, the case presents questions of conflicting state laws and regulation of conduct across state lines, and the implications of those laws could be dire for abortion and trans care nationwide.”
Ah the ad hominem attack, the bread and butter of people who have a half-formed argument. The signal of a weak argument dressed in forceful garb.
Ah the fallacy fallacy, the bread and butter of people who are incapable of making any argument to support their beliefs, leading one to believe they can’t logically explain their position because they didn’t logically arrive at it.
Calling out the ad hominem and dismissing it is all well and good, but they had other actual arguments in their post as well. Using the ad hominem at the end as an excuse to run away, claim victory, and commit some ad hominem of your own is just pathetic. If you’re going to call out fallacies I expect you to be better than that.
You expect me to be better than that?
All you did up above was exactly what you accused me of doing. I pointed out a fallacy (what were the other arguments exactly? Koch/Nazi? Yeah I didn’t mention them because the fallacy was the strongest part of their comment) and you created a false situation (that I “ran away” from something or other) and called that an ad hominem. Objectively incorrect.
Maybe a primer on Aristotelian logic might help you out… Unless of course you’d rather continue to dribble urine down your pant leg and present it proudly as a comment worth reading.
All you had was a long winded ad hominem.
If you had any actual points I missed please point them out.
If you’re going to spend 2 days coming up with a response you’re going to have to do better than that. You’ve once again provided nothing of value to the discussion, you’ve just flailed around trying to insult me and even failed at that.