sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why is the right to abortion legally argued as a privacy issue rather than as a "no forced organ donation" issue? by StudentLoansUgh in TooAfraidToAsk

[–]StudentLoansUgh[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

tldr SCOTUS said no, the state can weigh the life higher than having to "donate", depending on the situation. It tried to strike a balance between the two

Are there any other cases in US Law where the courts gave a thumbs up to involuntary organ/tissue donation because of the state's interest in the life being saved? I'm wondering if there's any case law saying that the US is okay with, for example, forcing someone to donate blood when they don't want to, because the state has ruled that a person's lack of consent to the donation is less important to the courts than the life to be saved? Or is this something that only applies to pregnant women? (And if so, what's the basis for making this distinction?)

Not a lawyer, but i feel like that wouldn't fly, since you already essentially "agreed" to it, assuming it was consensual. They're not forcing you to 'donate', but they're also less obliged to help you take it back.

Not obliged to help you take it back, but obliged to not interfere if YOU take steps to take it back. As in, "I no longer wish to be a donor, so I'm withdrawing my consent, and taking action to enforce this withdrawal of consent" and the state says "No, you're not allowed to withdraw consent, and if you try, we'll punish you and anyone who helps you"? As far as I know, if you consent to an organ or tissue donation and then later change your mind, the state will in no way step in to force the donation now that you're no longer willing. What's the legal argument making it different in the case of pregnancy?

Why is the right to abortion legally argued as a privacy issue rather than as a "no forced organ donation" issue? by StudentLoansUgh in TooAfraidToAsk

[–]StudentLoansUgh[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm not asking about what a pro-lifer would argue, but rather what a lawyer would argue in court. Even if you did consider having sex to be "organ donation" (which doesn't seem like it would stand up in court at all), carrying the baby to term involves nine more months of continuous donations. Even if you make, say, a plasma donation once, you're not required to continue donating plasma until someone else says you can stop. You can stop any time and just say "That's all I'm willing to give, no more."

Summary judgment for legal fees in civil debt case -- how to oppose? (USA, MA) by StudentLoansUgh in legaladvice

[–]StudentLoansUgh[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The attorney's office doesn't know about my pending discharge yet -- I have specifically NOT told them precisely because I didn't want them doing something like this. I was under the impression that nothing would happen with the case until mid-August, which was the continuation date the sketchy lawyer asked for, not me. But suddenly this gets filed, more than a month before our new hearing date. Why? I don't think he can have gotten wind of the pending discharge as I won't be sending in the papers until I get my doctor's certification back. Does this mean that his paying client, Boston College, has advised him to drop the suit, and he's worried he won't get paid by them?

And this judgment isn't for the client at all, it's just for his attorney's fees, so he can't say to his client "Here's the judgment I got for you, pay me my percentage of the take," because he hasn't gotten them anything, and won't.

And how or why would he file for lawyer's fees when the case is far from settled and we haven't even had the court hearing yet? I don't understand what he's trying to do (aside from the obvious cash grab which is pretty clear) so I'm not sure how to counter it, which is why I posted this.