Answering CJ
I hate fighting with fellow milbloggers, even debating them. But, this deserves a response since I have devoted the better part of the past month working on a legal brief on the subject.
CJ asserts that the Stolen Valor Act is unconstitutional. Now, I obviously disagree, but many folks think so. However, CJ’s reasoning behind this conclusion concerns me. To wit, CJ asserts that by replacing certain words with easier to understand language, the First Amendment stands for the proposition that:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or curtailing with regulation, interference or control any form of speaking, communication, sound or gesture, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
No court has ever held that to be the case, as there are exceptions. In fact, were CJ to be accurate, it would invalidate NUMEROUS laws. For instance, that would immediately invalidate all libel, slander, defamation, copyright and similar laws. If there is no curtailing of what anyone can say, for any reason, then impersonation would be legal, perjury, and others.
In fact, even the example that CJ later uses would be invalidated by that reading:
Now, where I believe that laws should apply to these fakers is when they lie to obtain things that they wouldn’t otherwise be entitled to. It’s called “fraud” and there are stiff penalties for it. Fraud is “deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.” Every state has laws against fraud and those are the laws that should apply in these “stolen valor” cases.
What is fraud if not speech? If there can be no infringement of speech, how could one have a law regarding fraud? It is not illegal to give someone money, nor has anyone ever contended it was. Fraud is giving someone money based on an untruth which they have voiced. So, if Fraud is to be illegal, it must by neccessity be on the virtue of the speech, to wit, the falsehoods.
CJ proceeds:
The name of the damn Act makes no sense anyway. From whom are they “stealing” valor anyway? They didn’t steal MY valor and I would posit that they haven’t “stolen” anyone else’s, either. All they’ve done is stolen their own honor and integrity. But, the moment they attempt to gain pleasure, profit, or personal safety from someone else then should they be charged with fraud and dealt with accordingly.
I will dispense with the first part regarding the name and answer the second with questions of my own:
1) Has anyone ever attended the Army Achievement Medal Society of America conventions?
2) Does one treat with the same respect an AAM recipient and an MOH recipient? If not, why is that?
3) If you work with 4 people and you have agreed to provide the labor for $1, and your 3 coworkers get $1,000 do you end up better after the days labor or not? What if those 4 individuals comprise everyone in the town?
CJ next argues the bar pick up line argument. We have answered that one on a few occasions. The difference between a generic untruth, and asserting you have received an award for valor is two fold:
1) Congress has it withing it’s purview (Art I Sec 8) to regulate the Armed Services, and one of the premiere interests there is in ensuring the nobel nature thereof. This would not be the case with a generic bar line.
2) Verifying military records is somewhat straightforward, and is not susceptibe to the vagaries of subjective interpretation. One has the award, or one does not.
Lastly, CJ makes the argument of disenfectant, that one can always verify, and then vilify such individuals. However, to assume such is to assume that folks have the wherewithal and the ability to verify the stories. Alvarez (the case in the 9th cicruit) was in fact elected before his lies where figured out. If all the individuals in that district were either unable or unwilling to verify his claims, then would that not argue against such a belief? And in so thinking, does CJ assert that the media is the one we should trust in to verify such claims?
Category: Politics
I agree with you, here, and I’m a big CJ fan.
Under CJ’s proposition, the concept of yelling “fire” in a crowded theater as an abuse of free speech would go out the window.
Has anyone ever attended the Army Achievement Medal Society of America conventions?
Do final formations count?
Well, reading his blog post, CJ definitely agrees with you *in spirit* – it is just the technicality of whether it is Constitutional or not that you disagree; a purely legal argument. I am always inclined to err on the side of upholding the Constitution, personally.
In the civilian sector, the closest parallel I can think of would be in academia, i.e., with college transcripts, perhaps also with regard to plagerism of academic papers. If a student submits false college transcripts to a university that he is applying to, what are the legal ramifications? I actually don’t even know what the legal ramifications are, if any, and I used to be a transcript analyst and admissions advisor for a university (prior to my current job). But it would certainly be grounds for a university to bar that student from admission.
What if a person is going around making claims that he holds a Ph.D. in such and such, maybe even has a piece of paper from some unaccredited institution that says that he is? Well, he may very well get publicly shamed and not be able to find employment, but nobody is going to throw him into prison (I don’t think), for being a fraud.
Of course, I could be wrong.
While no one may bring the charges in the cases you mentioned, there could be fraud charges filed. But I don’t feel that the two equate. Getting a Ph.D is not even in the same league as being awarded a medal for valor.
Stolen Valor? A rose by any other name is still a rose……..
Our military gets far too little credit for the job that they stand to be called to perform. For those called and rewarded; to belittle the reward, (i.e. stolen usage of the award), is to deprive the troops of “full value” of their service to ME! Only a true douchnozzle would do this, so this causes the valor of the troops to be maligned. Seeing said douchenozzles wearing medals gives some of society a lower appreciation for those who truly earned those medals, ribbons and such.
We who appreciate our troops and veterans, but those who don’t know that this is a common theft must, to some degree, associate our troops with these slimers. That is the “Stolen Valor” portion of the offense as I see it.
I would suggest that rather than tie up the court system with these fecal lumps, we turn them over to the local service club, ask all lawyers and law enforcement personnel to exit the building, lock the doors and not open them til sunup. The hospital reports on the morning news would be a huge deterrent to others thinking of doing their “Stolen Valor” thing.
Nuf Sed
Hmm…On second thought, it’s just now occurred to me that we need the force of the Stolen Valor law to protect the Constitutional rights of the violators to a fair and speedy trial by an impartial jury and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment…
Okay, I hate that I have o defend against apples and oranges. Yelling “fire” in a crowded room is a crime because the rights of others are violated by the effects of such speech. Fraud is a crime because the property and personal rights of others are violated. If fraud didn’t affect anyone but the person perpetrating it, it would fall under the same argument I’m using in the stolen valor act.
owever, the stolen valor act is a “victimless” crime. Unless fraud is perpetrated through the use of military awards, speech, or uniforms, it doesn’t affect anyone but the retarded ass munch whose life is so pathetic he’s trying to be something hes not.
My argument also does not invalidate libel, slander, and the other crimes you mention because they each violate the rights of another.
I don’t disagree that it is wrong to wear unearned decorations. I just contend that it violates the constitution’s free speech provisions.
Forgive any errors, if any. I typed that whole thing on my phone.
Problem is, CJ, that it’s NOT a “victimless” crime. If I were to claim Super-Stud Rambo status in order to falsely enhance other’s perception of me, that harms others both directly and indirectly. Whether it be Mr. Smith down at the plant hiring someone else over me because they were Jason Bourne and I was just a dumbass schlub submariner, or (as has happened many, many times) using said “status” to falsely accuse fellow veterans of malfaesance.
I look forward to TSO’s reply…
I’ll respond when I get to a real computer.
Frankly
I think I can go for that. They can come to my Legion hall….
You stated in your initial post that speech could not be infringed, and now you seem to be agreeing that it can, is that corret?
And to you the additional elements is whether “harm: befalls an outside party.
Is that accurate? How are the propoerty rights in a fraud case violated, if not by speech?
I still hold that lies are not protected speech. Fiction and satire are established as protected, but lying… baldface lying, isn’t. Granted, a lot of lies are not specifically outlawed, but the lies covered in the Stolen Valor act are, and there is plenty of precident upholding laws that disallow false statements in other similar situations.
Thank you, Frankly. You were able to articulate exactly what I was feeling.
C.J., I have been and still continue to be in your corner to the point that I have my Mom’s prayer group speaking to the Big Guy on your behalf. (For those of you who may be giggling, never disparage the power of prayer.) That crap you endured (with class and honor, by the way) about your blog was the equivalent of having had monkey shit thrown at you daily without even being able to shield your face. The entire situation was unfuckingbelievable.
I do, however, have to tell you that every time one of these douche bags wears a military decoration/award they have not earned even I (a peace time Marine) feel offended and victimized on behalf of thousands of former/active duty military (most of whom I do not know personally). The fact that I do not know most of them personally does not lessen the gut-twisting anger I feel about the issue. By “Stealing Valor” they mock what the military members awarded those decorations went through. I’m all for repealing the Stolen Valor Act as long as we are replacing it with a local, veteran based solution.
Wow, Carla, that was really passionate. I feel that way sometimes about mothers bottlefeeding their babies…
These guys are con men, people only do things that are dishonest because there is some value in it for themselves. These people wouldn’t fake awards unless they needed that clout, whether it was a political point they were trying to further or even taking advantage of the little things like entrance into a USO or the service related discounts at your local merchants. The minute you accept something on a false pretense, that’s where the crime is, and it’s these troop supporters that are being defrauded by these fakers. Shouldn’t they be protected under the law just like others are from creative people who want to take something they did not earn?
I also feel that way sometimes about men who are gay, but, of course, it’s socially unacceptable and politically incorrect to point that out.
The First Amendment protects the right to speak truth and one’s opinion (which, if it does not concur with my opinion is, of course, wrong). It does not, and to the best of my knowledge without doing the west law search, protect the “right” to lie. The oft cited “fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire” because it may cause a panic is the classic. Fraud is another example. There are a wide variety of fraud statutes.
The Stolen Valor act will most likely be construed as another form of fraud. Nobody tells a lie about recieving a medal for valor without expecting something from that lie – even if it only admiration. Congress has simply stated that it is a crime to steal respect in this manner, particularly when coupled with other forms of fraud (i.e. for money, votes, etc.).
Susan, are you saying I could go to jail for lying? So, when I tell my wife I thought she said I could buy a new motorcycle when she didn’t, I’m no longer protected by the constitution? I’m sorry, but the Constitution DOES allow for the right to lie, except in certain instances (ie: when under oath).
Caroline, what you just wrote is exactly when lying about military service becomes fraud and, thus, illegal. They have gained something from someone else that deprived that person of their possessions, depriving them of their rights to property.
What is the line then in your opinion that separates from being fraud and what is not when in terms of military service?
CJ,
Don’t make the mistake of thinking that a lie that is not illegal is the same as protected speech. Just because there is no specific law prohibiting lying to your wife ( thank God, we’d all be in Jail after the first “Does this dress make my butt look big?”) doesn’t make it protected speech. Specific lies have been outlawed for years. You cannot slander or libel someone, you cannot impersonate a Police Officer or Doctor etc. These are lies that, for whatever reason, have been found to be unacceptable to the point of being a criminal act. Just because something isn’t illegal, doesn’t make it protected, it just means the perceived harm from such a lie isn’t great enough to warrant passing a law against it. However, once a lie passes that threshold where it is deemed unacceptable and not just repugnent it can’t be defended with the “I can say anything I want because of free speech” defense.
It’s unlawful to impersonate a police office because a police officer has police authority and arrest powers.
While I don’t know the laws in every state, I don’t think there are usually laws against impersonating a doctor; it only has to do with the legal aspects of it, i.e., being licensed to practice medicine. The actual offense is practicing medicine without a license, not the impersonation.
A victimless crime basically is one in which there is no person who has suffered an injury or loss of property or had rights violated in some way.
With regard to libel and slander, the point Ray brought up, for one thing, you do have a victim there. The other thing is, libel and slander laws are civil laws, not criminal laws. The police don’t investigate and arrest people for slander; it’s handled through civil lawsuit (at least in the states I’m familiar with).
More to the point in this issue (in addition to the free speech aspect of it), is whether or not there is a compelling state interest to have laws against acts that victimless crime, i.e., that may be immoral, but where there is no victim. Our criminal justice system and prison system are clogged with people who have committed victimless crimes. Imagine how honed the whole criminal justice system could be if all the laws against victimless crimes were dropped and the focus of police and the criminal courts was on traditional crimes involving property and person.
Correction (last paragraph): “laws against acts that [insert ‘are’] victimless crime…”
Hey, I’m proud of my AAM! Just because I got it for breathing and not being flagged doesn’t make it worth less than the materials it was made out of… although that sure goes a whole hell of a lot the way there on it!
It is unlawful to say you’re an MD when you are not, at
least in the State of Georgia… But that’s not the point. If it is not a violation of the 1st Ammendment to outlaw certain lies that are deemed harmful to society, I see no reason the Stolen Valor act is a violation of that right. You could make the arguement that it’s a “victimless crime” but that has no bearing on it’s constitutionality.
[…] Valor? Sunday, April 25th, 2010 | Uncategorized Over at TAH there’s the making of an interesting discussion based on a post by CJ Grisham over at You […]
If the act of stating that you’re an MD when you’re not is a violation of the law in the state of Georgia (or anywhere), then I’d like to know what that statute is. I’ve seen arrest reports from all over Atlanta for 10-15 years years (due to working part-time for criminal defense attorneys, which I still do, actually, on the side) and I’ve occasionally seen someone charged with Practicing Medicine Without a License. But I have never seen a criminal charge called Impersonating a Medical Doctor. I know there are crimes relating to that act, or that may be committed as a result of that act, but, again, if that alone is a criminal offense in the state of Georgia – and I’m not saying it’s not – but if it is, then show me the law.
With regard to your statement, Ray, that you see no reason that the Stolen Valor Act is a violation of the First Amendment, the burden of proof would be on you. What is the compelling reason that making a certain type of speech should be outlawed? What is the basis for it? Who is the victim? What is the harm or injury? Whose rights are violated if the founder of a fast-food joint claims to be a colonel when he’s not? The right to free speech is a given and such right can not be restricted by the government in accord with the Constitution without a compelling state interest.
I long ago promised myself I wouldn’t get sucked into discussion with Debra, so I entrust it to you ray to explain it to her.
As for Burden of proof, she has no idea what she’s talking about.
I retract the sentence in which I used that phrase.
P.S. You’ve failed to prove your case.
First, Debra – Colonel Sanders was a Colonel – a Kentucky Colonel which is an honor bestowed by the Commonwelth of Kentucky. CJ, Ray is right – you are not going to be arrested for telling certain lies, but neither is your “right” to tell them protected by the First Amendment.
Debra, actually, because it is a lie and not protected speach, the State does not have to give a compelling interest – though protecting the value of an honor bestowed on those who served from pretenders is a valid reason.
Oh, and Debra, a couple more things:
1. “Victimless crimes” have victims. Women forced into prostitution are the victims of that “victimless crime.” The people who are robbed to feed drug habits are the victims of that crime.
2. You comment @ 16 troubles me. While most doctors believe breast feeding is best, not all mothers have that option for a variety of reasons and your judgmentalness about it does not speak well for you.
Also, I have often seen you comment about your problems contrasting the “military” you and the “maternal” you. My answer to that is – have you ever seen a mother lion or bear when she believes her cubs are threatened? There is a protector element to the maternal instinct which is not at all at odds with many military careers. I, personally, hate mornings, dirt, and taking orders so I would have made a lousy soldier. However, I have several friends who are wonderful, nurturing mothers and excellent soldiers, sailors, and marines as well.
Deb.
Sorry for the delay, but was working off of the iPhone and it was getting very low on battery. The Georgia Statute is here.
§ 43-34-22. Practicing medicine without a license; titles and abbreviations; exceptions
(a) If any person shall hold himself or herself out to the public as being engaged in the diagnosis or treatment of disease or injuries of human beings, or shall suggest, recommend, or prescribe any form of treatment for the palliation, relief, or cure of any physical or mental ailment of any person, with the intention of receiving therefor, either directly or indirectly, any fee, gift, or compensation whatsoever, or shall maintain an office for the reception, examination, or treatment of diseased or injured human beings, or shall attach the title “M.D.,” “Oph.,” “D.,” “Dop.,” “Surgeon,” “Doctor,” “D.O.,” “Doctor of Osteopathy,” “Osteopathic Physician,” or “Physician,” either alone or in connection with other words, or any other word or abbreviation to his or her name indicative that he or she is engaged in the treatment of diseased, defective, or injured human beings, and shall not in any of these cases then possess a valid license to practice medicine under the laws of this state, he or she shall be deemed to be practicing medicine without complying with this article and shall be deemed in violation of this article.
You don’t have to touch a patient or dispense advice to be busted for “practicing medicine without a license” you just have to say you’re a physician when you’re not.
You also cannot impersonate a Registered Nurse or a bevy of other professions.
@Susan (#34) -“However, I have several friends who are wonderful, nurturing mothers and excellent soldiers, sailors, and marines as well.” I do also, and I don’t mean to be insulting. I’m around them everyday, as well as work with three retired female sailors who all raised children while serving in the military. However, the bottom line is, if you are a mother as well as a soldier, sailor, or marine, your military service comes first, before your child. Period. I’m not saying a mother can’t be both, or not be a nurturing mother if she is in the military, but she will have to make sacrifices and they will be personal ones not necessarily in the best interests of the child. The mothering style is not the same because it CAN’T be the same. I think it’s something young women need to fully understand before they decide to get pregnant while serving in the military and I have serious doubts that many of them actually do. There is also a whole biological aspect to this, which I touched upon somewhat in a research paper I wrote on “Effects of Stress on Maternal and Child Health During Pregnancy, Labor, and Childbirth.” I’m actually interested in researching that topic further and taking it further, and also look more at the male side of it. About my so-called judgementalism of bottlefeeding mothers not speaking well for me, I wasn’t expressing judgementalism; I was expressing a feeling. I’m not judgemental about it. I breastfed back in the ’80’s and endured all manner of rudeness, ignorance, and disrespect for it. I can only thank God that the young breastfeeding mothers of today, including my daughter (who is a La Leche League Leader and also a certified Childbirth Educator) are fighting back against that darkness today. In an ideal world, all mothers would be able to put the needs of their babies first and be able to breastfeed freely while also being financially secure. I’m painfully aware that in the reality of this world, that’s seldom the case. Anyway, I think I am a bit on… Read more »
Read it again and tell me how you could make the case that a PhD could be procecuted under this provision.
“M.D.,” “Oph.,” “D.,” “Dop.,” “Surgeon,” “Doctor,” “D.O.,” “Doctor of Osteopathy,” “Osteopathic Physician,” or “Physician,” either alone or in connection with other words, or any other word or abbreviation to his or her name indicative that he or she is engaged in the treatment of diseased, defective, or injured human beings
A person with a Ph.D. is not indicating they are engaged in treating human beings nor is a Veterinarian both of whom may use the title “Doctor”. Again… Impersonating a Physician , is illegal. Plain and simple.
You asked for the statute, and I provided the statute. What’s the problem?
“If any person shall hold himself or herself out to the public as being engaged in the diagnosis or treatment of disease or injuries of human beings, ”
In other words… if you lie and say you are a Doctor you are commiting a crime. You don’t have to actually practice medicine, just saying you are a Doctor when you are not is illegal. I never said there was a seperate law about impersonating a Doctor. I just said it was illegal to do it.
I don’t know anything about bottle feeding except as it applies to calves, but I admit the treatment CJ received from both the military and the school system involved over the last year or so cranked me off big time. Idiots wearing military awards they did not receive cranks me off big time, too. When you add those two together it makes me want to go Vesuvius. There are many things that don’t bother me at all, but they were not on the menu today.
Ray, I really think we’re arguing over nothing but semantics. You’re saying the statute is the statute against impersonating a medical doctor; I see it as a statute against practicing medicine without a license. It’s not just pretending to be someone you’re not, or of holding a credential that you didn’t earn, but of that pretense being connected specifically to the practice of medicine. That’s where the fraudulent part of it comes in. The title “M.D.” is actually a professional degree conferred by a medical school; the licensing comes after that. So a person would hold the degree of M.D. before even having the required license to practice.
The reason that I feel that the wording of the law is somewhat ambiguous is that use of a title alone may or may not be indicative of being engaged in the treatment of diseased, etc., human beings. A person could be using one of the titles without practicing medicine; use of a title alone doesn’t mean that they are. I understand the intent of the law; I just think the actual wording of the law is unclear and, taken literally, doesn’t make complete sense (at least not to me). But of course, I’m not an attorney. I suppose it probably makes sense to attorneys in some way that’s not plainly obvious to a lay person; laws are sometimes like that.
Carla, I don’t know of anyone here, including CJ, who doesn’t share the same strong feeling that wearing medals you didn’t earn is wrong. But IMO what is needed is a rational and dispassionate application of reason to determine what the most proper role of government is with regard to that problem. The differences of opinion here do not have to do with any differences in our feelings about it, but rather stem from differences in overall political philosophy and interpretation of the Constitituion. Passionate feelings can not be, and should not be, the basis for law… though they are sometimes the basis for some of the other suggestions that were made here, heh… I can remember the first time I ever heard of the “Stolen Valor” act. I had difficulty understanding what the concept meant. Not knowing what it meant at first, I thought, by the name of it, it must mean obtaining a medal by taking credit for something that someone else did. I have seen this happen in the military where a higher ranking person takes credit for something done by a lower ranking person, earn a medal or some kind of award or recognition for it, and the lower ranking person just gets stepped on. I know it happens because it happened to me. And not only that, but was actually verbally rebuked by my commander for not doing my job, when I was the one responsible for solving the case in the first place. I still get pissed off thinking about it to this very day, which is 27 years later. But we learn to live with injustices, because, unfortunately, that’s just the way life is. I’m actually not completely fixated on one position or another with regard to the legal arguments for and against the constitutionality of this law. I can see both sides and while I may not have presented a very good argument myself, I think that a strong argument could be made that the law is unconstitutional, while also seeing the other side of it, too. I’m going to get off… Read more »
Ray, I’ve already flushed out libel and slander for reasons others have quoted as well. Not the same thing as Stolen Valor.
Susan, prostitution for prostitution sake IS a victimless crime. Not all women are FORCED into prostitution. However, the ones that are forced, ARE victims. Again, not the same thing. If I decide one day I want to charge people to suck on my wenis (look it up), and someone is willing to pay for it, there is no victim. However, if I am forced to prostitute my wenis, then we have issues and a victim.
CJ, my point is, lies are not protected speech. Many other equally lothsome types of speech are. People engaging in Anti Semetic marches, burning the flag, and even the Code Pinkers are protected because they are espousing opinions. Lies don’t share that protection. Some lies are so dispicable and damaging laws have been passed proscribing them. Slander and libel aren’t the only examples. You can’t make false reports to the Police, or lie to a Police Officer who is conducting an investigation. You can’t lie on your census survey, or when under oath. Most lies are not illegal, but that doesn’t make them protected speech.
Using the law against the phonies is better (for the phonies) than leaving them in alley with a bullet in the gut (what they deserve).
CJ – the kids went through the “wenis” stage a few years back. It is an urban legand of sorts. My little brother the doctor says he is pretty sure he would remember the term and the skin on your elbow is callled the skin on your elbow.
Debra, I am a lawyer in Georgia. I read that statute, and if I remember the case law on the statute, it has been interpreted to “deem” a person practising without a license simply by holding themselves out as a “doctor” or an m.d. whether they actually see any patient or receive any payment. Simply saying you are a doctor when you are not is a crime.
Sue, we need to get together. LOL.
Susan,
I have to ask what it means to “hold” oneself “out” as an M.D. I would assume that must carry with it a specific meaning, such as that one is holding himself out to practice…or does it merely mean that a person is claiming to be an M.D. Because the reality is, a person can hold the professional degree of M.D., or D.C. (that is Doctor of Chiropractic, and people who hold that degree are also called “Doctor,” and they also have to be licensed in accord with state law), or whatever the case may be, without having yet been licensed.
I’m not arguing with you. I’m just trying to understand what the law is and see if it can be informative in any way in analyzing the situation with regard to purporting to having been something in the military when you have not. I guess the main issue being whether the claim of being an M.D., as a violation of that statute, is specifically connected with holding oneself out to practice medicine or not. Because if a person who DOES hold an M.D. degree from an accredited medical school, but is not licensed, uses his degree behind his name, then, by what you’re telling me, he has violated the law because he is not licensed?
Another question might be, what if a person claims to be a retired M.D. who is no longer practicing? Actually, the answer to that question would probably clear this whole matter up faster than anything.
In clarification to my last question above, what I meant is what if a person *who has never been an M.D.* claims to be a retired M.D. who is no longer practiciing.
Debra, the reality is that if nimrod tells a girl in a bar he is a doctor, he is unlikely to be arrested. However, if one tells many people that one is a doctor then one is in trouble. From a policy standpoint, it may be because if “doctor” who is not a doctor is at the high school soccer game, the coach may not worry about the fact that the trainer or other medically knowledgeable person was a no show, thinking that in a emergency the “doctor” would have him covered. We assume doctors have a certain level of training that can be relied on in an emergency. Your point about being licensed versus holding a degree is an interesting one I had not considered. My Dad is a retired doctor living in FL (like all good retired parents). He is not licensed in FL. I think some of his stationary does include M.D. However, I think the fact that he is licensed and in good standing in another state may have him covered – that and the fact that he does have the requisit knowledge in an emergency. Also, the fact that he rarely introduces himself as “doctor” because he doesn’t want people calling for advice since he doesn’t stay “current” like he use to do. I think the medical professional statute is there as public safety – because people rely on medical professionals in emergencies and are more likely to disclose information and body parts to those they believe are professionals. We don’t want non-physicians playing “doctor.” The Stolen Valor law is about theft and fraud. When a skeezebag (a term of art) says he has a purple heart and a silver star which he does not have, it tarnishes the image in the public mind of the honorable person who does have these decorations. These guys are rarely pillars of the community. There is also the fraud element. You don’t say you have these awards you don’t have without expecting to be “given” something. Which, in a way is ironic. My partner-in-crime’s father is highly decorated.… Read more »
Thanks for the reply. Yeah, I’m still torn over which way I fall most strongly (not that it’s up to me, LOL).
I guess I have other reasons for being interested in that law in particular, which actually has to do with my oldest daughter and family matters, and our particular family penchant for preferring homebirth and eschewing hospital birth. The law in Georgia is not very friendly to homebirth midwives. I believe their offenses probably fall under that statute; of course they are not usually pursued and prosecuted, nor should they be, but IMO it is a terrible thing that they have to practice under the radar screen to meet a legitimate need. My first grandchild was born at home in Georgia, a birth I attended, and there was a midwife there assisting. Anyway, the law in Georgia pertaining to midwives needs to be fixed so they’re not, uh, committing felonies, but I guess that’s not happening anytime soon. My daughter and I attended the legislative hearings on the Georgia midwifery law a few years ago, and which she also spoke at, the result of which was nothing. Pity. Second grandchild born in Florida (military, so they’re on the move), and the law here is different and the midwife was completely legal. No difference between the two, except the law.
Anyway, that’s another subject…sorry.