As for your questions,
(a) an act or omission is something a person meant to do or not do (intentional) or did or did not do so carelessly that the negative result was obvious (grossly negligent).
(b) there are some acts that are required by law, not doing them violates criminal law. An unrelated example might be paying your taxes.
(c) the lack of the evidence of the action being done would be evidence of omission.

As far as placement of the bill in the statutes, note that nothing in the bill restricts it’s jurisdiction to the medical field. The bill applies to everyone, and as such it isn’t too dissimilar to other statutes in that chapter. A hypothetical example might be that a male with an unknown genetic defect would not be liable for wrongful birth if a child he helped conceive expressed the defect.

http://www.constitutionaldaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1546:az-wrongful-birth-bill-liable-for-wrongful-hysteria&catid=42:news&Itemid=71

With respect to Section D, my questions are:
(a) What defines “intentional or grossly negligent act or omission”?
(b) What defines “omission that violates a criminal law”?
(c) What defines evidence of such omission?

What is especially interesting here is that this bill adds a section to Arizona Revised Statutes, Section 1, Title 12, Chapter 6, “Special Acts and Proceedings by Individual Persons.” Chapter 6 deals with such matters as motor vehicle subleasing, libel and slander, and product liability.

In contrast, it is Chapter FIVE that encompasses “Actions Relating to Health Care.” I think it’s more than a little odd that SB1359, which clearly is a health care issue, has been placed in a different chapter within the law.

Within Chapter 5, you have the following text

—– text begin —–

12-563. Necessary elements of proof

Both of the following shall be necessary elements of proof that injury resulted from the failure of a health care provider to follow the accepted standard of care:

1. The health care provider failed to exercise that degree of care, skill and learning expected of a reasonable, prudent health care provider in the profession or class to which he belongs within the state acting in the same or similar circumstances.

2. Such failure was a proximate cause of the injury.

—– text end —–

There is nothing in 12-563 about “intentional or grossly negligent act or omission.”  Again, given those definitions in the chapter of Arizona law related to HEALTH ISSUES, I seriously question why the placement of SB1359 Section 12-718, “Civil liability; wrongful birth, life or conception claims; application” has been placed not within a chapter on health, but within a chapter on such things as motor vehicles, libel, and product liability.

Here’s the source material:
http://www.azleg.gov/arizonarevisedstatutes.asp?title=12

http://www.clinicaladvisor.com/arizona-senate-panel-votes-to-curb-wrongful-birth-suits/article/228517/

People can always lie, I guess. But the language “still be held liable for withholding prenatal information” suggests if doctors deliberately do it, they’re, in fact, not immunized from malpractice suits. But as I said, people can always lie.

I actually prefer the word “Theory” because while scientists overwhelmingly tend to agree that evolution is happening and is an ongoing process, there have been subtle refinements in how we understand evolution since Darwin published his theory and I imagine there will be subtle changes in the coming centuries as our understanding is improved through things like DNA mapping. I just wish more people accepted the concept of a “theory” as being as profound as the world of science does.

I hesitate attributing the word “fact” to evolution simply because of the lack of complete and comprehensive explanation that you even mention.

Calling evolution “only a theory” is like calling the atomic bomb “only a firecracker.”

There’s a lot of confusion created by the phrase “the theory of evolution.”

Evolution itself is an observed fact.  We see it in the lab, we see it in the wild, and we see loads of evidence in the fossil record.  We can make it happen at a vastly accelerated rate by applying artificial selection.  

Nothing theoretical about it.  Saying “organisms evolve” is like saying “the cloudless daytime sky looks blue.”  It’s an observable fact.

Darwin’s theory -what’s called “the Theory of Evolution” – was that the observed fact of evolution in nature could be explained by natural selection.    

That theory is well-supported by evidence (though it may not be the complete and comprehensive explanation – there may be some other factors driving evolution as well).

But evolution itself is stone-cold fact.  Nothing theoretical about it.

There is a theory of gravity; no one denies this.  But there is also the fact that things stick to the ground with a measurable force (proportional to weight).  In other words, in addition to the theory of gravity there is also the fact of gravity.  Newton’s theory of gravity was superseded but no one floated off the ground when that happened. 

In the same way, there is the fact of evolution — populations of organisms change over time and you can see this first-hand in peppered moths or finches or the fossil record.  And then there is a theory explaining why this happens.  There is a theory of evolution but even if there wasn’t or if it turned out to be wrong we would need a new theory to explain populations of organisms changing over time — the fact of evolution.

If we’re stuck with politicians who are more worried about religion than medical ethics (and in some situations we are), then your strategy would be good in the short term. In the long term, legal treatments should not be up to the whim of each individaul pharmacist or doctor.

I would prefer the sticker, “The world laughs at America for having so many proud, uninformed evolution deniers.”

Be afraid.  And angry.  Seems to work for conservatives.

That’s the funniest typo I seen all month.  Kudos.

The ONLY way this will work, is for a doctor with this belief system to divulge it to his patients. Bar None. I believe doctors should have convictions, there’s many faith based hospitals. If they lose patients and money due to their beliefs, that’s the cost they must pay.