Trump knows this is a losing fight but doesn't want to admit he screwed up, so he's trying to get Jackson to withdraw himself from consideration while Trump takes zero responsibility for the decision. Pathetic.
“I don’t want to put a man through a process like this,” Mr. Trump said, calling the allegations about Mr. Jackson “ugly.” The president said, “The fact is, I wouldn’t do it. What does he need it for? To be abused by a number of politicians?”
“It’s totally his decision,” Mr. Trump added, saying that he had talked with Dr. Jackson earlier in the day. Mr. Trump angrily accused his adversaries on Capitol Hill of going after Dr. Jackson because they have failed to block Mike Pompeo, the president’s nominee to become the next secretary of state.
I have no idea why people subject themselves to this inevitable humiliation for this man.
The pick was a slap in the face to veterans. The guy had zero experience managing a federal bureaucracy. It also appears that he was not vetted at all and has serious skeletons in his closet. His only qualifications seemed to be that he trumped up Trumps yearly physical. That's it. Yet another unqualified Trump pick.
Trump's defense of this guy is awful as well. Blaming the process, not the behavior or unqualified credentials of his nominee. A total insult to veterans.
People don't want to believe this because it's so ridiculous, but I said it at the time. Trump fired his VA head and then literally chose the first doctor he saw to head the agency. That was the vetting process.
People don't want to believe this because it's so ridiculous, but I said it at the time. Trump fired his VA head and then literally chose the first doctor he saw to head the agency. That was the vetting process.
I'd add that during his press conference Rony Jackson kissed a little butt and that went a long way towards Trumps decision. He said something about Trump living to 300 didn't he? That's enough of a thing to get a cabinet post in charge of the fate of thousands of veterans in your hands.
OK, this response is truly remarkable. Not only do you state that the position of the administration is to vigorously enforce federal protections on religious freedom, but you say there is no limit to these protections... without citing a single one of these protections.
You then go on to confirm exactly what I said by citing the protections for doctors, nurses and other health care workers who
I'd add that during his press conference Rony Jackson kissed a little butt and that went a long way towards Trumps decision. He said something about Trump living to 300 didn't he? That's enough of a thing to get a cabinet post in charge of the fate of thousands of veterans in your hands.
Fake news! It was 200, so totally reasonable. And yes, Jackson's main credentials were: 1) Trump liked how he "handled himself with reporters," i.e., he told blatant lies about Trump's health. 2) Trump said, "He's like central casting -- like a Hollywood star." [CNN]
The real kicker here of course would be the nurse not providing post-op care to someone who had an abortion. Let'st stipulate we can understand if she didn't want to participate in the ACTUAL abortion. But refusal to treat a complication arising from an abortion?? How is that anything other than that nurse dealing out her own personal punishment?? I'm sure many doctors and nurses might not be thrilled when a killer injured by police is brought in clinging to life after a confrontation, but they treat that patient regardless of what they may or may not have been guilty of. So even if that nurse believed the woman who got an abortion was guilty of murder, what possible justification can there be for refusing to treat that woman AFTER the procedure she viewed as murder took place?? If this is the standard, why not just stop hospital treatments for everyone suspected of a crime (abortion is NOT a crime, but assuming the nurse views it this way, the analogy still stands)??
Here is an example from 2011 of a group of nurses who were NOT forced to participate in the actual abortion, but also refused to participate in ANY care of the patient, including routine before and after patient care. This is a concrete example of exactly this issue. It's not enough for them to not have to participate in the actual procedure. Apparently even having to ask patients if they are allergic to any medication or taking standard medical readings is too much to ask. We are talking about them literally not even wanting to write down the patient's name. At that point I say, suck it up or get another damn job. You are already being catered to in almost every way possible. What's the next step, an excused absence whenever a patient getting an abortion steps into the building?? There are reasonable exceptions to certain tasks in any job, but at a certain point it is on YOU to either accept what the job of being a nurse is, or find employment at a facility that caters 100% to your personal morality. If you are so vehemently opposed to abortion that you insist that you have NO contact with a patient who may be getting one, just how narcissistic and self-righteous do you have to be to think you should be able to dictate how the entire clinic or hospital should run, expecting the entire flow of the day to bend and shape to your whim?? A classic case of the hospital giving a mile, and these particular nurses taking 100.
And as for pharmacists, I have even less tolerance for the total nonsense of not filling prescriptions they find morally objectionable. A doctor filled out the prescription for a patient. You aren't that person's judge. Either fill the damn thing, or lose your license. A Muslim Jimmy John's driver isn't going to get an exemption from his employer so that he doesn't have to deliver sandwiches with pork in them. Having sincere religious beliefs and having religious freedom doesn't mean you have the right to immunity from the everyday inertia of how society functions. What other professions does this kind of entitlement to special treatment even apply to besides those involved in some part of the chain of the medical profession?? Does anyone here actually have a job in which raising a religious objection to a task wouldn't get them laughed out of the office?? As has been mentioned, a religious exemption is almost by definition arbitrary, subjective, unquantifiable and can take almost any form on any subject. But we all know this entire debate is about CHRISTIAN beliefs, which are held as unique and supreme in American society.
By the way, there was a similar issue about 10 years ago in which a small amount of Muslim cashiers were refusing to handle pork products while working the checkout counter. They shouldn't have been catered to either. Some companies like Target did CHOOSE internally to reassign those employees to another department, but there sure as hell wasn't an order from the Executive Branch of the United States protecting their right to not have to do so.
Let's say this issue comes up again. Anyone here honestly think the Trump Administration is going to stick up for the "religious liberty" of those Muslim cashiers?? Fat chance.
I could not disagree more with your first point. Follow up procedures are integral to an abortion procedure; abortion procedures cannot be conducted legally without an adequate post-op.
Also you completely mischaracterize the UMDNJ case. You say they "refused to participate in ANY care of the patient, including routine before and after patient care." I'd appreciate it if you would at least be honest in this discussion. As the article you cited mentioned, "The nurses will keep their jobs at the same-day surgery unit at University Hospital in Newark but won’t have to assist in any abortion cases, including taking blood pressure readings or even writing down the patients’ names"
Notice how it does not excuse them from treating the patient for all unrelated procedures. If you are going to fear monger, please be accurate about it.
Especially if your proposed solution is "don't like violating your religious beliefs? Go be a plumber"
edit: besides, this case was settled out of court, meaning that UMDNJ decided to agree to end the litigation by providing the narrow exception.
For your second point you mention Target's correct decision to reassign Muslim employees so they don't have to handle pork: First off, I find it very sad that you would be ok with an employer firing a Muslim employee because they don't want to violate their religious beliefs, especially when you've come down for strong employee protections in all other areas. Second, and more importantly, you somehow ignore the fact that UMDNJ was a state-run organization, and subject to federal regulation, while Target is a private company and not subject to RFRA statutes.
As for gender surgery, maybe I am naive about the medical profession, but don't most doctors who perform surgeries choose a specific type to become experts in?? Why would there ever be a situation where a doctor who has made the choice to learn and study how to do gender reassignment surgery have any moral objection to performing it?? That would be like me taking a job as a window washer at the Empire State building if I was deathly afraid of heights.
You are correct about doctors, but most nurses and other healthcare professionals aren't afforded the same choices.
I could not disagree more with your first point. Follow up procedures are integral to an abortion procedure; abortion procedures cannot be conducted legally without an adequate post-op.
Also you completely mischaracterize the UMDNJ case. You say they "refused to participate in ANY care of the patient, including routine before and after patient care." I'd appreciate it if you would at least be honest in this discussion. As the article you cited mentioned, "The nurses will keep their jobs at the same-day surgery unit at University Hospital in Newark but won’t have to assist in any abortion cases, including taking blood pressure readings or even writing down the patients’ names"
Notice how it does not excuse them from treating the patient for all unrelated procedures. If you are going to fear monger, please be accurate about it.
I don't see anything dishonest there at all; it's quite clear that "the patient" refers to abortion patients. Did you misread it and think jj said "care of ANY patient" or something?
I could not disagree more with your first point. Follow up procedures are integral to an abortion procedure; abortion procedures cannot be conducted legally without an adequate post-op.
Also you completely mischaracterize the UMDNJ case. You say they "refused to participate in ANY care of the patient, including routine before and after patient care." I'd appreciate it if you would at least be honest in this discussion. As the article you cited mentioned, "The nurses will keep their jobs at the same-day surgery unit at University Hospital in Newark but won’t have to assist in any abortion cases, including taking blood pressure readings or even writing down the patients’ names"
Notice how it does not excuse them from treating the patient for all unrelated procedures. If you are going to fear monger, please be accurate about it.
I don't see anything dishonest there at all; it's quite clear that "the patient" refers to abortion patients. Did you misread it and think jj said "care of ANY patient" or something?
Oh, is the idea that it's OK because the patient isn't blacklisted for life? That makes more sense, but I still didn't find jj's account remotely misleading.
Edit: Ugh, I keep quoting myself when I mean to edit.
I could not disagree more with your first point. Follow up procedures are integral to an abortion procedure; abortion procedures cannot be conducted legally without an adequate post-op.
Also you completely mischaracterize the UMDNJ case. You say they "refused to participate in ANY care of the patient, including routine before and after patient care." I'd appreciate it if you would at least be honest in this discussion. As the article you cited mentioned, "The nurses will keep their jobs at the same-day surgery unit at University Hospital in Newark but won’t have to assist in any abortion cases, including taking blood pressure readings or even writing down the patients’ names"
Notice how it does not excuse them from treating the patient for all unrelated procedures. If you are going to fear monger, please be accurate about it.
I don't see anything dishonest there at all; it's quite clear that "the patient" refers to abortion patients. Did you misread it and think jj said "care of ANY patient" or something?
Oh, is the idea that it's OK because the patient isn't blacklisted for life? That makes more sense, but I still didn't find jj's account remotely misleading.
Edit: Ugh, I keep quoting myself when I mean to edit.
I read it as JJ saying that the nurses were allowed to not participate in care (which I note is very different from the hospital refusing care) of that patient in matters unrelated to the abortion. His point about it allowing nurses to "punish" patients based on their actions led me to read it as such.
That may not have been what he intended to communicate though. I could have misread it.
I read his comments as stating that RFRA laws allow state-employed nurses to refuse to care for patients based on who they are (or in the case of abortion, choices they've made) as opposed to refusing to participate in procedures they disagree with.
It's the same issue (but on a larger scale imho) as the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, where refusal of service for a same-sex wedding has to be differentiated from refusal of service for a gay individual (or same sex couple) for other purposes (say, a birthday cake). One is protected under RFRA statutes, the other is not. (important to note that there is no RFRA statute at play in Masterpiece, which is entirely a First Amendment/Fourteenth Amendment case)
NPR is saying more than 20 staffers have come forward with serious allegations about Dr. Rony Jackson.
Trump sure knows how to find the worst possible choices. Usually we've been getting industry shills and grifters looking to enrich themselves such as Scott Pruitt, Ryan Zinke, and Ajit Pai. Many are incompetent, wrong and have no experience such as Betsy Devos, Ben Carson or Jim Bridenstein. He found a new type of unqualified here - no relevant experience, totally unvetted with tons of misdeeds in his past. Way to set the bar low.
You know, I think one thing is pretty standard among all professions, which is that you don't drink at work. This is such an incompetent clown show it defies belief.
Lol, I'd imagine this should be doubly true if you are a White House physician for the past twelve(!) years.
How does someone survive drinking on the job as a White House physician? I thought drunk doctors were only a thing in Western films.
Can you imagine him checking George Bush's prostate and then saying something like this:
You know, I think one thing is pretty standard among all professions, which is that you don't drink at work. This is such an incompetent clown show it defies belief.
Lol, I'd imagine this should be doubly true if you are a White House physician for the past twelve(!) years.
How does someone survive drinking on the job as a White House physician? I thought drunk doctors were only a thing in Western films.
Can you imagine him checking George Bush's prostate and then saying something like this:
One would think bring a white house physician would require really rigorous vetting but that seems to have not worked here.
You know, I think one thing is pretty standard among all professions, which is that you don't drink at work. This is such an incompetent clown show it defies belief.
Lol, I'd imagine this should be doubly true if you are a White House physician for the past twelve(!) years.
How does someone survive drinking on the job as a White House physician? I thought drunk doctors were only a thing in Western films.
Can you imagine him checking George Bush's prostate and then saying something like this:
One would think bring a white house physician would require really rigorous vetting but that seems to have not worked here.
It's likely his drinking problem arose after he got the job. I don't like to stereotype vets as having PTSD, but I imagine being a surgeon in Iraq during the height of the war does create some demons.
You know, I think one thing is pretty standard among all professions, which is that you don't drink at work. This is such an incompetent clown show it defies belief.
Lol, I'd imagine this should be doubly true if you are a White House physician for the past twelve(!) years.
How does someone survive drinking on the job as a White House physician? I thought drunk doctors were only a thing in Western films.
Can you imagine him checking George Bush's prostate and then saying something like this:
I mean, most people who get caught drinking at work once, in any amount, will be fired on the spot. Beyond that, I've read plenty of comments from medical professionals today saying just how ridiculously unacceptable this is for someone in this field.
That said, it would have been far better if Mr. Johnson had told Trump what I'm sure has been running through his head since his nomination, which is that he wasn't qualified to do the job. Now he has been publicly humiliated.
I'm not surprised this keeps happening. I think I laid out my own theory for why these stories keep popping up about Trump appointees somewhere earlier in the thread: Trump is a sufficiently divisive and alienating personality in Washington that most of the people who would work for the President are opting not to. And when the country's best and brightest are no longer ready to answer the call to serve, who is left to fill those seats in the administration?
Trump may well be hiring the best people he can find. It's just that most of the intelligent, honorable, and qualified people for these positions are simply not interested in working for him.
I'd buy that more if he hadn't fired so many people. There are plenty of capable people who would be willing to work in Trump's administration out of a sense of civic duty, but those people aren't willing to work there on his terms, which include loyalty oaths and publicly debasing yourself for him.
--
I just read an amazing aside in The Atlantic: "Mid-answer, Fox News reporter John Roberts also had to explain what a 'present' vote was, to the president of the United States." Sure enough, that exchange starts at about 37:50 here:
I'm not surprised this keeps happening. I think I laid out my own theory for why these stories keep popping up about Trump appointees somewhere earlier in the thread: Trump is a sufficiently divisive and alienating personality in Washington that most of the people who would work for the President are opting not to. And when the country's best and brightest are no longer ready to answer the call to serve, who is left to fill those seats in the administration?
Trump may well be hiring the best people he can find. It's just that most of the intelligent, honorable, and qualified people for these positions are simply not interested in working for him.
I agree his pool of candidates is smaller because he's such a caustic divisive person but still there should be able to find some decent qualified candidates. Part if the problem also has to be that he demands loyalty to himself personally (not the country) but will turn around and throw you under the bus when it suits him. So that loyalty is a one way street. Candidates will also see the revolving door with people getting fired via tweet. All that stuff is not a good look for people looking for government jobs. Also apparently the job market for ex-trump staffers is incredibly soft - no jobs. All in all his unpleasant and unpredictable personality, the revolving door of employment and the soft job market for ex-trump administration officials has got to be a major turn off to qualified candidates. So we are getting the unqualified ones I guess.
It's actually one of the things I find more distressing about the administration thus far. Having one inexperienced person in power is one thing, but if there aren't a lot of other highly qualified people around to pick up the slack, the organization as a whole is weaker.
It's actually one of the things I find more distressing about the administration thus far. Having one inexperienced person in power is one thing, but if there aren't a lot of other highly qualified people around to pick up the slack, the organization as a whole is weaker.
The VA has been having problems for years, mostly because the system is simply taxed because of our endless wars in the Middle East after 9/11. I have no problem with the current head being fired even if he may have been a sacrificial lamb. But the idea that Trump would just pick the nearest doctor he could find (and again, this is clearly what took place) is just.....an insulting response to a serious problem. He didn't even attempt to find someone who could possibly turn things around.
But again, who but true-believer, reactionary conservative zealots are going to go work for a President who, with 99.9% certainty, will shiv you in the back and destroy your reputation the moment he is done using you for his personal reality show he is conducting in the White House. Donald Trump is a malignant personality that destroys everything he touches.
Once again, I must iterate that there are *no* Constitutional requirements that a person chosen to be the head of a Federal agency has to have administrative experience or possess any knowledge about the area over which that Federal agency presides. That does lead to candidates who are not ideal, of course, and they may not have any chance of receiving Congressional approval for the appointment, but that isn't entirely Trump's fault--he didn't design the system that way. He could always wait for Congress to recess, pick a name out of a phone book (they actually still publish those, if you can believe it), and appoint that person to a Cabinet position which Congress would have to approve or disapprove when they reconvene.
Poor choices for lower-level Cabinet positions such as the VA is pretty thin criticism, though. As far as the topic of the VA itself, though, well...that agency could stand to have its budget quintupled to hire more competent doctors and update/modernize many of its facilities. "Not going to the doctor" is sometimes just as good as "going to the VA".
“We had a hierarchy in my office in Congress,” Mr. Mulvaney, a former Republican lawmaker from South Carolina, told 1,300 bankers and lobbyists at an American Bankers Association conference in Washington. “If you’re a lobbyist who never gave us money, I didn’t talk to you. If you’re a lobbyist who gave us money, I might talk to you.” [NYT]
@Mathsorcerer: I don't think anyone is arguing that Trump is constitutionally prohibited from hiring his drunk doctor to run the government's second largest department. The argument is that it's a bad idea. And "lower-level Cabinet positions" is a funny phrase.
I'm not surprised this keeps happening. I think I laid out my own theory for why these stories keep popping up about Trump appointees somewhere earlier in the thread: Trump is a sufficiently divisive and alienating personality in Washington that most of the people who would work for the President are opting not to. And when the country's best and brightest are no longer ready to answer the call to serve, who is left to fill those seats in the administration?
Trump may well be hiring the best people he can find. It's just that most of the intelligent, honorable, and qualified people for these positions are simply not interested in working for him.
This is certainly true, but there is another issue at play. I know of two DC lawyers who had jobs lined up at the Department of Education and Health and Human Services during the transition period, but were later rejected for having posted negative feelings about Trump on social media. One of them quit a huge job (one of the top 3 positions at the Institute for Justice) in preparation for taking on one of those jobs, only to see the offer revoked at the last minute.
Not only do the best and the brightest not want to be associated with Trump, but even those who are willing to swallow the bitter pill are rejected if they might be insufficiently loyal.
As far as the topic of the VA itself, though, well...that agency could stand to have its budget quintupled to hire more competent doctors and update/modernize many of its facilities. "Not going to the doctor" is sometimes just as good as "going to the VA".
Or Trump could follow through with one of his few good campaign promises and reform the delivery of medical services to veterans by having a VA card that would allow users to pick their own doctor.
To follow up on the absolutely bananas sex-trafficking case I posted about before: Former Smallville star Allison Mack has been arrested for her part in recruiting unknowing women into a sex slave cult and branding them with her initials as well as the initials of her "master"
She is now out on bail and facing 15 years to life!
I could not disagree more with your first point. Follow up procedures are integral to an abortion procedure; abortion procedures cannot be conducted legally without an adequate post-op.
Also you completely mischaracterize the UMDNJ case. You say they "refused to participate in ANY care of the patient, including routine before and after patient care." I'd appreciate it if you would at least be honest in this discussion. As the article you cited mentioned, "The nurses will keep their jobs at the same-day surgery unit at University Hospital in Newark but won’t have to assist in any abortion cases, including taking blood pressure readings or even writing down the patients’ names"
Notice how it does not excuse them from treating the patient for all unrelated procedures. If you are going to fear monger, please be accurate about it.
I think @jjstraka34's position was that there is a slippery slope here. Once you've got the precedent that after-care of a patient can be linked to an operation, how far can it be pushed? Will it be found OK not to provide care for a patient returning to hospital years later with complications that may (or may not) be related to an earlier operation? Will it found OK not to provide psychiatric counselling to someone struggling to deal with having had an abortion?
I agree there is a genuine problem with this case and it does set a precedent that could easily be pushed further as a result of the support now being offered by the Trump administration.
As far as the topic of the VA itself, though, well...that agency could stand to have its budget quintupled to hire more competent doctors and update/modernize many of its facilities. "Not going to the doctor" is sometimes just as good as "going to the VA".
Or Trump could follow through with one of his few good campaign promises and reform the delivery of medical services to veterans by having a VA card that would allow users to pick their own doctor.
I'm not sure that's a promise that is universally an ideal for veterans. The veterans I know have issues with VA healthcare, but want the system fixed rather than gutted or privatized. There are benefits from having VA healthcare such as free medicine, exams, and prosthetics. Complaints are usually the variety of slow appointment times and most doctors are not the best because of the low pay paid to VA doctors. The issues with the Phoenix VA for example are criminal though with cooking the books, that is not a universal experience
I could not disagree more with your first point. Follow up procedures are integral to an abortion procedure; abortion procedures cannot be conducted legally without an adequate post-op.
Also you completely mischaracterize the UMDNJ case. You say they "refused to participate in ANY care of the patient, including routine before and after patient care." I'd appreciate it if you would at least be honest in this discussion. As the article you cited mentioned, "The nurses will keep their jobs at the same-day surgery unit at University Hospital in Newark but won’t have to assist in any abortion cases, including taking blood pressure readings or even writing down the patients’ names"
Notice how it does not excuse them from treating the patient for all unrelated procedures. If you are going to fear monger, please be accurate about it.
To give a factually analogous case, do you think that a Jehova's Witness (or a secular pacifist) would find an exemption to military conscription that only required them to build missiles and prepare them for deployment rather than firing them themselves to be adequate to meet their deeply held views against waging war?
I do not. Preparation for an abortion is essential to enabling the act, much like building the weapons is essential to the waging of war.
You say that the line is hard to draw, but it is not impossible. It is eminently reasonable to limit it to pre-op and post-op for abortion. The bottom line is that refusal to draw any line is basically saying that "if you have moral qualms with abortion but want to be a nurse at a government-run hospital, too bad. Go be a plumber". I personally believe it is much better for the government to make reasonable exceptions, which UMDNJ refused to do until faced with a lawsuit.
Again, what is the downside? Do you really need to conscript Catholic nurses to perform abortions? There are plenty of nurses in the world who are perfectly willing to participate, let the government have them do it.
Comments
Trump's defense of this guy is awful as well. Blaming the process, not the behavior or unqualified credentials of his nominee. A total insult to veterans.
You then go on to confirm exactly what I said by citing the protections for doctors, nurses and other health care workers who Not patients. Procedures.
1) Trump liked how he "handled himself with reporters," i.e., he told blatant lies about Trump's health.
2) Trump said, "He's like central casting -- like a Hollywood star."
[CNN]
Also you completely mischaracterize the UMDNJ case. You say they "refused to participate in ANY care of the patient, including routine before and after patient care." I'd appreciate it if you would at least be honest in this discussion. As the article you cited mentioned, "The nurses will keep their jobs at the same-day surgery unit at University Hospital in Newark but won’t have to assist in any abortion cases, including taking blood pressure readings or even writing down the patients’ names"
Notice how it does not excuse them from treating the patient for all unrelated procedures. If you are going to fear monger, please be accurate about it.
Especially if your proposed solution is "don't like violating your religious beliefs? Go be a plumber"
edit: besides, this case was settled out of court, meaning that UMDNJ decided to agree to end the litigation by providing the narrow exception.
For your second point you mention Target's correct decision to reassign Muslim employees so they don't have to handle pork:
First off, I find it very sad that you would be ok with an employer firing a Muslim employee because they don't want to violate their religious beliefs, especially when you've come down for strong employee protections in all other areas.
Second, and more importantly, you somehow ignore the fact that UMDNJ was a state-run organization, and subject to federal regulation, while Target is a private company and not subject to RFRA statutes.
Edit: Ugh, I keep quoting myself when I mean to edit.
That may not have been what he intended to communicate though. I could have misread it.
I read his comments as stating that RFRA laws allow state-employed nurses to refuse to care for patients based on who they are (or in the case of abortion, choices they've made) as opposed to refusing to participate in procedures they disagree with.
It's the same issue (but on a larger scale imho) as the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, where refusal of service for a same-sex wedding has to be differentiated from refusal of service for a gay individual (or same sex couple) for other purposes (say, a birthday cake). One is protected under RFRA statutes, the other is not. (important to note that there is no RFRA statute at play in Masterpiece, which is entirely a First Amendment/Fourteenth Amendment case)
Trump sure knows how to find the worst possible choices. Usually we've been getting industry shills and grifters looking to enrich themselves such as Scott Pruitt, Ryan Zinke, and Ajit Pai. Many are incompetent, wrong and have no experience such as Betsy Devos, Ben Carson or Jim Bridenstein. He found a new type of unqualified here - no relevant experience, totally unvetted with tons of misdeeds in his past. Way to set the bar low.
How does someone survive drinking on the job as a White House physician? I thought drunk doctors were only a thing in Western films.
Can you imagine him checking George Bush's prostate and then saying something like this:
That said, it would have been far better if Mr. Johnson had told Trump what I'm sure has been running through his head since his nomination, which is that he wasn't qualified to do the job. Now he has been publicly humiliated.
Trump may well be hiring the best people he can find. It's just that most of the intelligent, honorable, and qualified people for these positions are simply not interested in working for him.
--
I just read an amazing aside in The Atlantic: "Mid-answer, Fox News reporter John Roberts also had to explain what a 'present' vote was, to the president of the United States." Sure enough, that exchange starts at about 37:50 here:
https://www.axios.com/white-house-aides-staffers-new-job-not-hiring-3d462642-9592-4799-af4b-aae37ff57570.html
But again, who but true-believer, reactionary conservative zealots are going to go work for a President who, with 99.9% certainty, will shiv you in the back and destroy your reputation the moment he is done using you for his personal reality show he is conducting in the White House. Donald Trump is a malignant personality that destroys everything he touches.
Poor choices for lower-level Cabinet positions such as the VA is pretty thin criticism, though. As far as the topic of the VA itself, though, well...that agency could stand to have its budget quintupled to hire more competent doctors and update/modernize many of its facilities. "Not going to the doctor" is sometimes just as good as "going to the VA".
These people...
Not only do the best and the brightest not want to be associated with Trump, but even those who are willing to swallow the bitter pill are rejected if they might be insufficiently loyal.
Former Smallville star Allison Mack has been arrested for her part in recruiting unknowing women into a sex slave cult and branding them with her initials as well as the initials of her "master"
She is now out on bail and facing 15 years to life!
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/24/entertainment/allison-mack/index.html
I think @jjstraka34's position was that there is a slippery slope here. Once you've got the precedent that after-care of a patient can be linked to an operation, how far can it be pushed? Will it be found OK not to provide care for a patient returning to hospital years later with complications that may (or may not) be related to an earlier operation? Will it found OK not to provide psychiatric counselling to someone struggling to deal with having had an abortion?
I agree there is a genuine problem with this case and it does set a precedent that could easily be pushed further as a result of the support now being offered by the Trump administration.
I do not. Preparation for an abortion is essential to enabling the act, much like building the weapons is essential to the waging of war.
You say that the line is hard to draw, but it is not impossible. It is eminently reasonable to limit it to pre-op and post-op for abortion. The bottom line is that refusal to draw any line is basically saying that "if you have moral qualms with abortion but want to be a nurse at a government-run hospital, too bad. Go be a plumber". I personally believe it is much better for the government to make reasonable exceptions, which UMDNJ refused to do until faced with a lawsuit.
Again, what is the downside? Do you really need to conscript Catholic nurses to perform abortions? There are plenty of nurses in the world who are perfectly willing to participate, let the government have them do it.