If the line really were limited to pre and immediate post-op for abortion I agree it would be less of a concern - but I doubt very much the line will stop there. I also don't agree that taking this line is of no concern at all. What if a nurse is a Jehovah's Witness for example (and therefore does not accept the use of blood transfusions). Is it really reasonable for them to be able to refuse to look after any patient that has received blood?
You referred to the baking cases in one of your posts above and there have already been lower court judgments that people in general should not be required to provide services they have a religious objection to. It's not yet clear whether the SCOTUS will clearly establish that precedent in the Masterpiece case, but if it does so that would provide a huge new opportunity for discrimination generally. As I posted recently, I think it's unlikely that opportunity would not apply to healthcare workers (given the specific references by the Trump administration to supporting the religious rights of healthcare workers).
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.
There are legal limits on abortion. There are a great many limits some reasonable some not. There is a great deal of misinformation about abortions out there given by the President and other conservative pundits with their own agendas.
Is Roe versus Wade allowing some of the most permissive laws anywhere in the world? No, it's not. In most US states, abortion laws are in line with those of most of Europe (with the exception of Ireland, Great Britain, Poland and Finland), all of Central Asia, a large part of East Asia, Australia, Canada, South Africa, Malawi, Tunisia, Uruguay, Guyana, and French Guyana.
There is no scientific proof to support the fetal pain in 20 weeks claim which is a current conservative false talking point. Fetal pain is controversial is because pain is always a subjective experience as well. https://www.livescience.com/54774-fetal-pain-anesthesia.html
I've never understood why conservatives are against abortion. As soon as the kid is born they want nothing to do with them. They are seemingly constantly trying to cut support programs for nutrition and medical care for real living children. Remember the recent CHIP debacle where childrens health insurance program was allowed to expire?
If a woman doesn't want or think she can take care of a baby let her end her pregnancy. Much less women who are raped or become pregnant without consent, or whose lives might be in danger from a pregnancy. How can you be against those women taking charge of their reproductive lives? Pro-life would force some of these women bring babies who will inevitably fail and be a drain on society. I'm not saying that's why every abortion seekers plight, but surely that is some of them.
A friend of mine was going to deploy in the military and had to leave his pregnant wife behind. His wife was in danger in those first few weeks and he wanted to be there to take of her but he could not. The responsible and extremely difficult decision would have been to end the pregnancy. They didn't and the wife lost the baby - miscarriage - and subsequently they could not have children afterwards.
“Right now, in a number of states, the law allows babies to be born from his or her mother’s womb in the ninth month. It is wrong, it has to change." - President Donald Trump "March for Life" speech
If the line really were limited to pre and immediate post-op for abortion I agree it would be less of a concern - but I doubt very much the line will stop there. I also don't agree that taking this line is of no concern at all. What if a nurse is a Jehovah's Witness for example (and therefore does not accept the use of blood transfusions). Is it really reasonable for them to be able to refuse to look after any patient that has received blood?
You referred to the baking cases in one of your posts above and there have already been lower court judgments that people in general should not be required to provide services they have a religious objection to. It's not yet clear whether the SCOTUS will clearly establish that precedent in the Masterpiece case, but if it does so that would provide a huge new opportunity for discrimination generally. As I posted recently, I think it's unlikely that opportunity would not apply to healthcare workers (given the specific references by the Trump administration to supporting the religious rights of healthcare workers).
The Masterpiece Cakeshop Case will focus solely on the Free Speech Clause, so that would not apply to healthcare professionals. There is no communicative conduct in medical procedures.
The only way this concept would apply to medical professionals, it would only apply to those who employed by the government in states with RFRA statutes. There are already 21 states with such statutes, and the federal government has its own. None of these horror stories you and JJ have mentioned have come to fruition yet.
I'd like to further add for those who think these exemptions are too broad: they would not apply to myself. I'm secular, pro-life, and I worked in healthcare from when I was 17 to last December and plan to be a healthcare lawyer in the near future. From my perspective, they are too narrow.
Is Roe versus Wade allowing some of the most permissive laws anywhere in the world? No, it's not. I
@smeagolheart First of all, I don't see how this in any way responds to my post...
Secondly, you are mistaken on the facts. Many states have laws that permit elective abortion up until the 9th month of pregnancy (which is admittedly a rare occurrence). The only other nations that allow that are China, Vietnam, and North Korea. It's a shame that we are in the same company as pretty much the worst human rights violators in the world.
Canada has no national temporal limitation on elective abortion, but the most permissive province bans abortion after a 24 week period
The federalist systems of the US and Canada are great for many reasons, but they also make comparisons with other nations very complex. Many people make similar mistakes. While we may not be the most permissive nation on guns and abortion nationally or on average, many of our individual states have the most liberal laws in relation to both firearms and abortion by certain metrics.
If the line really were limited to pre and immediate post-op for abortion I agree it would be less of a concern - but I doubt very much the line will stop there. I also don't agree that taking this line is of no concern at all. What if a nurse is a Jehovah's Witness for example (and therefore does not accept the use of blood transfusions). Is it really reasonable for them to be able to refuse to look after any patient that has received blood?
You referred to the baking cases in one of your posts above and there have already been lower court judgments that people in general should not be required to provide services they have a religious objection to. It's not yet clear whether the SCOTUS will clearly establish that precedent in the Masterpiece case, but if it does so that would provide a huge new opportunity for discrimination generally. As I posted recently, I think it's unlikely that opportunity would not apply to healthcare workers (given the specific references by the Trump administration to supporting the religious rights of healthcare workers).
The Masterpiece Cakeshop Case will focus solely on the Free Speech Clause, so that would not apply to healthcare professionals. There is no communicative conduct in medical procedures.
The only way this concept would apply to medical professionals, it would only apply to those who employed by the government in states with RFRA statutes. There are already 21 states with such statutes, and the federal government has its own. None of these horror stories you and JJ have mentioned have come to fruition yet.
I'd like to further add for those who think these exemptions are too broad: they would not apply to myself. I'm secular, pro-life, and I worked in healthcare from when I was 17 to last December and plan to be a healthcare lawyer in the near future. From my perspective, they are too narrow.
@booinyoureyes the Free Speech Clause is indeed relevant to healthcare professionals. In the Masterpiece case it is being argued that free speech does not only protect verbal and written responses, but also the provision of services (in this case a cake). The distinction being drawn is between a retail product, where there's no new element of creativity in relation to each individual item (and you have to provide it to everyone) and a service (where you don't). If that distinction is supported by the SCOTUS I can't see how healthcare professionals could possibly not be classed as providing a service.
In relation to exemptions, I'm not sure what your point is - can you clarify?
If the line really were limited to pre and immediate post-op for abortion I agree it would be less of a concern - but I doubt very much the line will stop there. I also don't agree that taking this line is of no concern at all. What if a nurse is a Jehovah's Witness for example (and therefore does not accept the use of blood transfusions). Is it really reasonable for them to be able to refuse to look after any patient that has received blood?
You referred to the baking cases in one of your posts above and there have already been lower court judgments that people in general should not be required to provide services they have a religious objection to. It's not yet clear whether the SCOTUS will clearly establish that precedent in the Masterpiece case, but if it does so that would provide a huge new opportunity for discrimination generally. As I posted recently, I think it's unlikely that opportunity would not apply to healthcare workers (given the specific references by the Trump administration to supporting the religious rights of healthcare workers).
The Masterpiece Cakeshop Case will focus solely on the Free Speech Clause, so that would not apply to healthcare professionals. There is no communicative conduct in medical procedures.
The only way this concept would apply to medical professionals, it would only apply to those who employed by the government in states with RFRA statutes. There are already 21 states with such statutes, and the federal government has its own. None of these horror stories you and JJ have mentioned have come to fruition yet.
I'd like to further add for those who think these exemptions are too broad: they would not apply to myself. I'm secular, pro-life, and I worked in healthcare from when I was 17 to last December and plan to be a healthcare lawyer in the near future. From my perspective, they are too narrow.
@booinyoureyes the Free Speech Clause is indeed relevant to healthcare professionals. In the Masterpiece case it is being argued that free speech does not only protect verbal and written responses, but also the provision of services (in this case a cake). The distinction being drawn is between a retail product, where there's no new element of creativity in relation to each individual item (and you have to provide it to everyone) and a service (where you don't). If that distinction is supported by the SCOTUS I can't see how healthcare professionals could possibly not be classed as providing a service.
In relation to exemptions, I'm not sure what your point is - can you clarify?
There is no communicative expression in healthcare services. It is not speech the same way that art (which the decorative cake is being classified as) is. There is no expressive content in the taking of a blood sample, DNA profiling, or indeed abortion.
For the record, I don't think the baker will win on Free Speech grounds. In the absence of a RFRA statute, the Court will probably rule that the public accommodations statute will apply.
As far as exemptions go, I'm saying that the pre-op and post-op care of an abortion patient is indeed a part of the abortion process, the same way that building missiles or guns is a part of the process of making war. It is not "punishment" of the patient, the same way that exempting a Jehova's Witness draftee from combat but not the preparation of war machines is "punishing" the military. In both cases the conscience of the objecting party is simply being protected.
As I mentioned before, if you work at a clinic or hospital that provides abortions, where is the line drawn on "facilitating" in the act?? If filling out paperwork qualifies, why not emptying the used needle container or changing the paper on the table in the exam room?? What if the secretary whose job it is to process patients in and out decides she isn't going to participate either?? Does the entire facility have to have people at multiple positions ready to come out of the bullpen and drop whatever they are doing so the religious freedom crowd can take a time-out?? In what jobs do we now have the inalienable right to just flat-out refuse to do basic tasks because someone pulls the religion card?? I mean, if these nurses had half the courage of their convictions they seem to think they do, they wouldn't be working there at all.
Beyond that, any bets on how quickly any religious objection that wasn't based on the Christian, Muslim, or Jewish faith would get that person laughed out of the building??
As far as exemptions go, I'm saying that the pre-op and post-op care of an abortion patient is indeed a part of the abortion process, the same way that building missiles or guns is a part of the process of making war. It is not "punishment" of the patient, the same way that exempting a Jehova's Witness draftee from combat but not the preparation of war machines is "punishing" the military. In both cases the conscience of the objecting party is simply being protected.
This is the crux of the issue though. The right for one person to protect their conscience impinges on the rights of others to conduct lawful activities, so how should these rights be balanced? You believe that it is possible to draw a hard line such that objections can be limited to a specific procedure rather than relating to the person that undergoes that procedure - I do not believe that.
Is Roe versus Wade allowing some of the most permissive laws anywhere in the world? No, it's not. I
@smeagolheart First of all, I don't see how this in any way responds to my post...
Secondly, you are mistaken on the facts. Many states have laws that permit elective abortion up until the 9th month of pregnancy (which is admittedly a rare occurrence). The only other nations that allow that are China, Vietnam, and North Korea. It's a shame that we are in the same company as pretty much the worst human rights violators in the world.
Canada has no national temporal limitation on elective abortion, but the most permissive province bans abortion after a 24 week period
The federalist systems of the US and Canada are great for many reasons, but they also make comparisons with other nations very complex. Many people make similar mistakes. While we may not be the most permissive nation on guns and abortion nationally or on average, many of our individual states have the most liberal laws in relation to both firearms and abortion by certain metrics.
I was presenting common conservative claims as I understand them not directly rebuting a point in your post there when mentioning Roe versus Wade.
I'm not mistaken on the facts and do not appreciate that characterization. It is reasonable to say that I'm mistaken on this or that fact but not the facts as if all facts.
Good point about individuals states in our federal system making comparisons to other countries problematic. I suspect there are few 9th month abortions just for the fun of it. I could not easily find reliable numbers on this. If there are very late abortions then it is clear that that mother (and child's support family) is really not ready to take care of the child. And given the cuts to social welfare programs in most states its likely the state will not serve the child either.
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.
There is a difference between being conscripted and having a choice of taking a position at a company.
If a Jehovah Witness freely choose to join the army because the benefits it provided, then no... sorry you signed up for this job and all its responsibilities.
The same applies to a nurse working at a hospital or clinic that offers abortions. If during the interview stage, they bring up the objection to the procedures of an abortion and the hospital works out a compromise then, that's different.
It's like applying for a job that states, weekend and evenings only. Getting hired, then saying "Oh, I need to keep the Sabbath holy, so I can't work Saturdays/Sundays." Well too bad, the job specified that the person needed to work those days.
I think this analogy is not useful here. With the missiles there is no human being involved in immediate need of care. The missile has no worth besides killing people - that is basically the only one use it has. It has no inherent dignity or rights.
From a pacifist doctor or nurse I would still expect them to take care of wounded soldiers (both from his nation and the enemy) and to treat a person who wants to join the army properly, even if not providing the treatment would prevent the person joining the army (i.e. making certain a leg break heals properly).
I also would not accept hospital staff not treating a convicted murderer, shot while trying to escape jail, even though I am pretty certain most of them strongly disapprove of murder.
While I still disagree with it, I can understand the argument that they do not want to be involved in the preparations, as this might be seen to enable this procedure.
But I think one of the most important ethical requirements of medicine is to treat an injury properly, no matter who has it and how it was inflicted. Refusing to give proper post-op care is highly unethical and I consider persons who do so unsuited for medicine.
I'll mention again that I don't have a major problem with the nurses not being asked to assist directly in the abortion, but that is mostly because of the adverse effect they may have on the patient and the work environment. But I just don't see how businesses can function if people are free to claim religious objections to certain tasks. Frankly, if we were talking about anything other than abortion in this case, I'd say my "do your job" stance would be the conservative point of view.
Going back to the Muslim cashier not scanning pork products, again, presumably you would KNOW before being hired if the store contains pork products. At which point you say (if you feel that strongly) "I'm sorry, but this job isn't for me". I guess I just have a low tolerance for people who make work harder for others. There are already a myriad amount of complications that can come up (injury, illness, death in family) that can't be avoided that cause issues. Throwing religion into the mix is just a recipe for more BS.
Mick Mulvaney, a guy supposed to be protecting consumers as well as head of Director of the Office of Management and Budget admitted to being completely corrupt and admitted to a pay to play scheme. These days Trumps so corrupt and ridiculous why even pretend right? During a speech to bankers he said:
“We had a hierarchy in my office in Congress. 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.” - Consumer Advocate Mick Mulvaney
The message being that if you want something from the Trump administration you'd better pay up.
Kamala Harris today announced she is no longer going to accept corporate PAC money. This erases all doubts as to whether she is running for President. She is not only running, she is consistently staking out positions on issues that appeal to the Bernie-wing of the left, yet she also has the pedigree of being a former prosecutor. She has worked with Rand Paul on bail reform, and has called for the decriminalization of marijuana. I am going to be sorely disappointed if she doesn't win the nomination when that time comes around.
It's been interesting to see Macron's tactics with Trump. He's consistently flattered Trump on a personal level for some time, but has now delivered a speech to Congress with serious disagreements over many key Trump policies (trade, environment, nationalism, Iran). The question is whether Trump will accept criticism from a pal - and even change policies as a result. I doubt it, but it's an audacious attempt.
It's been interesting to see Macron's tactics with Trump. He's consistently flattered Trump on a personal level for some time, but has now delivered a speech to Congress with serious disagreements over many key Trump policies (trade, environment, nationalism, Iran). The question is whether Trump will accept criticism from a pal - and even change policies as a result. I doubt it, but it's an audacious attempt.
I think Macron realizes the US is an ally even If the US temporarily has an orange buffoon as the President. Macron seems to feel it's his duty to put up with Trump's odd and crazy behavior for the sake of our counties deep bonds which will extend before and past this administration. As Macron said the US will return to the Paris Climate Accord (presumably once this temporary madness passes) .
Macron understands how to deal with Trump's arrogant schoolyard bully personality type. Mostly it is just don't take crap and don't let them claim the advantage. This includes their stupid games of handshakes and fake dandruff power plays.
Looks like Dr. Ronny has withdrawn his name as nominee to head the VA. He says he didn’t expect to answer for baseless allegations in his confirmation. If they’re baseless, why withdraw? Spineless.
Trump continues to dig his own grave legally. In an interview on FOX News this morning, he talked about how little legal work Micheal Cohen did for him. The attorneys for the Southern Distirct of New York then immediately used his statements in a court filing to argue for expediting review of the seized documents. In the end, Trump's inability to shut up for 5 seconds will ruin him.
Trump effectively admitted to Fox & Friends this morning that Cohen represented him in the Stormy Daniels case.
"He has a percentage of my overall legal work, a tiny, tiny little fraction, but Michael would represent me and represent me on some things. He represents me like with this crazy Stormy Daniels deal, he represented me. You know, from what I see, he did absolutely nothing wrong."
These comments made Michael Avenatti, Ms. Clifford's attorney, quite happy. Meanwhile, Cohen is pleading the Fifth in the Daniels case. (recall that the Daniels case is, at this time, a civil suit)
Trump effectively admitted to Fox & Friends this morning that Cohen represented him in the Stormy Daniels case.
"He has a percentage of my overall legal work, a tiny, tiny little fraction, but Michael would represent me and represent me on some things. He represents me like with this crazy Stormy Daniels deal, he represented me. You know, from what I see, he did absolutely nothing wrong."
These comments made Michael Avenatti, Ms. Clifford's attorney, quite happy. Meanwhile, Cohen is pleading the Fifth in the Daniels case. (recall that the Daniels case is, at this time, a civil suit)
That's all it can be from Daniels side - a civil case. It takes a government entity - district attorney, cops, Justice department, FBI, etc to bring criminal charges.
Publicly the criminal investigation into Cohen said that one of the things they are investigating Cohen for - payments to Daniels and other women that are in violation of campaign finance laws.
—------------
I'm glad Rony Jackson withdrew. I think he would have been a disaster (trumpian hyperbole) as head of the VA. I think he would have been I over his head and manipulated by the Trumpian forces that got David Shulkin fired. Those political appointees want to dismantle the VA and privatize veterans Healthcare which would effectively turn out to be a massive payout to big medical executives and billionaire buddies of Donald Trump. Veterans would end up getting less for an even more corrupt system.
Trump effectively admitted to Fox & Friends this morning that Cohen represented him in the Stormy Daniels case.
"He has a percentage of my overall legal work, a tiny, tiny little fraction, but Michael would represent me and represent me on some things. He represents me like with this crazy Stormy Daniels deal, he represented me. You know, from what I see, he did absolutely nothing wrong."
These comments made Michael Avenatti, Ms. Clifford's attorney, quite happy. Meanwhile, Cohen is pleading the Fifth in the Daniels case. (recall that the Daniels case is, at this time, a civil suit)
Of course Trump knows Cohen represented him with Stormy Daniels. It’s been in the news for months.
The question is whether Trump knew what Cohen was doing at the time the payoff was made. That’s of what Trump has denied knowledge.
If Trump DIDN'T know about Stormy Daniels then Michael Cohen should at a minimum be disbarred for entering someone into a legal contract they had no knowledge of. Of course everyone knows that isn't the case.
Maybe Trump gave Cohen power-of-attorney to act on his behalf for hush money agreements. Lawyers, and regular people for that matter, can act on behalf of other people if the correct docs are signed. I would think Cohen would have to sign for “David Dennison” but I don’t know for certain.
I’m not trying to defend any of this and I hope they all go down in flaming pile of poo, but it’s obvious Trump knows that Cohen represented him in this matter. Now he does anyway. Fox News told him so.
Bill Cosby found guilty on 3 counts, each of which carries a possible ten-year sentence. Any prison term is a likely death sentence for Cosby at 80-years old. Will the judge throw the book at him, and will he remain free on appeal??
Currently Cosby is just under house arrest. There are some arguments that prison time is not necessary because of his age and unlikeliness to re-offend.
I disagree. Criminal punishment is primarily to serve as a deterrent, not just to physically prevent people from committing crimes. If Cosby serves prison time, it will be a powerful message to other would-be abusers that they will no longer be able to get away with using their positions of power to attack people with impunity.
I thought it has been pretty clear Cosby has done some really terrible date rapey and drugging girls things. It's been public knowledge for a while now. A rich guy facing prison and not able to slip out of it is a novelty and a thing almost unheard in Americas two tiered justice system. Poor people and people of color face decades behind bars at every turn and rich people can get away with murder.
An egregious recent example of this two tiered justice systems is where in Texas a black woman mistakenly voted in an election in which she thought was allowed to but wasn't because she had had her voting rights stripped got 5 years in jail. A white male Republican politician committed election fraud to win his election in the same Texas county was given probation.
We'll gladly make an accommodation for Cosby here at Butner in NC. He can sit and play cards with Bernie Madoff, 79 now, with a 150 year sentence. Now that was for basically playing with people's money, Cosby's playing was far more invasive, in my opinion.
Holy cow Trump's Fox and Friends from earlier today is completely insane.
His approval with Republicans is like 80 percent right? What are they thinking or hearing? Mass delusions, hallucinations, and projection. That's the only possible explanation. Or just the need to burn down the world. Someone defend this guy, you can't do it.
Comments
You referred to the baking cases in one of your posts above and there have already been lower court judgments that people in general should not be required to provide services they have a religious objection to. It's not yet clear whether the SCOTUS will clearly establish that precedent in the Masterpiece case, but if it does so that would provide a huge new opportunity for discrimination generally. As I posted recently, I think it's unlikely that opportunity would not apply to healthcare workers (given the specific references by the Trump administration to supporting the religious rights of healthcare workers).
Is Roe versus Wade allowing some of the most permissive laws anywhere in the world? No, it's not. In most US states, abortion laws are in line with those of most of Europe (with the exception of Ireland, Great Britain, Poland and Finland), all of Central Asia, a large part of East Asia, Australia, Canada, South Africa, Malawi, Tunisia, Uruguay, Guyana, and French Guyana.
There is no scientific proof to support the fetal pain in 20 weeks claim which is a current conservative false talking point. Fetal pain is controversial is because pain is always a subjective experience as well.
https://www.livescience.com/54774-fetal-pain-anesthesia.html
I've never understood why conservatives are against abortion. As soon as the kid is born they want nothing to do with them. They are seemingly constantly trying to cut support programs for nutrition and medical care for real living children. Remember the recent CHIP debacle where childrens health insurance program was allowed to expire?
If a woman doesn't want or think she can take care of a baby let her end her pregnancy. Much less women who are raped or become pregnant without consent, or whose lives might be in danger from a pregnancy. How can you be against those women taking charge of their reproductive lives? Pro-life would force some of these women bring babies who will inevitably fail and be a drain on society. I'm not saying that's why every abortion seekers plight, but surely that is some of them.
A friend of mine was going to deploy in the military and had to leave his pregnant wife behind. His wife was in danger in those first few weeks and he wanted to be there to take of her but he could not. The responsible and extremely difficult decision would have been to end the pregnancy. They didn't and the wife lost the baby - miscarriage - and subsequently they could not have children afterwards.
“Right now, in a number of states, the law allows babies to be born from his or her mother’s womb in the ninth month. It is wrong, it has to change."
- President Donald Trump "March for Life" speech
The only way this concept would apply to medical professionals, it would only apply to those who employed by the government in states with RFRA statutes. There are already 21 states with such statutes, and the federal government has its own. None of these horror stories you and JJ have mentioned have come to fruition yet.
I'd like to further add for those who think these exemptions are too broad: they would not apply to myself. I'm secular, pro-life, and I worked in healthcare from when I was 17 to last December and plan to be a healthcare lawyer in the near future. From my perspective, they are too narrow.
First of all, I don't see how this in any way responds to my post...
Secondly, you are mistaken on the facts. Many states have laws that permit elective abortion up until the 9th month of pregnancy (which is admittedly a rare occurrence). The only other nations that allow that are China, Vietnam, and North Korea. It's a shame that we are in the same company as pretty much the worst human rights violators in the world.
Canada has no national temporal limitation on elective abortion, but the most permissive province bans abortion after a 24 week period
The federalist systems of the US and Canada are great for many reasons, but they also make comparisons with other nations very complex. Many people make similar mistakes. While we may not be the most permissive nation on guns and abortion nationally or on average, many of our individual states have the most liberal laws in relation to both firearms and abortion by certain metrics.
In relation to exemptions, I'm not sure what your point is - can you clarify?
For the record, I don't think the baker will win on Free Speech grounds. In the absence of a RFRA statute, the Court will probably rule that the public accommodations statute will apply.
As far as exemptions go, I'm saying that the pre-op and post-op care of an abortion patient is indeed a part of the abortion process, the same way that building missiles or guns is a part of the process of making war. It is not "punishment" of the patient, the same way that exempting a Jehova's Witness draftee from combat but not the preparation of war machines is "punishing" the military. In both cases the conscience of the objecting party is simply being protected.
Beyond that, any bets on how quickly any religious objection that wasn't based on the Christian, Muslim, or Jewish faith would get that person laughed out of the building??
I'm not mistaken on the facts and do not appreciate that characterization. It is reasonable to say that I'm mistaken on this or that fact but not the facts as if all facts.
Good point about individuals states in our federal system making comparisons to other countries problematic. I suspect there are few 9th month abortions just for the fun of it. I could not easily find reliable numbers on this. If there are very late abortions then it is clear that that mother (and child's support family) is really not ready to take care of the child. And given the cuts to social welfare programs in most states its likely the state will not serve the child either.
If a Jehovah Witness freely choose to join the army because the benefits it provided, then no... sorry you signed up for this job and all its responsibilities.
The same applies to a nurse working at a hospital or clinic that offers abortions. If during the interview stage, they bring up the objection to the procedures of an abortion and the hospital works out a compromise then, that's different.
It's like applying for a job that states, weekend and evenings only. Getting hired, then saying "Oh, I need to keep the Sabbath holy, so I can't work Saturdays/Sundays." Well too bad, the job specified that the person needed to work those days.
From a pacifist doctor or nurse I would still expect them to take care of wounded soldiers (both from his nation and the enemy) and to treat a person who wants to join the army properly, even if not providing the treatment would prevent the person joining the army (i.e. making certain a leg break heals properly).
I also would not accept hospital staff not treating a convicted murderer, shot while trying to escape jail, even though I am pretty certain most of them strongly disapprove of murder.
While I still disagree with it, I can understand the argument that they do not want to be involved in the preparations, as this might be seen to enable this procedure.
But I think one of the most important ethical requirements of medicine is to treat an injury properly, no matter who has it and how it was inflicted. Refusing to give proper post-op care is highly unethical and I consider persons who do so unsuited for medicine.
Going back to the Muslim cashier not scanning pork products, again, presumably you would KNOW before being hired if the store contains pork products. At which point you say (if you feel that strongly) "I'm sorry, but this job isn't for me". I guess I just have a low tolerance for people who make work harder for others. There are already a myriad amount of complications that can come up (injury, illness, death in family) that can't be avoided that cause issues. Throwing religion into the mix is just a recipe for more BS.
“We had a hierarchy in my office in Congress. 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.” - Consumer Advocate Mick Mulvaney
The message being that if you want something from the Trump administration you'd better pay up.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/04/mulvaney-tells-bankers-pay-up-if-you-want-favors-from-trump.html
Macron understands how to deal with Trump's arrogant schoolyard bully personality type. Mostly it is just don't take crap and don't let them claim the advantage. This includes their stupid games of handshakes and fake dandruff power plays.
That's all it can be from Daniels side - a civil case. It takes a government entity - district attorney, cops, Justice department, FBI, etc to bring criminal charges.
Publicly the criminal investigation into Cohen said that one of the things they are investigating Cohen for - payments to Daniels and other women that are in violation of campaign finance laws.
—------------
I'm glad Rony Jackson withdrew. I think he would have been a disaster (trumpian hyperbole) as head of the VA. I think he would have been I over his head and manipulated by the Trumpian forces that got David Shulkin fired. Those political appointees want to dismantle the VA and privatize veterans Healthcare which would effectively turn out to be a massive payout to big medical executives and billionaire buddies of Donald Trump. Veterans would end up getting less for an even more corrupt system.
Of course Trump knows Cohen represented him with Stormy Daniels. It’s been in the news for months.
The question is whether Trump knew what Cohen was doing at the time the payoff was made. That’s of what Trump has denied knowledge.
I’m not trying to defend any of this and I hope they all go down in flaming pile of poo, but it’s obvious Trump knows that Cohen represented him in this matter. Now he does anyway. Fox News told him so.
I disagree. Criminal punishment is primarily to serve as a deterrent, not just to physically prevent people from committing crimes. If Cosby serves prison time, it will be a powerful message to other would-be abusers that they will no longer be able to get away with using their positions of power to attack people with impunity.
An egregious recent example of this two tiered justice systems is where in Texas a black woman mistakenly voted in an election in which she thought was allowed to but wasn't because she had had her voting rights stripped got 5 years in jail. A white male Republican politician committed election fraud to win his election in the same Texas county was given probation.
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/election/article209641279.html
His approval with Republicans is like 80 percent right? What are they thinking or hearing? Mass delusions, hallucinations, and projection. That's the only possible explanation. Or just the need to burn down the world. Someone defend this guy, you can't do it.
I mean listen to this crazy person.
https://www.facebook.com/NowThisPolitics/videos/2027186543979492/