The Supreme Court, and abortion.

[tshile]

57 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

(Like with the Hillary being a bad candidate discussion.  I think you are taking a case where you don't really have a lot of facts and are stretching the facts to fit your pre-conceived political view point.)

Yeah?

 

my preconceived political view point was that republicans should leave planned parenthood alone because abortion was a tiny focus of what they did and that we, as a society, needed them to help poor women 

 

so you’re real good at this

[Cooked Crack]

 

[LadySkinsFan]

This report is why Roe v. Wade is so important because women in states where abortion isn't supported need access if they want an abortion. 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[LadySkinsFan]

This is why we need Republicans out of government.

[visionary]

 

 

 

[tshile]

For an organization that's defended itself over the years by saying abortion is a very tiny part of what they do, and that everything else is very important, they sure have made a lot of moves lately that seem to only be for the benefit of providing abortion-related services at the determinant of everything else.

 

[visionary]

Quote

Planned Parenthood serves about 1.6 million of the roughly 4 million low-income women who depend on Title X clinics for free and subsidized care.

 

Vermont's health department also gave notice Monday that it is quitting Title X. The agency relied entirely on Planned Parenthood clinics to provide services under the program. And Maine Family Planning, the sole Title X provider in the state, informed HHS that it is withdrawing over the rule.

 

“It’s important that we maintain women’s rights and access to health care," said Vermont GOP Gov. Phil Scott.

Quote

HHS served notice last week that providers that didn't show a "good faith effort" to comply with the policy would be booted from the program. Planned Parenthood made a late effort last week to freeze the policy change, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California on Friday refused to issue an emergency injunction.

 

Other providers may yet pull out over the Trump rule. Washington state, Oregon, Illinois, New York, Hawaii and Maryland have previously said they won't participate under the restrictions. These states have pledged to make up the lost federal dollars with state funding, either on a permanent or stopgap basis. But in most states, Planned Parenthood clinics will be on its own.

 

"It will simply be impossible for other providers to fill the gap," McGill Johnson said. "This gag rule will mean women will have to drive hundreds of miles just to access a provider."

 

Planned Parenthood is suing the Trump administration over the rule with the American Medical Association, arguing that the policy change muzzles providers in violation of the Affordable Care Act and the Constitution. Nearly two-dozen states have also brought challenges, as well as a number of participating health care providers.

 

Lower courts blocked major provisions of the new rule in April, but a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit lifted those injunctions on June 20, finding that the administration will likely prevail in the legal battle because the Supreme Court upheld similar Reagan-era rules almost 30 years ago. An 11-judge panel upheld that decision in July. The 9th Circuit is set to hear the case again in late September, and Maine Family Planning recently appealed its case to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.

 

Edited August 19, 2019 by visionary

[Cooked Crack]

9 minutes ago, tshile said:

For an organization that's defended itself over the years by saying abortion is a very tiny part of what they do, and that everything else is very important, they sure have made a lot of moves lately that seem to only be for the benefit of providing abortion-related services at the determinant of everything else.

 

Abortion is healthcare. Get it through your skull. You going to **** on Vermont and other states that are pulling out as well?

[twa]

5 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

Abortion is healthcare.

 

In rare cases......... such cases can be handled at most hospitals or even Dr offices now.

[tshile]

7 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

Abortion is healthcare. Get it through your skull. You going to **** on Vermont and other states that are pulling out as well?

 

I didn't say it wasn't? Touchy.

 

Do those other states have a plan to fill in the gap in funding?

 

Does planned parenthood have a plan if those states don't? 

 

If they don't have a plan then obviously abortion is way more important to them than the other items. Which is fine, it just goes counter to how they've been defended for the past however many years.

 

 Your priorities are your priorities. Your actions usually show them as such. Throwing out what is supposedly the bulk of their services, to protest rules over what is supposedly a very tiny part of what they do (and something we're told to not be bothered about), seems silly unless you can provide the bulk of those services another way? And if you can, then maybe it should be that way to begin with?

 

If they can provide those important services without this money then good for them for making a stand. If they can't, then it seems silly. Unless they're way more about abortion than they've told us, then it would make sense.

[LadySkinsFan]

Wait until all the poor Republican women start having all those babies that could have been prevented by birth control, or not had basic healthcare and cancer care start dying. The Republicans are sure shooting themselves over this issue. 

 

Another Democrat electioneering item, the Republicans are actually turning the U.S. Into a third world country. 

[TradeTheBeal!]

8 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

 

If they can provide those important services without this money then good for them for making a stand. If they can't, then it seems silly. Unless they're way more about abortion than they've told us, then it would make sense.

 

You don’t think for a second that PP was gonna take this lying down.  They’ll continue their services and seek alternate funding in the face of government action they feel is unjust.  Makes perfect sense and feels very “American”...rebels and outlaws and such.

 

But good luck with your Abortion Sherlock Holmes trip.

[tshile]

6 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

You don’t think for a second that PP was gonna take this lying down.  They’ll continue their services and seek alternate funding in the face of government action they feel is unjust.  Makes perfect sense and feels very “American”...rebels and outlaws and such.

 

But good luck with your Abortion Sherlock Holmes trip.

 

Not everyone shares your optimistic outlook on filling the gap. See articles posted above.

 

I don't care if PP provides abortion services. I do find it interesting that its apparently worth throwing all their other services out. What'd they say, it was less than 1% of the services they provided? Or 3%? I can't remember.

 

Guess the other 97-99% wasn't that important?

 

[TradeTheBeal!]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

 

Not everyone shares your optimistic outlook on filling the gap. See articles posted above.

 

I don't care if PP provides abortion services. I do find it interesting that its apparently worth throwing all their other services out. What'd they say, it was less than 1% of the services they provided? Or 3%? I can't remember.

 

Guess the other 97-99% wasn't that important?

 

 

I’ve personally donated in excess of $3000 to PP in the past 5-6 years...among others.  I’ll hit em up for another $500 tomorrow in your honor.

 

Cause it’s important.

 

 

[tshile]

1 minute ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

I’ve personally donated in excess of $3000 to PP in the past 5-6 years...among others.  I’ll hit em up for another $500 tomorrow in your honor.

 

Cause it’s important.

 

 

 

Maybe they can just run on donations then?  

[LadySkinsFan]

Plus it's only for less than a couple of years because all this nonsense will end once the Democrats take over.

[TradeTheBeal!]

4 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Maybe they can just run on donations then?  

 

It’s 4 Star on Charity Nagivator.

 

Give with confidence.

[Larry]

tshile's at least got some validity, here, folks.  

 

No, not about claiming that this proves that PP thought that abortions were the most important thing their organization does, all along.  Yes, it's possible that PP made a value decision, and the "value" they pur on the scale was "a physician's ability to give gis patient the best advice he can, in the patient's particular case, whether a headline-seeking politician wants him to mention the patient's rights or not."  

 

But it seems indisputable that the other side of the balance they were weighing on was "the health of their existing patients".  

 

And health care providers are not supposed to walk away from that value for the purpose of making a political statement, even if the statement is a valid one.  

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

Edited August 19, 2019 by Cooked Crack

[PokerPacker]

1 hour ago, Larry said:

tshile's at least got some validity, here, folks.  

 

No, not about claiming that this proves that PP thought that abortions were the most important thing their organization does, all along.  Yes, it's possible that PP made a value decision, and the "value" they pur on the scale was "a physician's ability to give gis patient the best advice he can, in the patient's particular case, whether a headline-seeking politician wants him to mention the patient's rights or not."  

 

But it seems indisputable that the other side of the balance they were weighing on was "the health of their existing patients".  

 

And health care providers are not supposed to walk away from that value for the purpose of making a political statement, even if the statement is a valid one.  

 

I don't really see refusing to accept politicans mandates on how to practice medicine as a political statement.  No more than anything else where one is forced to respond in some manner or another due an outside political directive.

 

If I'm eating an ice cream cone (this analogy is about to get weird as it just came off the top of my head) and a law is passed that everyone eating ice cream cones must strip naked, I don't think it is a political statement for me to toss my ice cream in the trash rather than strip naked.  If I just kept eating the ice cream cone and dared them to arrest me, maybe you could consider that a political statement.  If I went to the capitol and smushed my ice cream cone into some stupid congressman's overly product-filled hair, that might also be a political statement.

[Larry]

22 minutes ago, PokerPacker said:

I don't really see refusing to accept politicans mandates on how to practice medicine as a political statement.  No more than anything else where one is forced to respond in some manner or another due an outside political directive.

 

If I'm eating an ice cream cone (this analogy is about to get weird as it just came off the top of my head) and a law is passed that everyone eating ice cream cones must strip naked, I don't think it is a political statement for me to toss my ice cream in the trash rather than strip naked.  If I just kept eating the ice cream cone and dared them to arrest me, maybe you could consider that a political statement.  If I went to the capitol and smushed my ice cream cone into some stupid congressman's overly product-filled hair, that might also be a political statement.

 

1)  Analogies are like farts.  If you have to force it, it's probably crap.  

 

2)  But, sticking with your analogy.  If you toss the ice cream because you've mad a value judgement that the ice cream isn't as important as your underpants, then you're not making a political statement, but you are making a judgement which of those two things is more important to you.  

 

If, OTOH, you toss the ice cream and claim it's because you're making a bold stand about how ice cream must be free of government mandates?  Then you're making a political statement.  

 

So which is it?  Did PP pull out (see what I did there?) because they decided abortions were more important than low income family contraception?  Or did they make a political statement about the sanctity of the health care relationship?  

[tshile]

1 hour ago, PokerPacker said:

If I'm eating an ice cream cone (this analogy is about to get weird as it just came off the top of my head) and a law is passed that everyone eating ice cream cones must strip naked, I don't think it is a political statement for me to toss my ice cream in the trash rather than strip naked.  If I just kept eating the ice cream cone and dared them to arrest me, maybe you could consider that a political statement.  If I went to the capitol and smushed my ice cream cone into some stupid congressman's overly product-filled hair, that might also be a political statement.

 

Was your ice cream cone feeding 1.6 million people when you threw it away?

 

[Destino]

6 hours ago, LadySkinsFan said:

This is why we need Republicans out of government.

This is just one reason, of many, on a long and growing list.

[gbear]

As I understood it when I went to PP as a teen w my girlfriend, it was explained to us that the doctors volunteered much of their clinic time there. Now if I volunteered to give reproductive services to a population and I was told I had to do it while being told I couldn't do so in a manner where I promised to give the patients care they trusted me to give? I might very well refuse to enter a doctor patient relationship where I couldn't give the best care or even best medical advice possible. 

 

Patients dont know what we dont know. So we have to trust our doctors. If we tie the doctors' hands on the best care they can give or recommend, do we limit the trust doctors can earn? Would you go to an abstinence only teaching center to learn how to deal w sexual issues? Why not?

 

As for the whole give up 97 percent of the care for the 3 percent, do you want a wife/husband who is faithful all but 3 percent of the time? Will you give up the 97 percent of the time? The point isnt that PP isnt giving up the 97 percent for the 3.  The point is the 3 percent or lack of 3 percent can fundamentally change the relationship of the patient and doctors.