I don’t have time to explain my full views today, but, suffice it to address ITC’s criticism, sometimes.
The view that economic markets function best without government picking winners and losers has nothing to do with the scope of non-economic activity that should be regulated by the criminal law.
Junebugs of the world make medicine more complicated by bringing lawsuit after lawsuit against medical practitioners so much so that all bases need to be covered in fear of being litigated against, turn around and claim that there must be enough half rate hack doctors out there that will sign off on a feelings induced abortion with no worries about malpractice, licensing, etc... seems legit.
Should the mental health of the mother be considered at 19 weeks? Do you find an abortion less abhorrent at 15 weeks than 24?
The party I'm in says all conservatives right now can go fuck themselves. Not sure what party you're talking about.
I must’ve missed the left turn in Albuquerque. I thought this was a political message board, where, you know, people opine on social policy.
1. My understand of the current state of the law is that, at 19 weeks, a woman can choose to have an abortion because she doesn’t like the way she looks pregnant in a bikini. She doesn’t have to justify her decision on any ground. Her mental health is thus irrelevant at the stage.
2. Generally, yes, I find abortion more abhorrent the futher along the fetus is in development. The same is true of the stages of birth. I can’t fathom how doctors who perform D & X and D & E can live with themselves.
What are your thoughts on your questions?
Keep those goalposts moving. Your original question was whether I felt more qualified than physicans to opine on social policy questions related to abortion. Of course we can all learn from experts in social policy and in the field we are discussing, but at the end of the day, social policy is judgment, not science. Legislators, who actually make social policy, aren’t geniuses who know everything about everything. Viewed charitably, they process information, make a judgment about it, and move on to the next issue.
I wouldn’t defer to a physician on matters of abortion policy any more than you would defer to me on matters of jurisprudential policy. Ultimately, we both have to arrive at our own conclusions, just like legislators. We just have fewer resources and less information, and our conclusions are less consequential.
Keep those goalposts moving. Your original question was whether I felt more qualified than physicans to opine on social policy questions related to abortion. Of course we can all learn from experts in social policy and in the field we are discussing, but at the end of the day, social policy is judgment, not science. Legislators, who actually make social policy, aren’t geniuses who know everything about everything. Viewed charitably, they process information, make a judgment about it, and move on to the next issue.
I wouldn’t defer to a physician on matters of abortion policy any more than you would defer to me on matters of jurisprudential policy. Ultimately, we both have to arrive at our own conclusions, just like legislators. We just have fewer resources and less information, and our conclusions are less consequential.
https://theintercept.com/2019/02/05/nancy-pelosi-medicare-for-all/
TOP NANCY PELOSI AIDE PRIVATELY TELLS INSURANCE EXECUTIVES NOT TO WORRY ABOUT DEMOCRATS PUSHING “MEDICARE FOR ALL”
"...Pelosi adviser Wendell Primus detailed five objections to Medicare for All and said that Democrats would be allies to the insurance industry in the fight against single-payer health care. Primus pitched the insurers on supporting Democrats on efforts to shrink drug prices, specifically by backing a number of measures that the pharmaceutical lobby is opposing."
This is super clever.Better reelect Trump!
This is super clever.
I just read that piece and don't see anything in there to support the headline. This line seems like a more accurate summary. "Democrats, Primus said, are united around the concept of universal coverage, but see strengthening the Affordable Care Act as the means to that end." Is there something specific in there that particularly bothered you?