What do you think about with current News and Opinions?

Published

Something to understand what nurses think about re the Current News and their opinions!

On 5/8/2022 at 7:24 PM, Tweety said:

Agree.  I'm with the majority of people that want to keep abortion rights.  

What I'm talking about is the wire hangers, the "Does Hallmark make a Mother’s Day card for a 13 year old forced to have her rapist’s baby??", the fear mongering that "they are coming for interracial marriage next" (but I'm certain gay marriage is going to be challenged and stands a good chance at being overturned with this bunch),  the memes with the Handmaid tales, on and on.  People need to protest for sure but show some common sense.  

 

Sure. Hyperbole is a terrible argument... no matter if it's  hyperbolic claims of women seeking convenience abortions at 34 weeks or claims about forcing young women to carry their rapists progeny to term under duress. Wait, women don't really seek abortion at 34 weeks out of convenience but they are forced to take their rapists pregnancies to term in some states right now.  Do both claims or sides really qualify as fear mongering or are people using strong language to wake people up before these social "rights" disappear because nobody used the language of urgency?

"Don't it always seem to go,  that you don't know what you've got till it's gone". -Joni Mitchell 

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
43 minutes ago, Tweety said:

No it hasn't "opened up talks" because it's not on the table until Republicans get a majority in the Senate, so that's not a good choice of words.  But the leaked documents certainly has started the discussion.

We've had a 50 year history of Roe vs. Wade, so looking at history isn't a good gauge in what the states will do in my opinion.  But like the idea of a national ban on abortion, people are talking about prosecuting people that get an abortion in another state as homicide.  Whether it's likely to pass I agree doesn't seem likely.  But after 50 years, even Kavannaugh in his hearing said that Roe vs. Wade is a long established law that will likely stand, and yet here we are. 

Can you clarify who "ABC" is and what cult?  Thanks.

Again, I don't hear or see any evidence of any discussion that there is any serious consideration of a national ban.  Some republicans have said the opposite,  polls show Americans wouldn't support it, and Biden wouldn't sign it.  

McConnel brought it on, but it has grown into more unsubstantiated hysteria.  He shouldnt have said anything, or at least added "it's not likely" to his comment.

What I meant with the states was that there isn't any recent history of prosecuting someone for what they did legally in another state.  Kansas troopers aren't arresting people who were smoking pot in Colorado.   People aren't arrested in their home state for gambling or prostitution in Nevada, etc.

When Kavanaugh answered the question, he didn't have a case in front of him to judge.  

 

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
1 hour ago, nursej22 said:

Why do I get the feeling that I've just been "mansplained'? 

Tweety is correct. I care about the right to bodily autonomy for all Americans, not just my state. Liberals are funny that way. 

 

Some have to demean those with different opinions to make them more comfortable with their own.  Liberals are funny that way.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

I have heard Ginsberg wasn't a fan of the Roe vs Wade decision, but didn't really know much more than that.  It's interesting to think about where we might be now if the court had ruled in a manner that she would have favore.

"Roe v. Wade, which challenged a Texas law that banned abortions except to save the mother’s life, invalidated all state laws that prohibited abortion and established a constitutional right to the procedure. At the law school event, Ginsburg argued that the court should have deemed the Texas law unconstitutional without such a sweeping ruling.

That would have led to a gradual relaxation of abortion bans on a state-by-state basis, she said, and advanced the democratic process."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/06/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-wade/

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
1 hour ago, Beerman said:

Some have to demean those with different opinions to make them more comfortable with their own.  Liberals are funny that way.

Indeed.  Some people are so committed to demeaning others for their opinions that they make up fake mental health disorders to pin upon those they seek to demean... something like TDS for example. Are you familiar with that widespread and very public practice? Maybe not, given your response. 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Med-Surg.

Having been called a libtard and snowflake amongst other names, we can go tit for tat all day in the area of demeaning people with differing opinions.  

I can agree there is no need to get hysterical about rhetoric that probably isn't going to happen, but there also is no need to stick one's head in the sand and ignore it and blow it off. 

Quote

For all of the debate over abortion, for all of the nuanced explanations from Supreme Court nominees and for all of the “it’s complicated” commentary from lawmakers over the years, there is an obvious path now toward precisely the obvious outcome that has for decades been the repeatedly stated preference of the conservative right. The idea that a president who promised to nominate Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe (Donald Trump) then nominated sharply conservative justices who were legitimately uncertain about where they might land on the issue was always dubious. In reality, the uncertainty appears to have been solely around the edges: what, exactly, such a repeal would look like.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/09/clear-not-unobstructed-path-toward-national-abortion-ban/

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Med-Surg.
34 minutes ago, Beerman said:

I have heard Ginsberg wasn't a fan of the Roe vs Wade decision, but didn't really know much more than that.  It's interesting to think about where we might be now if the court had ruled in a manner that she would have favore.

"Roe v. Wade, which challenged a Texas law that banned abortions except to save the mother’s life, invalidated all state laws that prohibited abortion and established a constitutional right to the procedure. At the law school event, Ginsburg argued that the court should have deemed the Texas law unconstitutional without such a sweeping ruling.

That would have led to a gradual relaxation of abortion bans on a state-by-state basis, she said, and advanced the democratic process."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/06/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-wade/

I like what she said during her confirmation.   “Abortion prohibition by the State, however, controls women and denies them full autonomy and full equality with men."  

Discrimination against pregnancy I guess was a thing back then and to frame choice around the right to remain pregnant and keep your job is an interesting approach to the abortion issue.  I see her point.  Ultimately her ideas that it's a flimsy and weak ruling are proving to be correct.

This was written about last year. 

Quote

Antiabortion activists are citing an unlikely authority for their arguments that Roe v. Wade is a misguided ruling that deserves to be overturned: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/abortion-roe-v-wade-ruth-bader-ginsburg/2021/08/06/e5156ed2-f6bc-11eb-9068-bf463c8c74de_story.html

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
8 minutes ago, Tweety said:

I like what she said during her confirmation.   “Abortion prohibition by the State, however, controls women and denies them full autonomy and full equality with men."  

Discrimination against pregnancy I guess was a thing back then and to frame choice around the right to remain pregnant and keep your job is an interesting approach to the abortion issue.  I see her point.  Ultimately her ideas that it's a flimsy and weak ruling are proving to be correct.

This was written about last year. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/abortion-roe-v-wade-ruth-bader-ginsburg/2021/08/06/e5156ed2-f6bc-11eb-9068-bf463c8c74de_story.html

I agree with her that it likely ended genuine debate on the topic, and that a different ruling would have led to a gradual relaxation of bans on a state by state basis.

I feel like that is what will happen now, fifty plus years later.

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Emergency.
9 hours ago, Beerman said:

I've read a few articles on what McConnel said.  I don't see any evidence that the overturning of Roe vs. Wade "has opened up talks of a national ban on abortion", or that the idea of a national ban is being "tossed around".

I suppose you could argue that a state might try to prosecute a citizen for getting an abortion somewhere else.  However,  that seems unlikely.  States have many differing laws, and there isn't much history of that happening.  

I’d posit that if McConnell brought it up in an interview, then the discussion is happening.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mcconnell-national-abortion-ban-possible-roe-v-wade-overturned

As for your second statement, precedent doesn’t seem to count for much anymore. 

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Med nurse in med-surg., float, HH, and PDN.
1 hour ago, emtb2rn said:

 Ignore this finger-twitched mistake. I tried to find a way to delete this, but couldn't.

 

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.
On 5/10/2022 at 10:05 AM, Tweety said:

No it hasn't "opened up talks" because it's not on the table until Republicans get a majority in the Senate, so that's not a good choice of words.  But the leaked documents certainly has started the discussion.

We've had a 50 year history of Roe vs. Wade, so looking at history isn't a good gauge in what the states will do in my opinion.  But like the idea of a national ban on abortion, people are talking about prosecuting people that get an abortion in another state as homicide.  Whether it's likely to pass I agree doesn't seem likely.  But after 50 years, even Kavannaugh in his hearing said that Roe vs. Wade is a long established law that will likely stand, and yet here we are. 

Can you clarify who "ABC" is and what cult?  Thanks.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/amy-coney-barrett-people-of-praise/2020/10/06/5f497d8c-0781-11eb-859b-f9c27abe638d_story.html

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/10/people-of-praise-amy-coney-barrett-faith-group

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/amy-coney-barrett-people-of-praise/2020/10/06/5f497d8c-0781-11eb-859b-f9c27abe638d_story.html

 

 

 

 

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
On 5/9/2022 at 6:31 AM, Tweety said:

 

I never said rock the boat or to not protest.  But I will say protesting the Associate Justices at their home is not a good idea and is bad press.  

It's not just bad press.  It's against federal law.  But, since it's for a good cause, the current administration is ignoring that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/10/abortion-protest-supreme-court-justice-homes-brett-kavanaugh-samuel-alito-john-roberts-illegal/

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion