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!

Specializes in This and that.
39 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Those conservative parents have not actually demonstrated that their children are exposed to inappropriate content in the public schools.  Evidence to support the fears and outrage has been thin. Nevertheless, too many schools are removing books from library shelves and classrooms because of the conservative parent "concerns". Local public librarians also get pressured to remove books. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60261660

https://www.csmonitor.com/1980/1222/122245.html

 

Did they not reference books in the school library? Any specific child may not have seen or read the book but it's the availability of it that's also a factor. 

Do you think it's appropriate for children / teens to have access to graphic sexual descriptions? Should these books be permitted in schools? What is the purpose of this type of literature? Why would anyone regardless of political affiliation want this type of content to be available to children? 

Would a graphic description of an abortion in a book be acceptable in a school library? 

As for banning books in public libraries or book stores, this is not acceptable in regards to our 1st amendment. This leads to the question.... Should some books be banned? And how do we decide? 

I do recall hearing some books with historical content being taken out of curriculum due to racist epithets. 

 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.
53 minutes ago, Beerman said:

Or, another comparison would be peaceful protestors outside the homes of jurors.  Would that be acceptable?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course, educated or not.  I wonder how many of these protestors, talking heads in the media, the outraged members here,  have actually read Roe vs Wade, the draft opinion, and the Constitution?

My bet is a very small minority.

I don't think it's really productive to claim people who disagree with your view must have no familiarity with the basis of topic, I would bet the SC Justices who didn't side with Alito are familiar with the case and the Constitution.

And while I completely agree that it's wrong for protesters to protest at the Justice's houses, I agree based on the need to respect their privacy even if we disagree with their decisions.  

The claim Justices can be exposed to arguments intended to sway them is pretty bunk, there are after all people who actually go and stand in front of the entire Supreme Court and argue with them to try and sway their decisions, should they be arrested?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in This and that.
33 minutes ago, MunoRN said:

I don't think it's really productive to claim people who disagree with your view must have no familiarity with the basis of topic, I would bet the SC Justices who didn't side with Alito are familiar with the case and the Constitution.

And while I completely agree that it's wrong for protesters to protest at the Justice's houses, I agree based on the need to respect their privacy even if we disagree with their decisions.  

The claim Justices can be exposed to arguments intended to sway them is pretty bunk, there are after all people who actually go and stand in front of the entire Supreme Court and argue with them to try and sway their decisions, should they be arrested?

In reference to your last paragraph. I think that protesting at a public place is differnt than a private home. 

At a person's private home where their family is present feels ominous and almost threatening in my opinion. 

Has no one asked these protesters why they chose a private home? What is the purpose? And how do they know where they live anyway? Kind of creepy. 

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Med-Surg.
1 hour ago, Beerman said:

Maybe or maybe not to understand the implications. But how can one credibly protest the basis of the decision without even bothering to read, understand, and apply those decisions to the constitution?

 

On the basis that the right to choose is being taken away in some places, and being modified in others.  This is what people are seeing and are protesting, not necessarily every nuance of the documents.

 But I get what you're saying. Sometimes people protest without completely understanding the situation such as the "I did this" Biden stickers on gas pumps, and any number of things people are protesting and upset about.  

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Med-Surg.

People in Florida protested outside of Chauvin's home during BLM protests.  

In response to this DeSantis signed a law making it a misdemeanor if they don't disperse. 

Protesting outside of people's homes have long been a traditional way of protest.  

I do feel that a person's home should be their sanctuary and privacy should be respected.  

I think this should also apply to persons of interest in new stories.  The press camping outside a person's home and accosting them when the leave I think is an invasion as well.

https://www.clickorlando.com/news/local/2022/05/16/desantis-signs-law-against-picketing-protesting-outside-private-homes/

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.

I remember when protesting outside the homes of physicians who performed abortions was common among the activists who applaud this leaked document. Those antiabortion protesters often threatened or verbally abused women seeking care at the clinics where the physicians worked.  Sometimes there was violence. 

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.
3 hours ago, Justlookingfornow said:

Fair enough I suppose. However I feel their protest would be more appropriate somewhere else other than the private homes of people and their children. I most certainly wouldn't appreciate my staff coming to my private home and expressing their disagreement with a decision I made. 

May work the other way as well. It may have an opposite effect in that it might just embolden and motivate the Justices  decisions further and make them less likely to reconsider the very thing they do not like? Counter productive? 

They should be protesting at the legislative building not private homes, in my opinion. 

The "staff" can complain about your decisions at your job.  Citizens are not the staff.  It's not in me to demonstrate in front of a judge's house - not that I wouldn't want to- but it would be unfair to the children forced to live with their parents.  But I understand that when judges want to crawl up my uterus, I get very upset and am too old to have sex with a sex with a senator which would be a close second for life's most awful experience.  The first one would be forced to carry an ectopic pregnancy to term like this goofball in Ohio wants to legislate:   

An Ohio state representative introduced a new bill last month, which aims to prohibit insurance coverage of abortions that occur where the mother's life is not "endangered if the fetus were carried to term." The bill includes exceptions, including one for a procedure that does not exist.

GOP Rep. John Becker introduced House Bill 182, which allows for two situations where insurers could offer coverage for abortion services. One is a "procedure, in an emergency situation, that is medically necessary to save the pregnant woman's life."

The other, the bill says, is a procedure for an ectopic pregnancy, "that is intended to reimplant the fertilized ovum into the pregnant woman's uterus." 

An Ohio state representative introduced a new bill last month, which aims to prohibit insurance coverage of abortions that occur where the mother's life is not "endangered if the fetus were carried to term." The bill includes exceptions, including one for a procedure that does not exist.

GOP Rep. John Becker introduced House Bill 182, which allows for two situations where insurers could offer coverage for abortion services. One is a "procedure, in an emergency situation, that is medically necessary to save the pregnant woman's life."

The other, the bill says, is a procedure for an ectopic pregnancy, "that is intended to reimplant the fertilized ovum into the pregnant woman's uterus." 

This is the quality of intellect that is increasingly represented in our legisatures.

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.
3 hours ago, Justlookingfornow said:

What I consider inappropriate is graphic descriptions of oral and anal sex(regardless of the orientation). Sexual acts that include violence and/or sex between adults and children.

I fully support removing these books. The problem also is when children are away from home, they have access and parents cannot monitor this. 

I could be wrong but what I hear is the objection of descriptions of graphic sexual acts between homosexuals. Not that the book is about homosexuals and thats why it should be banned. I've only hear the books involving LGBTQ the parents have issues with are those with graphic depictions as well as heterosexual books with the same content. 

 

Can you give me an example of a school library that contained books with graphic or violent sex?  Maybe the Old Testament?

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.
19 hours ago, Justlookingfornow said:

Agreed with everything except the Republican removing baby formula. 

The Republicans are the only people I recognized this to be an issue in their news.  I probably wouldn't have known that it was a policy requirement to provide formula to detainee infants.  The party is so nuts that I never know what kind of issue becomes hot to them via Fox and their hosts.  

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Public Health, TB.
1 hour ago, Beerman said:

The latest on the BLM fraud.

https://nypost.com/2022/05/17/inside-BLM-co-founder-patrisse-cullors-questionable-tax-filings/

Does this mean they paid more in taxes than the former president? If not for the foundation, then in property tax? 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in This and that.
29 minutes ago, subee said:

The "staff" can complain about your decisions at your job.  Citizens are not the staff.  It's not in me to demonstrate in front of a judge's house - not that I wouldn't want to- but it would be unfair to the children forced to live with their parents.  But I understand that when judges want to crawl up my uterus, I get very upset and am too old to have sex with a sex with a senator which would be a close second for life's most awful experience.  The first one would be forced to carry an ectopic pregnancy to term like this goofball in Ohio wants to legislate:   

An Ohio state representative introduced a new bill last month, which aims to prohibit insurance coverage of abortions that occur where the mother's life is not "endangered if the fetus were carried to term." The bill includes exceptions, including one for a procedure that does not exist.

GOP Rep. John Becker introduced House Bill 182, which allows for two situations where insurers could offer coverage for abortion services. One is a "procedure, in an emergency situation, that is medically necessary to save the pregnant woman's life."

The other, the bill says, is a procedure for an ectopic pregnancy, "that is intended to reimplant the fertilized ovum into the pregnant woman's uterus." 

An Ohio state representative introduced a new bill last month, which aims to prohibit insurance coverage of abortions that occur where the mother's life is not "endangered if the fetus were carried to term." The bill includes exceptions, including one for a procedure that does not exist.

GOP Rep. John Becker introduced House Bill 182, which allows for two situations where insurers could offer coverage for abortion services. One is a "procedure, in an emergency situation, that is medically necessary to save the pregnant woman's life."

The other, the bill says, is a procedure for an ectopic pregnancy, "that is intended to reimplant the fertilized ovum into the pregnant woman's uterus." 

This is the quality of intellect that is increasingly represented in our legisatures.

If someone is actually suggesting that a ectopic pregnancy can be replanted, they are deranged and out of touch .. I'll have to research that more. 

Removing a fetus/baby before term to save a woman's  life isn't abortion. I have not seen any actual evidence that says that conservatives would deny a life saving proceedure in mid to late pregnancy to save the mother. These interventions also try and preserve the life of the fetus/baby. 

There would be no other reason to terminate a pregnancy later in pregnancy unless to save the mother. Unless the goal is to not sustain the life of fetus. This is where some take issue. Where the main goal is to not sustain the life of the mother but to end the life/potential life of the fetus/baby. 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion