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 Critical Care.
3 minutes ago, MaybeeRN said:

You mean like not being able to define a woman because you aren’t a biologist?

And that's why courts defer to expert witnesses; the less someone knows about biology, the more they think that's a simple question.

3
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.
13 hours ago, heron said:

Thomas did - see muno’s post above. Both homosexuality and birth control (not just abortion) have been illegal in my adult lifetime.

Hard to believe but true!  I remember Griswold v Connecticut which granted  MARRIED people the right to purchase contraception.  Bill Baird sued to allow unmarried people to also have that right and he won the case.  Several years later we invited him to speak at my university.  It's deja vu all over again.

11 hours ago, MEDFET said:

Forgive my brashness they aren’t just kicked they are killed everyday but raged people like these anti abortion protestors there all the same type carbon copy can okie cutter people full of bore some lives 

Moderator please.

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in This and that.
7 hours ago, MunoRN said:

And that's why courts defer to expert witnesses; the less someone knows about biology, the more they think that's a simple question.

That's usually to explain complex biological processes or disease in relation to cause of death. 

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

Hard to believe but true!  I remember Griswold v Connecticut which granted  MARRIED people the right to purchase contraception.  Bill Baird sued to allow unmarried people to also have that right and he won the case.  Several years later we invited him to speak at my university.  It's deja vu all over again.

I get it. Overturning Roe is hard. However the hysterical ideas like gay sex crimes, sodomy police, birthcontrol and interracial marriage laws is a little bit much. 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in OR, Nursing Professional Development.
18 minutes ago, Justlookingfornow said:

I get it. Overturning Roe is hard. However the hysterical ideas like gay sex crimes, sodomy police, birthcontrol and interracial marriage laws is a little bit much. 

Please read Justice Thomas’s brief. He specifically called out previous cases to revisit, and yes one of them is birth control. The others are same sex marriage and same sex intimate acts. And if that’s the slippery slope he wants to start down, it will go farther. 

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in This and that.
48 minutes ago, Rose_Queen said:

Please read Justice Thomas’s brief. He specifically called out previous cases to revisit, and yes one of them is birth control. The others are same sex marriage and same sex intimate acts. And if that’s the slippery slope he wants to start down, it will go farther. 

Even if this was attempted, it would, just like Roe, go back to the states to be determine. I do not believe any state would outlaw gay sex, birthcontrol and/or interracial marriage. The difference being that those topics include an individual's choice, a potential life is not terminated and the average person does not care what people do in their private lives. How would they even know if someone has gay sex? 

It's a reactionary fear tactic in my opinion. The type usually assigned to the "right wing". 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
1 hour ago, Justlookingfornow said:

I get it. Overturning Roe is hard. However the hysterical ideas like gay sex crimes, sodomy police, birthcontrol and interracial marriage laws is a little bit much. 

This is how you would tell us that you didn't read or understand Thomas's writings without using those words.  God job.  

Again, it's a shame that conservatives points out view are so poorly represented in these type discussions.  

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
13 minutes ago, Justlookingfornow said:

Even if this was attempted, it would, just like Roe, go back to the states to be determine. I do not believe any state would outlaw gay sex, birthcontrol and/or interracial marriage. The difference being that those topics include an individual's choice, a potential life is not terminated and the average person does not care what people do in their private lives. How would they even know if someone has gay sex? 

It's a reactionary fear tactic in my opinion. The type usually assigned to the "right wing". 

Aren't you the member with the fear of late trimester abortion of viable pregnancies who uses that fear to try to sway the opinions of others.  Now you want to try to tell other people what reactionary fears include and who demonstrates those fears in public ways. 

"Potential life" is priority over actual adult life in conservative ideology... is that what you are telling us? 

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Hospice.
50 minutes ago, Justlookingfornow said:

Even if this was attempted, it would, just like Roe, go back to the states to be determine. I do not believe any state would outlaw gay sex, birthcontrol and/or interracial marriage. The difference being that those topics include an individual's choice, a potential life is not terminated and the average person does not care what people do in their private lives. How would they even know if someone has gay sex? 

It's a reactionary fear tactic in my opinion. The type usually assigned to the "right wing". 

The ignorance evidenced in this post is jaw-dropping. Roe v. Wade was supposed to be settled law, too. Minimizing the possible consequences of denying the right of a woman to control her own body doesn’t change the fact that such reactionary laws have existed in my own lifetime. It wasn’t so long ago that homosexual panic was an accepted defense for murder, for instance. There are right-wingnuts who call for the death penalty for homosexuals (and for fines for atheists). It’s not only here in the US, but abroad, too. Google Uganda anti-gay laws and read about the US evangelicals who lobbied for those laws.

As I understand it, one of the core concepts shaping our system of checks and balances is the tyranny of the majority. The SJC has played a pivotal role in protecting minority groups from being steamrolled into “knowing their place” by a majority looking to enforce its own ideas of what society should be to the exclusion of everyone else’s’. They seem to have stepped away from that role for now.

“But women aren’t a minority” you say? That’s true … and that’s why the reactionary right is working so hard to stuff the genie back in the bottle. Women have to be brought to heel if the 0.1% are to have any hope at all of keeping their political and economic power.

It was wonderful to see so many women in the hearings wearing white, including Liz Cheney.

 

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in This and that.
1 hour ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Are you not the member with the fear of late trimester abortion of viable pregnancies who uses that fear to try to sway the opinions of others.  Now you want to try to tell other people what reactionary fears include and who demonstrates those fears in public ways. 

"Potential life" is priority over actual adult life in conservative ideology... is that what you are telling us? 

No actually  I generally will state my opinion without ad hominem attacks. 

I absolutely fear late term abortions of viable fetuses. You obviously do not.   Are you not the member that refuses to state that you believe a woman should be able to abort her pregnancy at anytime and any stage according to her choice? Or frequently makes boarder line inciting type comments about Republicans? "This is a movement", "how long are we going to let the minority rule". Hyperbolic rhetoric? 

Or makes up nonsense about the former president's "rage" because of your strewn up idea that he was having side effects of a possible medication prescribed that you have no evidence for? 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Just now, Justlookingfornow said:

No actually  I generally will state my opinion without ad hominem attacks. 

I absolutely fear late term abortions of viable fetuses. You obviously do not.   Are you not the member that refuses to state that you believe a woman should be able to abort her pregnancy at anytime and any stage according to her choice? Or frequently makes boarder line inciting type comments about Republicans? "This is a movement", "how long are we going to let the minority rule". Hyperbolic rhetoric? 

Or makes up nonsense about the former president's "rage" because of your strewn up idea that he was having side effects of a possible medication prescribed that you have no evidence for? 

Given that data and evidence has been provided and discussed which debunks the thing you fear, I comfortably state that I don't fear an improbable or nonexistent set of circumstances as you do.  

I'm the member that keeps reminding you that your question is completely irrelevant to this discussion or thread.  It's childish. Your concern is a concern to you and the extremists that have whispered it into your ear.  There were already laws in place to circumvent such terminations as you REPEATEDLY reference.  

I get that you don't like my comments.  Try refuting the ideas and supporting data, evidence or analysis...the persistent adolescent nonsense is just tedious. 

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Hospice.
6 minutes ago, Justlookingfornow said:

No actually  I generally will state my opinion without ad hominem attacks. 

I absolutely fear late term abortions of viable fetuses. You obviously do not.   Are you not the member that refuses to state that you believe a woman should be able to abort her pregnancy at anytime and any stage according to her choice? Or frequently makes boarder line inciting type comments about Republicans? "This is a movement", "how long are we going to let the minority rule". Hyperbolic rhetoric? 

Or makes up nonsense about the former president's "rage" because of your strewn up idea that he was having side effects of a possible medication prescribed that you have no evidence for? 

Perhaps he refuses to state that because it’s not his opinion?

As for the steroid “debate” … TMBs comment was an interesting speculation and nothing more. I suspect that you’re trying to turn it into a thing because subsequent remarks pretty much outed your sidekick as a non-nurse.

I do understand your need to minimize and distract from the hearings. Take 15 minutes from any commission broadcast and compare it to any 15 minutes of, say, one of the myriad Benghazi hearings … or any one of the 60-ish lawsuits filed by the likes of Sydney Powell, et. al. The contrast is stunning.

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion