What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The "I Can't Believe There's No Abortion Thread" Part Deux: Electric Boogaloo

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just for the record, I missed the point that the doctor refused to prescribe the medicine just because she was child-bearing age. The second she was given the warnings and said, "duly noted," she should have been written the script as if it were a dude walking in there.

that's informed consent. If the doc didn't prescribe, that's beyond informed consent and it's now well into not-so-good territory where doctors are prescribing morality.

That said, it seems like we're all in agreement the doctor shouldn't be prescribing something that doesn't work. Which doesn't appear to be the case here. It seems like it was withheld for other reasons.

hopefully I've got the story straight now
 
dxmnkd316 said:
Just for the record, I missed the point that the doctor refused to prescribe the medicine just because she was child-bearing age. The second she was given the warnings and said, "duly noted," she should have been written the script as if it were a dude walking in there.

that's informed consent. If the doc didn't prescribe, that's beyond informed consent and it's now well into not-so-good territory where doctors are prescribing morality.

That said, it seems like we're all in agreement the doctor shouldn't be prescribing something that doesn't work. Which doesn't appear to be the case here. It seems like it was withheld for other reasons.

hopefully I've got the story straight now
Click to expand...

That’s how I read it….the first time. :P

Total agreement that doctors shouldn’t prescribe treatments that are factually ineffective or are medically unnecessary. Those are exactly the things that we send doctors to med school for 8 years to become experts on.

But when a doctor denies an effective treatment for a real condition on the basis of his personal value judgments, I get a little hot under the collar. Sorry about that….
 
Ohio republicans are now saying it’s their god given right to still restrict abortions.

get your fake god out of my body. I don’t care that you need a fucking fake sky daddy to get you through your pathetic, waste of a life. But don’t rope anyone else into your fucked up beliefs
 
There is some big time "cope and seethe" going on in the Ohio GOP.

They are proposing legislation to strip the state judiciary of its ability to review cases pertaining to the new law. One branch retroactively limiting the powers of another branch seems like something that should be quite illegal short of a constitutional amendment. But as we've seen with the NC and WI governors getting capped by their fascist legislatures during lame duck sessions, it's probably not.
 
FadeToBlack&Gold said:
There is some big time "cope and seethe" going on in the Ohio GOP.

They are proposing legislation to strip the state judiciary of its ability to review cases pertaining to the new law. One branch retroactively limiting the powers of another branch seems like something that should be quite illegal short of a constitutional amendment. But as we've seen with the NC and WI governors getting capped by their fascist legislatures during lame duck sessions, it's probably not.
Click to expand...

Is this something SCOTUS* could review under Article IV, Section 4? Does a "republican form of government" imply checks and balances between branches of state government?

* If SCOTUS were not just a wing of the GQP?
 
Last edited:
FadeToBlack&Gold said:
There is some big time "cope and seethe" going on in the Ohio GOP.

They are proposing legislation to strip the state judiciary of its ability to review cases pertaining to the new law. One branch retroactively limiting the powers of another branch seems like something that should be quite illegal short of a constitutional amendment. But as we've seen with the NC and WI governors getting capped by their fascist legislatures during lame duck sessions, it's probably not.
Click to expand...

It’s just fucking sick. And many people will still pull the lever for them next nov too, while railing about small government
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top