Roe v Wade Overturned

It's started....he's a nurse and posts about all things medical in Texas. So it's started - 2 patients already taken off BLOOD PRESSURE MEDICATIONS due to their ban/laws.

If you don't know, pregnant women are at extremely high risk of high blood pressure and it can cause pre-eclampsia (can be fatal) and placental abruption (can also be fatal). So...all about life, right?

Without meds, the solution is bed rest. So no work, nothing. And then you STILL cross your fingers. No job means no insurance. If a 2 income household that means bills don't get paid. For some it means their partner gets mad for not doing stuff and beats on them.

 

And no Viagra, your limp d**k is God’s will.

 

U.S. Supreme Court asks Maryland to bar protests at justices' homes

LOL. Except they themselves ruled this was okay. Well if it isn't the consequences of your actions?

 

On a more personal note (so off topic me if you want) my ocular stroke may have hidden another regular one. Hence why some days I can barely communicate (wow some of my posts are awful grammar-wise), and others I'm okay (like now).

I just feel so strongly about this that I needed to come post some. Well I'm opinionated and feel strongly about a lot but this is the biggie - as a mom, as a woman, as a human.

I'm disappointed but not shocked at some, and pleasantly surprised by others.

For the more religious folks. Not all share your views. I'm Catholic. I pray to the Virgin Mary, pray my rosaries, etc. Just like it's not my place to tell other Protestants they must side with the Holy Church and are heretics, it is not YOUR place to push your beliefs on others who don't feel as you. God, if He exists, will judge us all when it's our time. And I'm sure I recall the passage of loving thy neighbor as thyself. You break that rule when you're bigoted, when you hate, when you judge, when you use the Bible as a weapon of hatred versus an example of love.

Need to take meds soon...

 

Some cults like Christian Science subscribe to this type of thinking. There are couple of refutations to this type of thinking. Jesus said, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners" (Mark 2:17). So, Jesus obviously supported people seeking a physician if they are sick. He wouldn't have used that metaphor if He thought otherwise. Jesus also illuminates to us the power of the perversion of words when we realize over 99% of what is referred to as "women's healthcare" does not involve a pregnant woman who is actually sick to the point where her life is danger. And in just about every case it is safer to deliver the baby alive than it is kill it.

What Percentage of Abortions Are Medically Necessary? (hli.org)

The Apostle Paul also wrote in a letter to Timothy, "No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments" (1 Timothy 5:23). So, Paul, as He was led by the inspiration of the Spirit, also believed in medicine for the sick.

 

The Hippocratic oath in its original form required physicians to swear to uphold the following:

I will use those dietary regimens which will benefit my patients according to my greatest ability and judgment, and I will do no harm or injustice to them. Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly, I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion. But I will keep pure and holy both my life and my art. I will not use the knife, not even, verily, on sufferers from stone, but I will give place to such as are craftsmen therein.
​

Hippocratic Oath - Wikipedia

Medicine and justice are inseparable, and therefore medicine should be regulated by the state. Additionally, our constitution guarantees the right to life, and it is the government's duty to uphold that right for all human beings from the least to the greatest.

 

The Declaration of Independence refers to a right to life. I don’t think the U.S. Constitution contains that language though.

 

The lawsuits are going to be EPIC. I wonder if the Supreme Court will agree to hear a case where a woman dies after being denied medicine available to everyone except a pregnant woman.

 

A giant load of horse hockey. I can agree that there maybe is something to states not being ready and prepared for Roe to be overturned. That is fair, and hopefully adjustments are made quickly by state legislatures as issues come to the surface. Hopefully, democrats are willing to cooperate to make these things happen rather than sabotage because they didn't get their way in the SCOTUS.

Nonetheless, we've been lectured about democracy for a while now. Many of the things most cherished and held dear by the progressive wing of the US were passed by oligarchical legislation from the bench in the SCOTUS. If you really are pro-democracy, then you should support reversing oligarchical overreach by an institution that was never designed to function as an oligarchical legislative entity. The big moral questions of what is allowed and what is not allowed should be decided through the mechanisms laid out in the constitution. Kick it back to the states and let democracy work itself out if you really have such faith in it.

 

The 14th amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​

 

So when do we get conception certificates? Because there are a ton of laws that don't equally apply to a fetus prior to birth. If those are now people within the jurisdiction and "equal protection" of laws, when do we start requiring all such rights?

 

The day after never.

 

You start with first principles, and then you work to the specifics. There may be inconsistencies between the two, but first principles should be the litmus test to determine if our laws are just or not.

What is going on in our country now is one party has one set of first principles, and another party has a different set of first principles. So, we have a divided kingdom. Only one set of first principles can govern the land.

 

But you explicitly aren't pushing it as a first principle. Let's say that your first principle is that life begins at conception. Okay. So why aren't you seeing a huge push for conception certificates so that those people can begin to claim their rights from conception? Then, they can't be imprisoned without due process. They can't be denied any other right without due process of law.

You are pushing a single specific (no abortions) mostly because it is consistent with your interpretation of the bible.

 

And for almost all purposes, the term "person" only applies following birth not from the moment of conception although you clearly feel otherwise based on your theology.

 

I don't think you understand my view. When I speak of first principles, I am speaking of moral truth. Law is legislated morality, and the morality that is to be legislated must accord with that which is morally true. So, my first principles (foundational moral truths) and my interpretation of the Bible (the source from which those moral truths are derived) are inseparable.

In the same way, you yourself have some kind of first principles, and those first principles are derived from something. The first principles you advocate, and the source from which they are derived are also inseparable. So, you too have beliefs from a source that you think need to be enforced on everyone by the government. This is why I think the yOuR iMpOsInG A tHeOcRaCy argument is weak. Everyone believes in some kind theocracy on some level: Everyone believes in some kind of morality that comes from a moral law-giving being or beings, and we could call the source of that morality that is to be legislated that person's god or gods. So, you have a god or gods, and you are trying to pass legislation on behalf of your god or gods. Your god might be yourself. Your god might be democracy. Your god might be an author. It could be a deity of an organized religion. It could be anything. Your god is the one who gave you the moral law that you are trying to legislate.

 

Just going to leave this here

 

Years ago I recall hearing an interview with a abortion provider worker saying this had happened. Protesting, then later an abortion, and the next day back out protesting.

 

Because theirs is “different”