Interesting opinion piece in the NYT today where this same idea is referenced obliquely - but thereâs an excellent distinction between conscientious objectors (who wonât provide what the patient wants out of conscience, so deniers of what someoneâs entitled to) versus conscientious providers (who break the law to give the patient what they need, regardless).
FTA: The American legal regime that governs medical conscience is broken.
While conscientious providers find virtually no refuge in the conscience clauses that are codifiedin almost every state, refusers are protected almost categorically. And just about all of these conscience laws are reserved for denials of care.
Conscientious refusers are often shielded from being fired, disciplined, held liable or found guilty for violating standards of care and endangering patients, even in serious ways.
Conscientious refusers usually donât have to tell patients about their options, or help them to access care elsewhere.
But few protections exist for doctors who have equally conscientious reasons to provide abortions.
The middle ages are here again!
Could be Pakistan, or Afghanistan, or Iran. Not to mention Saudi Arabia, as today's ever more popular heads-off regime, shapeshifting from failed to friendliest state ever! - It is because, y'all know, sanctions we imposed are must!
... and please, spare me comments starting with, "This has got nothing to do with X, Y, Z."
Umrika is shapeshifting herself, far too quickly for that one, and Umrikans (most likely) haven't begun noticing this yet, as ever-proud they were born to save the world from anything undemocratic by imposing quite undemocratic means on other nations.
The question of abortion can only arise in a free society. Umrika has successfully shown, they are not that. Instead, they are made to be a bunch of fundamentalists, with true monetary and power intentions hidden behind a religious veil. More interested in selfish financial, and power gains.
(Lowest chakra, base of spine. Spirituality=None, whatsoever. Completely materialistic society, as we've known for long, and not interested in the interests of other living beings. Egotistical to the utmost...)
It would take a lot, but Iâd suggest that ALL womenâs health care providers should just go about their business, without modification. What happens next? Prosecution (tying up the courts), imprisonment (really?), loss of license (more likely) and then - what happens to womenâs health care in general in the nation? Not that itâs already great.
But just like police have to give up on arresting EVERYONE that takes a toke in states where itâs illegal, if provision of abortion is so widespread that itâs impossible to enforce the law practicallyâ¦
Interesting opinion piece in the NYT today where this same idea is referenced obliquely - but thereâs an excellent distinction between conscientious objectors (who wonât provide what the patient wants out of conscience, so deniers of what someoneâs entitled to) versus conscientious providers (who break the law to give the patient what they need, regardless).
FTA: The American legal regime that governs medical conscience is broken.
While conscientious providers find virtually no refuge in the conscience clauses that are codifiedin almost every state, refusers are protected almost categorically. And just about all of these conscience laws are reserved for denials of care.
Conscientious refusers are often shielded from being fired, disciplined, held liable or found guilty for violating standards of care and endangering patients, even in serious ways.
Conscientious refusers usually donât have to tell patients about their options, or help them to access care elsewhere.
But few protections exist for doctors who have equally conscientious reasons to provide abortions.
To me, the follow-up study done a few years ago provides strong support for the original assertions. It's possible that the numbers benefit from a coincidence of timing and other policies, norms, etc... but it's hard to completely ignore a very high correlation using decades of data.
Agreed.
In order for people to live well, be at least moderately 'successful' in life, the amount of human capital that must be invested in one individual is bigger than at any other time in human history.
To me, the follow-up study done a few years ago provides strong support for the original assertions. It's possible that the numbers benefit from a coincidence of timing and other policies, norms, etc... but it's hard to completely ignore a very high correlation using decades of data.
John R. Lott Jr. was one who did not see a correlation. From what I recall, some of his work debunked later on. Was it bad data or bad modelling, I do not recall off hand.
In passing, Lott, Jr. was a highly polarizing figure in the economics profession.
He has been touted in the Guns thread in the past...
John R. Lott Jr. was one who did not see a correlation. From what I recall, some of his work was debunked later on. Was it bad data or bad modelling, I do not recall off hand.
In passing, Lott, Jr. was a highly polarizing figure in the economics profession.
As an aside: I worked on a project in a prior life with Levitt and their work was ridiculously priced, and ultimately delivered no value. Good work if you can get it.
Yeah, celebrity can be a bad criteria for hiring economic consultants. Or engaging anybody.
In my discussions with those who consult, often the clients have absolutely no clue and don't even know what questions to ask.
Not surprising. 47% of American voters voted for Marxist-Keynesian fiscal policy in the last presidential election. Most financial pundits have no idea as to what demand and supply actually means in economics. Most use those terms as if they were synonyms for consumption and production.
Annual 'balanced budgets' are what 'real people' want. Macroeconomists never recommend annual balanced budgets.
Here in Canada, our previous economics-educated prime minister Stephan Harper was popular with the people because he did the exact opposite of what the professional economic policy consensus would have prescribed on a number of issues.
I often run into private sector entrepreneurs who delude themselves into thinking they know a lot about economics. They do not.
Is everybody here familiar with the literature that examines the effect of legalized abortion on crime?
Steven Levitt at University of Chicago is one of the better known proponents. He co-authored the book Freakonomics.
Smerconish has been talking about it again since the SCOTUS leak...
The link didn't work correctly...but he starts at about 2:50 on it.
As an aside: I worked on a project in a prior life with Levitt and their work was ridiculously priced, and ultimately delivered no value. Good work if you can get it.
(...) Per the NYT, which discusses the Texas bounty statute; the basic concept applies to similar initiatives now being mulled by other no-choice states:
The new law in Texas effectively banning most abortions has ignited widespread controversy and debate, in part because of the mechanism it uses to enforce the restrictions: deputizing ordinary people to sue those involved in performing abortions and giving them a financial incentive to do so.
The law establishes a kind of bounty system. If these vigilante plaintiffs are successful, the law allows them to collect cash judgments of $10,000 â and their legal fees â from those they sue. If they lose, they do not have to pay the defendantsâ legal costs.
â¦
The enforcement provision has generated backing from those seeking to limit abortion rights but confusion and criticism among supporters of abortion rights.
âWhen the law first came out and I was reading it, I thought I was missing something,â said Mary Ziegler, a professor at the Florida State University College of Law who specializes in the history of reproductive law. âIt almost seemed like anyone could sue anyone â and that didnât seem right. But it was. It really is that extraordinary.â
Now, the incentives the Texas law and the model legislation establish is based on the same concept behind class action suits, which incentivize attorneys to pursue certain cases. But itâs not altogether unusual in other contexts. IIRC, California has a consumer protection that allows for similar third party suits. These provisions that incentivize third parties to purse legal claims produce an in terrorem effect. A state may pass a statute but doesnât have to expend resources on enforcement; it relies on third parties to produce results. that accord with the policy preferences of state legislators.
What is unusual is that these state abortion statutes essentially incentivize stalking.
Finally, you've figured his fiendish plan, foiling his future desire for any fun.
Spidey sense picking up on those men who tend to word-salad justify forced birth, with zero science and biology to back them up, tend to be those
who aren't getting any action and want women punished for having sex. Because its not with them.
Men with game and Live partners understand full well the repercussions of sex. Donnie's Dingleberries think they oughta just be able to 'grab' genitalia when they want it without consequences. It's the clitoral-friendly crowd that will win this one.
LOL. It tickles me how so many men are truly oblivious as to how this will affect them.
Court ordered Paternity DNA is a thing, gentlemen. Pretend to turn a blind eye. But you can bet the Republicans' ideas of what's uppermost in Voters Minds will dramatically change.
Barely the beginning of July 2022. Guess how many times the words: "I'm late" or "I'm pregnant" will come up just by the end of August. Not just thousands, but Millions.
Husbands and Fathers of Daughters will begin to hear that phrase too often enough to slash the Republican Party's self described 'priorities.'
It's a win-win for States to fund State agencies and Overwhelmed Foster Care Systems.
Did you really think that Republicans would force their aristo-political class to pay to raise these unplanned babies? Did you really believe the wealthy class gives an excrement about the average dude in America?
Aw sweetcakes. You're so gullible.
"Ti-i-i-ime is on my side, yes it is..." â Rolling Stones
Your point being?