Yeah, that did a lot to remind me that even a cheesedick like Pritzker is immeasurably better than someone like Rauner. Good on him.
5 Likes
There’s another kind of big government that Republicans love: the military. Of course, the “defense” industry helps old rich white people to get even richer.
2 Likes
Sort of both ways, tho.
In so far as the republicans learned during the Lee Atwater days that along with the dog whistle “welfare queen” stuff, they can use the religious as well with things like “Family values”.
Normal people look at the irony when these guys get married multiple times after cheating on the previous [wives] (Newt and Trump come to mind) or turn out to be degenerate gamblers (one big name I can’t remember*) and cringe. White republicans shrug.
*Took me a while - William Bennett. That turd.
5 Likes
I’ve seen it first hand. They have been a lobbying organization against what my father, his father, his brother, and my brother-in-law (all surgeons, and internists) all used to call “socialized medicine,” or what is known in common parlance now, “universal healthcare.” They were deathly afraid of the government telling them how to practice medicine.
Now they have faceless corporations telling them how to practice medicine, what drugs they can prescribe, what procedures they can perform. I asked them regularly, “Now that you have dodged government healthcare, how do you like corporate healthcare? Satisfied with the destruction of your profession?”
Yes, they are standing up in a very limited way to these abortion absurdities now, but where were they when Humana and United Health were ripping the guts out of healthcare? They were cheering their fat paychecks.
7 Likes
Dropped my AMA membership in the late 90s over their political stance, but for once they are on the right side.
9 Likes
What part of their politics made you leave? Just curious.
2 Likes
Well, maybe if it were Rhode Island … or Guam … or Samoa … or at a pinch Wyoming …
As was mentioned earlier, they have been hardcore against any kind of “healthcare as a right” policies. As a pediatrician, that went hard against my grain and I could not allow my dues to be used for that purpose.
17 Likes
Very cool.
6 Likes
… requires physicians in North Dakota to tell patients that medication abortions—a procedure involving two drugs taken at different times—can be reversed
I’ve been confused about this.
What’s the endgame for the anti-choice groups to use this lie?
it seems that lie would alleviate any stress/second thoughts women might have deciding to take these meds if they thought their decision could be reversed if they changed their mind – making it more likely they’d take the abortion pills, yes?
This seems opposite of tricking them out of taking abortion meds.
What am I missing?
And I’m sure I’m missing something because they’ve been pretty diabolical in their long-game anti-choice scams.
5 Likes
You’re using logic to see future ramifications. That goes against the policies of this government.
I am puzzled by that as well. But when something like this is the reality
maybe the reasoning is to get the doctor for malpractice when the woman changes her mind after the abortion was already started.
2 Likes
If one woman who was told the lie thinks that she can undo the abortion then takes the pills and changes her mind, she files a civil lawsuit (backed by the anti-choice group) against the doctor who was forced by the government to lie. This increases the cost to the doctor, and from the anti-choice group’s perspective may discourage other doctors from taking the risk that they’d be sued. Lose a small number of battles to try to win the war?
Would saying “The government of the state of North Dakota requires me to state that medication abortions can be reversed. That is a lie, they cannot be reversed, but if I don’t tell you the legally-required lie I could be fined.” be sufficient to satisfy the letter of the law (you did tell them the procedure can be reversed) while negating the spirit of the law intended by the groups that bought it? If the law tried to ban doctors from adding that second sentence that would face a strong First Amendment challenge. Requiring speech probably should be a First Amendment issue; banning speech absolutely is a First Amendment issue with strong precedent.
8 Likes
Especially, banning truthful speech, which we’re seeing more and more of these days, in many different arenas (science, etc.).
4 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
