Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info

petrous

Subscribe to petrous's blog Subscribe

Menu

Special Features

Wednesday, April 18, 2018

Randa Jarrar, a tenured professor and makes $100,000 a year. "I will never be fired," Jarrar tweeted. The university's response says she wasn't speaking for school, but as a private citizen. read more


Comments

themoscowproject.org

July 27, 2016, Trump: "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing."
Indictment: That evening, Russian operatives targeted Clinton campaign emails "for the first time."

#103 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

SEPTEMBER 2015

sputniknews.com

The US was stupid to think there would be no response.

swampland.time.com

So, did Obama win in 2012 because of hacking?

en.wikipedia.org

"The leaked contents, which suggested the party's leadership had worked to sabotage Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign, prompted the resignation of DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz before the Democratic National Convention.[4] After the convention, DNC CEO Amy Dacey, CFO Brad Marshall, and Communications Director Luis Miranda also resigned in the wake of the controversy."

Bernie and the American people were screwed by the DNC.

www.cnbc.com

There were other States that experienced DHS' attempts.

DHS and Russia in cahoots.

www.nytimes.com

"If you ask an intelligence officer, did the Russians break the rules or do something bizarre, the answer is no, not at all," said Steven L. Hall, who retired in 2015 after 30 years at the C.I.A., where he was the chief of Russian operations. The United States "absolutely" has carried out such election influence operations historically, he said, "and I hope we keep doing it."

This is a dangerous game. Do you believe indictments of hacking elections done by US Gov't won't happen?

It should be an interesting court case considering the defendant would be stupid to show up in court, and the lawyers representing will appear and listen to how all the evidence will have to be presented in a closed court room so the US Public never sees it.

Unlike all the other people pleading guilty to assist, foreigners are not going to turn themselves in to US authorities.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

"The top three reason categories cited in both studies were: 1) "Having a baby would dramatically change my life" (i.e., interfere with education, employment and ability to take care of existing children and other dependents) (74% in 2004 and 78% in 1987), 2) "I can't afford a baby now" (e.g., unmarried, student, can't afford childcare or basic needs) (73% in 2004 and 69% in 1987), and 3) "I don't want to be a single mother or am having relationship problems" (48% in 2004 and 52% in 1987). A sizeable proportion of women in 2004 and 1987 also reported having completed their childbearing (38% and 28%), not being ready for a/another child (32% and 36%), and not wanting people to know they had sex or became pregnant (25% and 33%). Considering all of the reasons women reported, the authors observed that the reasons described by the majority of women (74%) signaled a sense of emotional and financial responsibility to individuals other than themselves, including existing or future children, and were multi-dimensional. Greater weeks of gestation were found to be related with citing concerns about fetal health as reasons for abortion. The authors did not examine associations between weeks of gestation with some of the other more frequently mentioned reasons for abortion."

The issues of physical and mental health are areas for a physician to use his judgment. Medical judgment.

Look at the data.

Interfere with education. Can't afford a baby now. Not ready. Don't want any one to know.

This isn't medical judgment - therefore, the physician is not using medical judgment.

So, the answer is - I have a right to abortion.

Not according to Roe v Wade. If there is no medical judgment, then the State has every right to get involved. The SC stated that the States cannot when medical judgment is involved. In these other cases, the physician should have his license revoked for not treating a medical issue.

Roe v. Wade.

"This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State.

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother."

Abortion is not an absolute right. This is a direct quote of the Supreme Court decision.

The State has a right to the legitimate interest in potential life.

But, the State also has the authority to ensure that a physician is using medical judgment.

www.verywellhealth.com

Not financially prepared: 40 percent
Bad timing, not ready, or unplanned: 36 percent
Partner-related reasons (including the relationship is bad or new, she doesn't want to be a single mother, her partner is not supportive, does not want the baby, is abusive, or is the wrong guy): 31 percent

So, by reading these reasons, none of them are medical judgment.

I support Roe v Wade. I don't support non-medical judgment of a physician.

Drudge Retort
 

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable