A primary tenant of Western medicine is that people have the right to refuse medical treatment. President Joe Biden has ignored this tradition, the First Principle of Medical ethics (“First, do no harm”) and the Constitution of the United States.
In medicine, there’s a huge ethical difference between forbidding intervention and not only forcing individuals to comply, but forcing third parties like employers and medical personnel and administrators to intervene by mandating the involuntary breaching of bodily integrity.
The rare cases in contradiction are treatment of tuberculosis and psychosis where it’s proven that patients are an imminent danger to others, not just themselves. This infection can not rise to that level of threat.
There is a history consistent with quarantines – but only of the contagious or suspected contagious.
It’s an egregious violation of human rights to force invasive medical treatment on the unwilling except in emergent, extreme circumstances.
James Baldwin is still pointed used as an example in efforts to accuse the current US of subjugation of Black Americans and other minority groups. This happened to me just last week on Twitter – for some reason, in support of elective abortion on demand.
So, I’ve done some research.
This debate took place at Cambridge University in the UK, in 1965. In the US, the March on Selma, and the arrest of Martin Luther King, has just occurred. Dr. King was still imprisoned. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was slowly taking effect.
In contrast to Mr. Baldwin’s dismissive comments, a Black man was elected President of the US in 2008. We’ve not eliminated prejudice, but our progress against discrimination has more closely mirrored the predictions of Robert Kennedy than those of Mr. Baldwin.
No, I don’t believe that the American dream has been at the expense of the American Negro and I don’t believe that race discrimination in 2021 can be compared to Mr. Baldwin’s (or Martin Luther King’s) 1965.
On one of the Facebook groups I follow, the conversation about the recent Arkansas law protecting conscience was diverted from the law itself by a sensational headline that reflected only the worst accusations of opponents & the reactions of group members to that headline.
During the conversation, I was questioned about my use of the term “normal” for healthy bodily functions. At the least, “normal” is that which doesn’t itself injure tissues & organs and doesn’t require technological intervention to produce or to prevent morbidity & mortality.
We are hearing & reading about demands that legitimate research results should be suppressed, watching physicians and scientists who express heterodox opinions be censored. Then we’re told that there’s a “consensus,” since none of the “objectionable” research is published, much less popularized, and the outliers are demonetized and covered with warning boxes.
Science isn’t a “consensus.” In science, true hypotheses are testable, with valid results capable of being confirmed by different observers under similar conditions in different labs.
That’s also a good definition of reality or “normal.” One that could be applicable to medical subjects like COVID or vaccines, as well as social and legal matters.
We’re being manipulated for reasons that have nothing to do with actual health, physical or mental. I can’t fathom a reasonable explanation. It looks like an exertion of power – social, financial, then legal.
Patients won’t be helped at all by forcing moral injury by requiring medical professionals to act against their conscience and we all lose when rational discussion is suppressed in the public sphere.
I’m a big fan of Peterson, as is my husband. I first noticed his online videos of his college lectures on philosophy & psychology, then became aware of his activism and, finally, his “Rules for Life” which became the base of his book of the same name. Larry and I were lucky enough to attend Dr. Peterson’s conversation with Sam Harris, moderated by Douglas Murray, in London a couple of years ago.
The Times‘ recent published interview is even worse than Peterson describes, with gratuitous remarks about toxic masculinity & unflattering, skewed and unexplicable comparisons to Donald Trump.
He’s posted the audio of the entire unedited interview on YouTube and has links in this blog post to the article published 31 January, 2021.
Here are a few of the hostile remarks by the author, Decca Aitkenson, from that article:
“I don’t know if this is a story about drug dependency, or doctors, or Peterson family dynamics — or a parable about toxic masculinity. Whatever else it is, it’s very strange.”
“After 80 minutes on Zoom, the one thing of which I’m certain is that, were I as close to death as she assures me her father repeatedly was, this is not the person I would entrust with saving my life.”
“The more he talks, though, the more I wonder whether toxic masculinity might have been a culprit, too. His family history of depression might tell us something about the price to be paid for his bootstrap philosophy; that when life became excruciatingly stressful, Peterson’s stand up, man up, suck it up mentality didn’t work.”
“Parallels with Donald Trump come to mind; another unhappy man closed off from his emotions, projecting strong man mythology while hunkered down in a bunker with his family against the world.”
If there’s anything I’m certain about Dr. Peterson it’s that he isn’t “closed off from his emotions.” Aitkenson is delusional or a biased liar. She’s no “reporter.”
The Baen Books Publishing anthology features short stories by Sarah A. Hoyt, Brad Torgersen, and Jon Del Arroz, among others. We’re told by the authors that Science Fiction writers aren’t popular with the new Powers That Be. Although there’s been a lot of “woke” SF in the last few years, there’s also a long tradition of military and libertarianism. Then, there’s the [T]Ruth and [S]cience problem, not to mention that the scion of Sci-Fi, John W. Campbell, called the genre, “future history.” Campbell wasn’t sufficiently prescient and has himself been cancelled by the “woke.”
Prescient? Although mistaken about an early concession by President Trump, “Divided We Fall,” makes quite a few accurate predictions, at least up to the point I’m living in: the 2020 election and, to a lesser extent, through the inauguration and first week of the Biden (or what the White House news releases call the “Biden-Harris” administration). The early stories could have been reports from the last two months.
Not bad for a book that was published the week before the election, on October 31, 2020.
I hope and pray it’s not as accurate about the year(s) after.
The excellent story tellers – many with a military background – outline a dystopia that reads like the news from tomorrow if the French and Russian revolutions are to be repeated in the post-2020 election period. With a heavy dose of Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution.
Rather than the Great Leap Forward, rural life is suspicious, too independent of the Federal government. Politically conservative or libertarian, gun owning, religious citizens are suddenly and mysteriously “disappeared” or publicly killed. Any dissent results in being fired, at least. Imagine convicted felons, terrorists, and antifa activists released from prison, with the latter put in charge of emptying libraries of “problematic” books (including most science fiction), or the military forced to assist with gun confiscation, beginning with Marines, but rapidly shifting to the other branches.
(A couple of stories point out that the Navy and Marines, aren’t covered by the Posse Comitatus Act.)
The characters all live in the same universe, with the same basic timeline and major events.
If the “Resistance” from the Right not only becomes necessary, imagine the the different ways people from all sorts of backgrounds find themselves managing to stand strong against chaos like what we’re seeing in Seattle. Portland, and, now, Tacoma.
Am I going to be disappeared for having read and liked this book?
“Buckle up, it’s going to be a bumpy ride!”
President Donald Trump, 45th President of the United States, said ” See you later,” rather than goodbye, but he (peacefully) left the White House and Washington, DC this morning – “for the last time”, according to headline after headline. Number 46 will be sworn in at noon.
While I’m certain that Donald Trump absolutely wanted to bring about changes in the Federal government, especially in regulations and the “unfair” deals with other nations, I think he might have been just as surprised as Hillary that he won. (My husband hates it when I compare the Trump victory to “The Mouse That Roared.”)
I was a “Never-Trumper’ through the 2016 Republican National Convention. After the Democrats chose Hillary Clinton, I knew there was no chance I wouldn’t vote against her.
While at first simply being ABC (Anybody But Clinton), the more I fact-checked and explained the misconceptions about Republicans and Trump, I first became anti-anti-Trump, then okay with him, to a supporter. I’m definitely in support of his policies, if not of his behavior.
Before noon four years ago today, the “Resistance” started breaking laws as well as windows. Every day, someone, somewhere in the US, burned a car or business or vandalized a building. A minority went beyond destroying property, mobbing and harassing anyone associated with the Trump Administration. The media published leaked documents, transcripts and quotes from anonymous sources about the President and it was nearly impossible to find any positive coverage of anything Trump.
Then, there was legal challenge after legal challenge. The heads of the Democratic Party, chairs of Congressional Committees, the FBI and CIA publicly distorted and – I believe – lied to the public and sometimes, to Congress.
Things are going to change under the new Administration.
Our whistleblowers will be vilified, anyone who dares leak will be prosecuted as a spy, media will cooperate with the Powers That Be , as Social Media has in China. They’re already championing the turning in of family members & friends.
But (using a few more metaphors and in spite of January 6) this time, the barbarians are within the gates. Outside, are those of us who believe in the rule of law, the Judeo-Greco-Christian legacy. Rather than topple statues and pain disfiguring and profane graffiti on monuments. We understand that we stand on the shoulders of giants, even as we recognize and acknowledge that virtually all of our predecessors were human, with human flaws. I hope we remember history, and try to learn from it, reform, rather than revolution.
I believe that Conservatives will prevail.
As President Trump implied in his speech this morning, we’ll be back!
Two of the YouTube video bloggers I follow have posted interviews and first-hand descriptions of events at the Washington, DC Capitol building on 6 January, noting the consequences. It’s almost as though they describe three totally separate events.
Kash Kelly describes his experience, beginning about 39 minutes in. He says that his group left the Trump speech early to walk to the Capitol lawn in order to avoid the rush when everyone walked. They were standing still on the lawn, chanting “USA”when men in SWAT gear began firing paintballs and flashbangs.
One older man evidently had a heart attack because of the effects of the flashbangs.
Eventually, the police ceased firing when the crowd moved back. Some of the officers waved them onto the exterior balconies, some fired mace at them, others waved them into the building and even directed them to the offices and legislative chambers.
Kash says there were three different areas of entry, where police were alternately waving them in, spraying mace and beating them. Before entering the building, When he witnessed another group banging on a window. The patriots he was with demanded that the vandalism stop. The violent men seemed to know where thhey intended to go, went through a window and began handing out what appeared to be batons and other weapons to others waiting outside the window.
Once inside, his group of patriots saw police laughing what he believes were antifa and decided to leave but we’re trapped. The police guided them outside through a window.
(Note: Kash calls the bad guys “angwifwa,” because he’s lost his Instagram page and believes he will soon lose his FB page because of calling them out.)
Dave Rubin interviewed 3 people, two who were at the DC rally and have had their FB accounts arbitrarily removed from FB and have learned that they’re on a “no fly” list simply for being present.
One, a journalist named Elijah Schaeffer, is certified to work in the Capitol and works with The Blaze. The other is a woman, Dr. Karlyn Borysenko, an organizational psychologist who works with the organization, “#Walk Away.”
Neither took part in the riots or protest. Schaeffer was reporting & recording with the cooperation of the Capitol police, and Borysenko said she arrived late, never went into the Capitol and never saw any violence at all.
Shaffer’s professional and private FB page and Instagram accounts have been removed. FB has “banned” Borysenko and the leaders of her entire organization have also been permanently removed, according to a Tweet by Brandon Straka.
Borysenko’s photos of the event were removed from Instagram:
“Instagram just deleted my pictures from the capital that show that people were peacefully there and threatened to delete my account.”
Conservatives on Twitter are losing “Followers” by the thousands, making it obvious that the site is purging conservatives. Dave Rubin says that at least, we know who’s really in charge:
BTW, I’m @bnuckols on Parler as well as Twitter
Edited: to make the 1st paragraph clear & to fix the spelling of “angwifwa.” BBN
I’ve been avoiding tackling a post to WingRight, waiting for the Georgia Senate runoffs to pass before ranting. As of now, at 6:30PM, Georgia time, 4 January, 2021, we don’t know the outcome – or when we will know the outcome – but my little blog definitely won’t make a difference, now.
The “news” is virtually all one-sided, claiming to “debunk” any complaints and dismissing any and all claims of fraud or cheating in the 3 November, 2020 election. Yet, I am absolutely convinced that something illegitimate happened in Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Others point to possible manipulated votes in Arizona, Minnesota, and Nevada.
Yet, none of the suspicious activity has actually been laid out in Court. No one has ruled on the many sworn testimonies from witnesses who claim to have observed irregularities. There have been a couple of victories in Pennsylvania to but the rest of the lawsuits have been dismissed without trial or hearings involving those witnesses, all on technicalities.
The Republican challenges themselves have sometimes looked like the efforts of the Resistance. For instance, how to explain a lawyer who forgets to pay filing fees, or the case after case dismissed for lack of “standing.”
I’m afraid that even the planned objection by Republicans on January 6th is simply theater. It will be interesting, but has little chance of passing in either the House or the Senate. And, just what would be the result of Congress overturning the apparent vote?
I can’t think of anything that will prevent Joe Biden from being sworn in on 20 January. But, if I’ve learned anything from watching the results of the “Resistance,” the FBI, and the CIA over the last four years, it’s to anticipate a slow trickle of information about the validity of at least some of the suspected fraud.
Something to remember: absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence.
Edit: the Republican Legislators from Pennsylvania sent this letter, today:
Proof once again that our most important elections are decided by the least knowledgeable. – the “undecideds.”
The Christian Post has an editorial explaining why the author is voting for the first time in 28 years: she has decided she must vote against President Trump because she blames him for the deaths of black men at the hands of police officers.
I’d like to challenge the author to fact check her assumptions by taking a look at the issue from President Trump’s side. I wonder whether she’s even considered arguments from the other side. (Or whether she can even find any.)
A good place to start is to identify who is responsible for the looting, vandalism, and violence against police officers and civilians.
How could President Trump be responsible for the riots in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014?
Or, take a look at this week in Philadelphia. Who caused business owners to scramble to board up their stores in the middle of the night – President Trump & the Proud Boys or Harris/Biden, antifa, & BLM?
For the rest of us, it should be our mission today to educate & edify at least one unknowing undecided.
14 minute interview with Houston TV reporter.
She’s a warrior, all right! Worth your time!
I would like to see some data, but lots of other doctors report the same results, and I’d like to see some of their patient information, too. (Ages, other meds, vitals, timing, symptoms.)
She does say wear a mask if you can’t be on prophylaxis and to make other people comfortable. I would call her regimen a “treatment” rather than a “cure.”
But the biggest fuss has been about Dr. Immanuel’s religious beliefs. I’ve heard Baptist, Assembly of God, even Church of Christ preachers say much the same about the hidden powers in the world. Maybe not the origins, but their existence and, as Jesus Himself said, the need for prayer and fasting to deal with them.
I’ve been told that her religious views are a distraction and counter-productive for the Medical issues and “science.” But Dr. Immanuel doesn’t even bring up her religion until she’s questioned in this interview and didn’t bring it up at all in DC.
The detractors don’t understand the cultural background and how many Christians – across the spectrum from those who believe in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to those who only remember the story of St. Michael – will recognize the theme.
Were you triggered by the religious views of Nigerian born and trained, Texas licensed and practicing, Dr. Stella Immanuel?
(As of Midnight, 30 July, the video was available at https://www.bitchute.com/video/09K3kIwzeewO/?fbclid=IwAnR2E-LChNhpqOktcV4GPeT0ZS79cdf1tjdlnfNSlpGNWMCW6vVYYnHLCbjU so I was able to watch the rest of the docs.I am impressed especially by Dr. Joseph Ladapo, beginning at minute 33.)
There’s a right way and a wrong way to change a law. The Constitution doesn’t provide that the Courts make the big decisions, leaving the inconsequential matters to Congress. And yet, nominally “textualist” Supreme Court Justices Gorsuch and Roberts joined with the”living document” Progressives to do it the wrong way.
Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion in Bostick v. Clayton County and got at least two points right:
- “When the express terms of a statute give us one answer and the extratextual considerations suggest another, it’s no contest. Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit.” and,
- There’s no way that the 1964 Congress would have intended for the word “sex” to include sexual orientation or gender identity.
In his 37 page argument, Gorsuch stuffed and fluffed strawman after strawman to fit an extratextual interpretation of “because of …sex” into the redefinition of “sex.” As noted in the dissents by Justices Alito & Kavenaugh, his is a redefinition that wasn’t even attempted when SCOTUS redefined “marriage” in Obergefeld.
In other words, as Justice Alito wrote in his dissent, Gorsuch and the majority “legislated.”
I agree that this law needed changing to give more protection to employees in the public market place. Congress should have been encouraged to work out those protections, while also preserving religious freedoms and single-sex spaces and even women-only sports. I can’t help but wonder whether – perhaps – both political Parties took a dive, hoping the Supreme Court would do exactly what they did.
And the Country will witness lawsuits, year after year, that might have been averted.
In the meantime, though, I’ll bet Senator Chuck Schumer feels caught in a whirlwind of his own. What price, now, Chuck?
“the sharing of one’s point of view on a social or political issue, often on social media, in order to garner praise or acknowledgment of one’s righteousness from others who share that point of view, or to passively rebuke those who do not. “Instead of “tolerance,” the virtuous demand positive affirmation of their superiority, and in fact seem (to me) to be expecting and finding offence. It’s too often weaponised, used to “cancel” previously unsuspecting people, especially on social media.
The “Right to Life” means the negative right not to be killed by intentional acts. It’s not the right to force others to invest our life, liberty or property other than the duty to intervene against infringement. This is a basic negative right, not a positive right.
There’s a huge difference between personal responsibility in avoiding a risk to yourself and actively causing harm to someone else. Self-defense rather than selfish demands, using only appropriate force on others.
You know, the old “your right to swing your fist ends at my nose!” (Especially Appropriate in this case.)
*You* take the actions *you* believe are responsible. Only frequent places/businesses that require masks if you want, do the work necessary to maintain the social distancing you are comfortable with. Don’t force everyone else to do your work for you.
Right at the top of the page is this disclaimer: “”Anyone can publish on Medium per our Policies, but we don’t fact-check every story. For more info about the coronavirus, see cdc.gov.'” Good advice.
I was asked about the #BabyTinslee case and what we should do, what can we do, in the disputed cases.
We need to educate more. People don’t understand basic medical ethics in this day of “choice.”
Autonomy doesn’t supersede nonmaleficience. In other words, the First Principle of medicine, “Cure when possible, but first do no harm,” always should guide us, rather than “wants” or “choice.”
In the end, doctors are the ones actually performing the acts and we’re most likely to understand the projected outcome. We benefit from oversight by colleagues and the community, both informally and in the process prescribed by the Texas Advance Directives Act.
Some people demand that every one of these cases go to court, for “due process” and “cross examination.”
But judges and courts can’t be as knowledgeable as doctors are. Their decisions are necessarily informed by dueling (paid) lawyers and (hired) medical experts.
In all the cases that have gone to court, the family has had quite a lot of notice, but the 48 hour notice before the committee meeting is perceived as too abrupt, especially since the relationships all appear to be adversarial by that point.
(And who could get your family to a meeting in 2 days?)
The 10 days isn’t thought to be long enough to arrange a transfer, either. Again, in many of the Court cases, the attempts to find another doctor willing to accept the patient’s care has begun before the committee meeting.
Doctors acknowledge the great trust and privileges we are given by agreeing not to abandon our patients. When we have a disagreement with a patient or surrogates (usually a familymember), we accept that we must continue treatment for a period of time. But not indefinitely.
If we could get the reforms that have been attempted to lengthen the statutory timeframe (multiple times) since before 2005, the TADA would be much better. It’s still the best process we have, currently.
We are blessed with a universe that’s predictable and testable, yet we pray for miracles. And we pray for miracles, but act as though human actions can block them. Is the will of the Creator Who spoke the physical laws into existence limited by humans if they act as though the universe is predictable and testable?
Those of us who practice medicine are limited by the physical laws, the predictable and testable, with an emphasis on the tested. Our education and experience is based on these tested predictions and guide our decisions, and we’re watched and sometimes redirected by our colleagues, patients, laws and the community.
And then, there’s the best test of all: time.
In fact, I once noted that a patient who outlived the “10 Day Rule” might have proved the doctor (who instigated the process from the Texas Advanced Directive Act) wrong. There might have been a few cases like this, just as I believe there have been miracles.
However, can you tell me how to measure these events and predict their occurrences, much less practice medicine based on them?
In the majority of TADA cases when treatments weren’t withdrawn, the patient died in the exact manner the doctors predicted, after the same interventions -and sometimes more invasive and tortuous “treatments” than the ones the doctor originally objected to.
What ethics review board approved a randomised trial to temporarily prevent the ending of the life of a human embryo or fetus, with a planned surgical abortion as an end point?
Horrifying report about human experimentation: Obstetricians at the University of Southern California have announced that they stopped a study using progesterone to reverse the anti-progesterone effects of mifepristone in medical abortions.
According to the NPR:
“For the study, the researchers aimed to enroll 40 women who were scheduled to have surgical abortions. Before their surgical procedures, the women received mifepristone, the first pill in the two-medication regimen that’s used for medical abortions. The women were then randomly assigned to receive either a placebo or progesterone, which advocates claim can block the effects of mifepristone.“
Ignore the fact that only 12 women signed up over 6 months, that in spite if the claims if the researchers, the mifepristone was the actual, immediate cause of the complications that included 3 women needing ambulance transport to a hospital for excessive vaginal bleeding and 2 others dropping out due to some other side effects.
But you should certainly – they hope – forget that 4 of the babies exposed to progesterone and 2 who received placebo after the mifepristone continued to live for 2 weeks until their death at the hands of an Obstetrical surgeon. That’s half of the study group!
There’s no question that I consider it unethical to cause the intentional, interventional death of any human who isn’t a threat to life for another. It’s heinous that our laws allow the best medical technology in the world to kill members of our species, because they aren’t considered human-enough to possess the inalienable human right not to be killed.
But there’s an additional ethics problem in this case: a strong “yuck factor” (aversion) to the idea of purposefully experimenting with ¢ lives of humans, both the mother and her child, planning to monitor the signs of the prenatal human’s life, anticipating his or her death by surgical abortion.
Half of the original mothers had planned two weeks (14-16 days)delay with serial ultrasounds, confirming her baby’s heartbeat. (Remember this experimental protocol the next time an abortion advocate complains about State-mandated waiting periods and pre-abortion ultrasounds.)
Let me repeat: half of the nascent human beings experimented upon/ lived two additional weeks after exposure to the mifepristone poisoning. Only one of the 12 pregnancies resulted in what would be considered a “normal” medical abortion.
Eventually however, all of them were finaly “terminated.” After two weeks of observation – Schrodinger’s humans.
Note: Due to some sort of technical problem at the website, I wasn’t able to purchase the article, so this is based on the abstract and NPR report.
Edit 12/9/19, BBN: I was able to purchase access to the article (24 hours for $60!). There’s no change in the facts other than to note that the authors report continued life of the prenatal humans as 6 of 10 subjects: 4 of 5 who finished the trial and received progesterone, and 2 of 5 who were randomized to the placebo arm.
Quintessential anti-vaccine propaganda. The first sentence indicts the source, Mike Adams, the founder of “Natural News” and seller of food supplements like Organic Broccoli Sprout Capsules with a side of conspiracy.
Yet, that’s what they accuse the “cancer industry” of doing.
Edit 10:15 AM 10/07/2019: The MMR assay report from Corvelva is here. I’m skeptical about the “entire genome” supposedly found. Are they saying that all 23 chromosome pairs are present in each dose? BBN
Texas’ Governor Greg Abbott ( @GovAbbott ) isn’t trying to change Texas law with last week’s Executive Order – in contrast to the claims I’ve seen on my Facebook news feed.
Instead, he called for law enforcement agencies under the executive branch to establish policies and training, and financial incentives to encourage “improving reporting channels and closing ‘information gaps’ when members of the public or law enforcement agencies worry that a person might be a threat to commit violence.“
The last three mass shootings in Texas tell us that we need to improve how our law enforcement and agencies follow current law on following up on reports and investigations.
The Sutherland Springs Church shooter in South Texas should have been rejected at point of sale background check because of his prior conviction and incarceration for domestic violence crimes while in the military. Unfortunately, he was never reported to the Federal database. (And so, Texas law probably couldn’t have made any difference.)
However, the Odessa shooter threatened and brandished a weapon at his neighbor, but local Law Enforcement Officers didn’t follow up because his house wasn’t on their GPS maps and was difficult to find!
The El Paso shooter’s mother tried to report him, but the LEO who spoke to her on the phone dismissed her concerns. No record of the call was made, according to the Allen police department.
I’m not sure that current laws would have (or should have) allowed any action against the (future) shooter by authorities, but it looks like that question and reporting procedures are what Governor Abbott wants clarified. From the Executive Order:
“”Within thirty days of this order, the Texas Department of Public Safety shall develop standardized intake questions that can be used by all Texas law-enforcement agencies to better identify whether a person calling the agency has information that should be reported to the Texas Suspicious Activity Reporting Network.
Within thirty days of this order, the Department of Public Safety shall develop clear guidance, based on the appropriate legal standard, for when and how Texas law-enforcement agencies should submit Suspicious Activity Reports.”‘
The question should be whether the “standardized questions” and reporting processes might have made a difference. Unfortunately, I’m not reading questions: I’m reading accusations that the Governor wants to impose “red flag laws” and confiscation of guns without due process of law.
The Governor previously directed the Texas Department of Public Safety to implement the “iWatch app” in June, 2018, allowing the public to report suspicious activity. There was no outcry then, and there doesn’t appear to be any “red flag” incidents because of this initiative.
Why do people think the Governor wants gun control now?
Raise your hand if you agree that “security comfort (sic), acceptance and success” are the opposite of “oppression.”
“Patriarchy is at its most potent when oppression doesn’t feel like oppression, or when it is packaged in terms of biology, religion or basic social needs like security comfort, acceptance and success.”
As these have become socially acceptable – and rants like Ms. Bianco’s are published – it’s possible that more and more men are *learning* not to see any benefit from taking responsibility or living with the consequences of sex or even any sort of commitment.
We could have done more if President Obama hadn’t blocked Texas from receiving Federal Women’s health or Family planning funds. Texas taxpayers paid into that Federal fund, but were denied its return to us. Texas did our best to fill in the gaps this lost funding created, allocating $32M of our State tax funds to Family Planning and Women’s Health programs in 2013-14.
In 2015, when the budget improved, we increased State spending for Women’s health and Family Planning beyond historic amounts. In 2019, nearly $400M was allocated, including raising the cut off for eligibility to 200% of the poverty level. $15M+ was set aside to improve post-partum care.
Nevermind that science affirms that the life of each human begins at fertilization. Or that “reproduction” has obviously occurred before any woman has an abortion, ending the life of that other body, her child. (Yes, one commenter tried to tell us that not only women seek abortions.)
But it’s the last paragraph that tells the truth about the author’s agenda, with a little side dressing of racism. Mr Rivard tells voters to end the ,”one-party state” – to force taxpayers to fund elective abortion for both citizens, non-citizens, and illegal aliens alike.
Edit 8/21/19 5:15 EST (France time) to fix typos. BBN
Claiming that ” ‘conservative’ and ‘Republican’ are now mere team names that have lost all meaning,” pseudo-Conservatives are trying to start a new movement, possibly a new Party. However, their #PrinciplesFirst aren’t Conservative.
The Principles have at least two fatal flaws.
1. They’re based on man-made law & artificial designations of “persons”& “citizens,” not on inalienable rights endowed on “all men” (humans).
The Constitution of the United States is an unique, exemplary document. But its strength and legitimacy depends on the concept of inalienable rights of humans that are not endowed by laws, men or any powers that be of this world. The Constitution can be amended. Human rights can only be infringed.
2. The list also errs in supporting “Each and every family unit – regardless of its shape.”
Would these families include those shaped by polygamy? Why not?
The Republican Platform can be downloaded for reading, here.
The Platform confirms most of the items in the Principles First list. However, the Preamble of the Republican Platform is clear on its origin:
“”We affirm — as did the Declaration of Independence: that all are created equal, endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
And equally clear on the”shape” of the family:
“”It is the foundation of civil society, and the cornerstone of the family is natural marriage, the union of TT man and one woman.””
Correct these errors, and the “new” Principles would be indistinguishable from that of the Republican Party Platform. The effort should be to hold our elected officials to the Platform, to strengthen our Party, maintain and expand our Seniority in the Senate, win both back in the House. It’s certainly not Conservative to tear down. #FirstPrinciples
The killings alone are enough to prove the killers are evil and full of hate, but their history and social media portray individuals focused on hate, erasing all doubt. It appears that the Texas shooter identified with white supremacists white supremacists while also professing to be anti-government and anti-corporation, while concerned about the environment. The Ohio shooter was known to be obsessed with guns, had participated while armed in a counter-protest against white supremacists and was politically left-leaning. The motives of the California shooter aren’t clear at all.
“””The age to purchase a firearm is 21. The state requires gun owners to obtain licenses and face background checks as well as imposing waiting periods on firearms purchases. Judges can take guns away from owners who are deemed to be a threat to themselves or others. And recent legislation aims to begin a fingerprinting database of all gun owners in the state.””
“””Apparently it doesn’t work like that. (Someone should tell our elected leaders.)””
they now post that a woman, Mrs. Carolyn Jones, had to be “rescued” from hers, “racing” to another facility “in the middle of the night.”
The family were given notice that they needed to transfer Mrs. Jones in March. They’ve had another doctor and three facilities capable of providing the treatments she needs waiting to accept Mrs. Jones.
And now, TRTL – in direct competition with – and with absolutely no mention of – Mrs. Jones’ family’s GoFundMe campaign – has been raising money in Mrs. Jones’ name. They state that the funds will be used for (TRTL) lawyer’s fees in addition to Mrs. Jones’ healthcare needs and that “excess” funds will go to help (TRTL’S) efforts for other patients.
I hope that TRTL’s money will also be used to pay for the very large hospital and doctor’s bills that the Jones family will receive. While there’s a chance that Texas Medicaid will pay for three months of medical bills, retroactively, Medicare doesn’t pay for hospitalizations over 90 days and has a 20% co-insurance (co-pay).
That’s bound to have added up in over 6 months.
We’ll just have to trust that TRTL won’t lie again.
Edit, Updated information:
One of the bloggers has told us more about that “rescue.” (Or today’s story, anyway.)
TRTL put her in a private ambulance and took her to *another ER,* one that couldn’t provide dialysis, so they then transferred her somewhere else.
There were comments about the first Hospital refusing transfer — no, refusing to be complicit with “dumping” a patient. Discharging to without ( or even with) acceptance of the transfer from the docs at the other facility is highly irregular and likely illegal.
Much has been said about funding. Yes. It appears that Medicare funding ran out, so no longer paying. 90 days per admission, with an extra 60 days over, under certain conditions.
About that Medicaid funding: I don’t know the limits of the mandatory asset tests, but the yearly income level is $60,000. One way to adapt is to spend money on medical costs.
Medicare makes it difficult to navigate the private pay process. When we had some question, we got informed consent, promise to pay, then performed the service, filed with Medicare, waited to be denied, then tried to Bill the patient. The risk is always a charge of “fraud and abuse.”
The same thing would have happened if the hospital had privately charged for Dialysis.
There’s an exception for the life of the mother. Doctors can be prosecuted, but mothers can’t. (Similar to the way we treat assisted suicide: the one who assists can be prosecuted, the victim isn’t, if he survives.)
Twitter is filled today with outraged hashtags: #HumanRights #HumanRightsAreWomensRights and #RoevWade
(I’ve had to create #NoIDidNtSayThat )
Eggs stop being eggs, or part of the woman’s body, when fertilized.
In #RoevWade, Blackmun stated that science doesn’t say when life begins. Louise Brown, the first “test tube baby,” was born just five years later. Any employee of an in vitro fertilization clinic can tell you the difference between the flasks with gametes and the ones containing embryos.
The embryo conceived by human parents is no other species. I can show you proof that he or she is the same human organism from the time the human sperm penetrates the human zona pellucida and enters the oocyte. From that moment, meiosis begins and the embryo refuses all other sperm.
Elective abortion infringes – aggresses – against the human rights of the one killed – and the people who are defrauded into believing the lies.
Everyone’s Human Rights are stronger when we recognize that all are equal & weakened when we call anyone less than human-enough. Disaster always follows.
Our Declaration of Independence declared that all are created equal, and legitimate government is organized to protect our individual rights.
All humans, even new humans, are human-enough to possess human rights.
(Edited typos 5/15/19 9:29PM. BBN)
Western classical liberal ethics has favored “deciding” that all humans are human-enough to possess human rights. 1.Are they human? 2.Can we kill them? The answers have been increasingly 1. Yes, & 2. No. That’s not #Patriarchy. It’s a good basis for a #sentient, civil society.
HatTip to a FB poster, Clint Stutts, for the questions.
Texas Right to Life General Counsel Emily Cook is attacking Texas Medical Association on Facebook, even though virtually every other pro-life, medical, nursing, hospital, and disability group in Texas oppose SB 2089 by Hughes, that would change the “Texas Advance Directive Act, “TADA” will harm patients and attack the right of doctors to refuse to act against our conscience.
There’s no leeway, at all, in the new Bill.
If you believe that even doctors have the right of Conscience, and that infringement of the right not to be forced to act against your will is wrong, please contact your Texas Senator and Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick and respectfully ask that SB2089 not be brought up.
You can let me know if you disagree on my Facebook page.
“[T]he doctor/bioethics committee thinks the patient should die.” Wesley J. Smith, Esq., Texas Senate Health and Human Services Committee, 4/10/2019 LifeNews.com
Wesley Smith is a rarity among the many lawyers who chased bioethics to the bedside late in the last century: he actually believes in the sanctity of human life and in the right of conscience. I’ve attended and reported on his debates and encounters with proponents of intentional euthanasia. And even happily defended him.
Unfortunately, Lawyer Smith was not above spinning the truth this month when he came from California to once again misrepresent the Texas Advance Directive Act (“TADA,” “the Act,” or “166.___”), an attempt to balance conflicting rights when doctors disagree with a patient or his surrogates about actual medical procedures and treatments that the doctor believes harms the patient.
On April 10, 2019 Mr. Smith gave invited testimony to the Senate Health and Human Services Committee in favor of SB 2089 (Hughes) and
SB 2129 (Creighton). LifeNews.com published part of his testimony online, under the title, “Texas Rule Allows Hospitals to Essentially Euthananize Patients After a 10-Day Notification.”
Mr. Smith doesn’t just contradict multiple Supreme Court rulings since Cruzan (1990) affirming that withholding or withdrawing treatment is not equivalent to euthanasia. Paradoxically, he echoes arguments that anti-conscience activists use to justify abortion on demand, Physician Assisted Suicide and intentional euthanasia by a third party by claiming that the principle of autonomy supercedes “First, do no harm,” or non-malevelence, and the right to conscience.
(You can watch all of Part I and Part II of the April 10, 2019 Health and Human Services Committee meeting addressing SB 2089 by Senator Bryan Hughes and SB 2129 by Senator Brandon Creighton online. Part I includes Mr. Smith’s testimony beginning at 33:00/1:01:10.)
We’ll skip Mr. Smith’s assertion that there is a right to force others to provide everyone medical care in general, not just in emergencies or at the end of life. I’ve covered these assertions and his attacks on the Texas Conference of Catholic Bishops I’m, back in 2007.
Today, let’s just look at his spin on the current version of TADA.
Lawyer Smith uses emotionally weighted terms that aren’t in TADA, such as, “life-extending,” “futile care,” “permitting the institution to force its will on patients and families,” “invidious discrimination,” and “inappropriate care.” He contrasts patient’s “rights” with doctor’s “values,” and is the first that day to raise the specter of doctors willing to kill when patients are “expensive.” And, reflected in the LifeNews.com headline, Mr. Smith flatly says that TADA allows euthanasia – intentional acts to kill patients – equivalent to the administration of injections or medications that he wrote about this week.
As I’ve stated so many times in past WingRight.org and LifeEthics.org posts, TADA doesn’t allow us to remove or withhold care for patients, only treatments that are “medically inappropriate.” There are no futile patients, only futile treatments that cause harm to the patient over and over, without any expectation of reversing organ failure after organ failure.
Mr. Smith also ignores the multiple attempts by the medical and pro-life community and Legislature to improve the law’s timeframe and communication, much as Senator Creighton’s Bill. One example from 2007, SB 439 by Senator Bob Deuell, would have required written notice and an offer of a private ethics consult to take place at least seven days before the hospital committee meeting. That Bill had a schedule for giving the patient or surrogates written information about the dispute process, copies of medical records, and lists of resources. The family would have been given access to the committee meeting, with their own advocates. When the committee agreed that the treatment requested was inappropriate, the family would have receive assistance in searching for7⅞ another doctor or facility for at least another 21 days. I believe that the Bill bogged down in the House because of opposition from Texas Right to Life to any Bill that did not include liability for doctors and the indefinite “treatment until transfer” in this year’s SB 2089.
In the last five minutes of the Part I video, another lawyer, Texas Right to Life General Council Emily Cook, gave us the best clue about the ultimate goal of her organization: “judicial review.”
Ms. Cook and Mr. Smith would have every one of these disputes settled by a Court. This is the Texas trial lawyers’ dream: a huge weapon against our State’s tort reform.
Today, the law specifically allows an appeal to a County probate judge when the Committee agrees with the doctor’s decision. SB 2129 allows a request for an injunction in any Court in the County, enabling “judge shopping.” Since it also prohibits the County from charging the patient or his surrogates any fees, the costs would fall solely on the County.
Ultimately, SB 2129 would make it much, much easier to sue the doctor and the hospital, moving Medical decision-making into the courtroom.
Most of the “stakeholders” for patient rights in Texas (including Texas Alliance for Life, Texas Baptist Christian Life Commission, Coalition of Texans With Disabilities, Texas Medical Association, Texas Hospital Association, Catholic Hospital Association, Texas Nurses Association, and the Texas Conference of Catholic Bishops and many others) oppose both of the Bills that Mr. Smith favored. Since SB 2129 would mandate that the County pick up any Court costs and that the judge make his ruling within five days, don’t be surprised if we hear objections from representatives of these parties, too.
So what’s the “joke?”
It could be the ridiculous notion that Lawyer Smith is a mind reader, able to discern the “invidious” motives for the “discrimination” he feels doctors and hospitals routinely practice:
“To fully comprehend the unjust nature of Texas law in this regard, realize that these “futile care” or “inappropriate care” decisions do not terminate treatment because it won’t work, but because it does. It is keeping the patient alive when the doctor/bioethics committee thinks the patient should die.” (Emphasis from LifeNews.com’s transcript.)
He repeatedly comments that physician’s decisions about medically appropriate treatment are subjective and that they (we) might “project their fears and their desires onto the patient” based on our “values,” rather than medical judgement based on repeated, at least once a day examination of the patient, reports by the nurses and staff and our education and experience.
The joke might be that Lawyer Smith volunteered that the indefinite, repeated evaluation and medical decision-making against the medical judgement of doctors would not be “slavery.” I would like to know what Lawyer Smith calls the legal requirement to use one’s body and brain to carry out actions, including writing orders for nurses and other medical staff, against your will.
It might be tragically funny to watch “judicial review” end up with the two sides hiring expert witnesses – doctors – to give the judge opposing views. There’s dark humor in the realization that ultimately the judge would order the original doctor to use her medical judgement to provide treatment – against her best medical judgement.
But the real joke is that “judicial review” risks the unintended consequence of decisions made by judges like the late t Judge George Greer, who Mr. Smith wrote about in this article.
Comments are closed. Please comment on my Facebook page.