It's Official: SCOTUS Overturns Roe v. Wade

[SeekingUnderstanding]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And now sarcasm.

You could explain what you mean here.  "A mother's ability to pay for pregnancy" relates to state legislative action to "implement a prolife culture" . . . how?

Thanks,

-Smac

Is “prolife culture” code for something I don’t understand? A society that values life takes care of the least of those among us. Universal health care shows that we as a culture value life, among everyone, not just those that can afford it. Mandatory paid sick leave, and mandatory paid parental leave demonstrates society’s commitment to the value of life. This is not rocket science. It astonished me that I am having to connect these dots here. I am  flabbergasted  that the connection isn’t blindingly obvious. 

Edited July 17, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Ragerunner]

50 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Is “prolife culture” code for something I don’t understand? A society that values life takes care of the least of those among us. Universal health care shows that we as a culture value life, among everyone, not just those that can afford it. Mandatory paid sick leave, and mandatory paid parental leave demonstrates society’s commitment to the value of life. This is not rocket science. It astonished me that I am having to connect these dots here. I am  flabbergasted  that the connection isn’t blindingly obvious. 

That is because it is not a ‘prolife culture movement’. It is a probirth political movement that ends at first breathe.

Edited July 17, 2022 by Ragerunner

[Stormin' Mormon]

Posted by my catholic sister in law last month, but applicable to many other pro-life advocates as well. 

 

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Posted by my catholic sister in law last month, but applicable to many other pro-life advocates as well. 

 

 

Catholics have a very consistent view on life. Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints? Not so much. Here is where the Catholic Church falls on health care:

“The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has repeatedly stated that healthcare is a basic human right, saying in 2013 that, “Coverage should be truly universal and should not be denied to those in need because of their condition, age, where they come from or when they arrive here. Providing affordable and accessible health care that clearly reflects these fundamental principles is a public good and moral imperative.””

https://faithinhealthcare.org/fhc/what-does-your-faith-community-say-about-medicare-all

[Ragerunner]

19 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Posted by my catholic sister in law last month, but applicable to many other pro-life advocates as well. 

 

 

I think it is good that they and other church’s help with these items. But 3 of the 5 items take significant money to access those resources. 

Honest question: When was the last time the Catholic Church or other religious churches made a full court political press for Universal Healthcare in the US to help pay for these services?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

43 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Posted by my catholic sister in law last month, but applicable to many other pro-life advocates as well. 

 

 

From one of our resident Catholics:

 

How many of those points do you personally support?

“Some possible next steps for state and/or federal legislatures:

• robust child support enforcement, including easy and simple ways for mothers to report delinquent dads
• free pre and post birth medical care, including options for therapy, parenting classes, etc.
• extended paid maternity leave
• free childcare
• free pre-K
• all of this with as little bureaucracy as possible, so it is easy to apply for and receive”

Edited July 17, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[longview]

35 minutes ago, Ragerunner said:

Honest question: When was the last time the Catholic Church or other religious churches made a full court political press for Universal Healthcare in the US to help pay for these services?

Honest interpretation: When was the last time the Catholic Church or other religious churches made a full court political press for Full-Blown Socialistic Massive Government in the US to help pay for these services?  With its death panels, one-size-fits-all solutions, eliminating personal care-giving by actual charitable organizations and replacing that with a faceless bureaucracy with its binding regulations, etc?  With one it is personal accountability and wise couseling.  The other it is heedless hedonism and anything goes lifestyle.

[Ragerunner]

15 minutes ago, longview said:

Honest interpretation: When was the last time the Catholic Church or other religious churches made a full court political press for Full-Blown Socialistic Massive Government in the US to help pay for these services?  With its death panels, one-size-fits-all solutions, eliminating personal care-giving by actual charitable organizations and replacing that with a faceless bureaucracy with its binding regulations, etc?  With one it is personal accountability and wise couseling.  The other it is heedless hedonism and anything goes lifestyle.

Don’t create a problem you are unwilling to create a solution for.

Edited July 17, 2022 by Ragerunner

[Meadowchik]

4 hours ago, longview said:

Honest interpretation: When was the last time the Catholic Church or other religious churches made a full court political press for Full-Blown Socialistic Massive Government in the US to help pay for these services?  With its death panels, one-size-fits-all solutions, eliminating personal care-giving by actual charitable organizations and replacing that with a faceless bureaucracy with its binding regulations, etc?  With one it is personal accountability and wise couseling.  The other it is heedless hedonism and anything goes lifestyle.

Such a binary take of our possible options as a country is comically sad and of course not the case.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Quote

Scott Herndon, who is running unopposed for a state Senate seat, proposed the amendment, which he called a “declaration of the right to life for preborn children.” 

Herndon said even in the cases where a person’s life is endangered, doctors should not be giving priority to the person over the unborn child.

“We will never win this human rights issue, the greatest of our time, if we make allowances for the intentional killing of another human being,” Herndon said, according to the Capital Sun.

The future looks bright! Up in Idaho the state GOP has decided the life of the mother exemption is way too broad. 

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/3563905-idaho-gop-rejects-platform-change-allowing-abortion-to-save-womans-life/amp/

[smac97]

On 7/17/2022 at 11:15 AM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

From one of our resident Catholics:

 

How many of those points do you personally support?

“Some possible next steps for state and/or federal legislatures:

• robust child support enforcement, including easy and simple ways for mothers to report delinquent dads

I support this, but this is mostly already the status quo.  Additionally "robust" measures would likely devolve to ... incarceration.  That doesn't seem to do anyone much good.

On 7/17/2022 at 11:15 AM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

• free pre and post birth medical care, including options for therapy, parenting classes, etc.

We already have a pretty robust social safety net.  

I'm a bit leery of the "Free Stuff from the Government!" approach.  This pretty much always leads to massive expenditures, graft and corruption, poor (really poor) medical care, and so on.

The government, in a word, sucks.  It is vastly incompetent, particularly as to matters outside its constitutional mandates (such as providing health care).  Exhibit A: The VA.

Historically, private groups (that is to say, private religious groups - it's not like secularists/atheists often step up) have provided such holistic services in charitable ways.  I think such private groups need to continue and improve on this wonderful tradition.  

On 7/17/2022 at 11:15 AM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

• extended paid maternity leave

I am open to this.  Not sure how long, though.  I am mindful of the substantial burden this imposes on small businesses, which are the backbone of America's economy.

On 7/17/2022 at 11:15 AM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

• free childcare
• free pre-K

See above comments about Free Stuff from the Government.  What could possibly go wrong?

On 7/17/2022 at 11:15 AM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

• all of this with as little bureaucracy as possible, so it is easy to apply for and receive”

Sure.  Like the government has demonstrated the capacity to do anything "with as little bureaucracy as possible."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 7/17/2022 at 4:25 PM, Meadowchik said:

Such a binary take of our possible options as a country is comically sad and of course not the case.

Have you ever spoken to people trying to get medical services from the VA?

Are you sure you want to inflict that sort of astonishingly vast incompetence on expectant and new mothers?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 7/17/2022 at 10:37 AM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Catholics have a very consistent view on life. Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints? Not so much. Here is where the Catholic Church falls on health care:

“The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has repeatedly stated that healthcare is a basic human right, saying in 2013 that, “Coverage should be truly universal and should not be denied to those in need because of their condition, age, where they come from or when they arrive here. Providing affordable and accessible health care that clearly reflects these fundamental principles is a public good and moral imperative.””

https://faithinhealthcare.org/fhc/what-does-your-faith-community-say-about-medicare-all

A few thoughts here:

First, it is patently unconstitutional.  There is no "right" to healthcare in the Constitution.

Second, both federal and state governments already have massive, and massively expensive, social safety nets.

Third, states are at liberty to legislate such a "right," or else amend their constitutions to create such a right.  However, a real problem arises when that happens.  The "rights" we generally think of under the Constitution are protected against the State, not provided by State.  We have a right to Free Speech and Freedom of the Press, but the State is not obligated to buy each American a printing press or a website.  All that changes if and when healthcare, in terms of both goods and services, becomes a "right."  The State becomes the source, it is obligated to provide such goods and services.  

Fourth, I think there are segments of society for whom the answer to every social issue is "More Government."  I question that.  A lot.  A lot.

Fifth, I respectfully disagree with our Catholic brothers and sisters.  I certainly share the underlying sentiment about needing to help our neighbors in real and material ways.  I just do not believe and endlessly-expanding government is the best way to go about reaching those ends.  Historically the Catholics have an admirable track record in terms of providing educational opportunities, healthcare, and so on.  As charitable endeavors, for the betterment of individuals and society.  Let's grow such grassroots efforts rather than toss it all to the massively incompetent organs of government.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

59 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The future looks bright! Up in Idaho the state GOP has decided the life of the mother exemption is way too broad. 

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/3563905-idaho-gop-rejects-platform-change-allowing-abortion-to-save-womans-life/amp/

There should be some few exemptions to an otherwise general law prohibiting abortions.  Some well and truly are medically necessary.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Have you ever spoken to people trying to get medical services from the VA?

Are you sure you want to inflict that sort of astonishingly vast incompetence on expectant and new mothers?

Thanks,

-Smac

How could the USA possibly decrease its health care effectiveness?

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy-vs-health-expenditure

[SeekingUnderstanding]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A few thoughts here:

First, it is patently unconstitutional.  There is no "right" to healthcare in the Constitution.

Second, both federal and state governments already have massive, and massively expensive, social safety nets.

Third, states are at liberty to legislate such a "right," or else amend their constitutions to create such a right.  However, a real problem arises when that happens.  The "rights" we generally think of under the Constitution are protected against the State, not provided by State.  We have a right to Free Speech and Freedom of the Press, but the State is not obligated to buy each American a printing press or a website.  All that changes if and when healthcare, in terms of both goods and services, becomes a "right."  The State becomes the source, it is obligated to provide such goods and services.  

Fourth, I think there are segments of society for whom the answer to every social issue is "More Government."  I question that.  A lot.  A lot.

Fifth, I respectfully disagree with our Catholic brothers and sisters.  I certainly share the underlying sentiment about needing to help our neighbors in real and material ways.  I just do not believe and endlessly-expanding government is the best way to go about reaching those ends.  Historically the Catholics have an admirable track record in terms of providing educational opportunities, healthcare, and so on.  As charitable endeavors, for the betterment of individuals and society.  Let's grow such grassroots efforts rather than toss it all to the massively incompetent organs of government.

Thanks,

-Smac

Right, so you are not so much prolife, as in making sure that people that are with us have access to medical care, education, etc, but are more accurately described as pro forced birth. You do you. 

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Right, so you are not so much prolife,

No.  I am very much prolife.

29 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

as in making sure that people that are with us have access to medical care, education, etc,

I am very much in favor of these things.

29 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

but are more accurately described as pro forced birth. You do you. 

No.

I would not presume to caricaturize and distort your position in this way.  Perhaps you could reciprocate.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

46 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

How could the USA possibly decrease its health care effectiveness?

I think the fastest way would be to put the Federal Government in charge of it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 19, 2022 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No.  I am very much prolife.

I am very much in favor of these things.

No.

I would not presume to caricaturize and distort your position in this way.  Perhaps you could reciprocate.

Thanks,

-Smac

Of course you wouldn’t 🙄

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/74150-scotus-oral-argument-on-abortion-rights-case/?do=findComment&comment=1210066680

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Have you ever spoken to people trying to get medical services from the VA?

Are you sure you want to inflict that sort of astonishingly vast incompetence on expectant and new mothers?

Thanks,

-Smac

If there is a problem, make it better. Don't tell me it's hopeless. 

I have received effective pre and post natal care through government help.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

13 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

If there is a problem, make it better. Don't tell me it's hopeless. 

I have received effective pre and post natal care through government help.

It seems obvious doesn’t it…

[smac97]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

I would not presume to caricaturize and distort your position in this way.  Perhaps you could reciprocate.

Of course you wouldn’t 🙄

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/74150-scotus-oral-argument-on-abortion-rights-case/?do=findComment&comment=1210066680

From that post:

• Me: "All the more disappointing, then, that you would try to so flagrantly misrepresent what we believe."
• Me: "Do Latter-day Saints believe that people will be 'damned to eternal torment for avoiding tithing'?  No.  Plainly not."
• Me: "There are plenty of people who come here who are not familiar with our beliefs, and who might think that someone posting from Kaysville, Utah under a noble-sounding pseudonym of 'SeekingUnderstanding' might be fairly representing what Latter-day Saints believe.  They would be wrong in that supposition."
• Me: "You said "damned to eternal torment for avoiding tithing."  That is nowhere near an accurate statement of our beliefs."
• Me: "You later quoted D&C 19:10, which also does not include the phrase  'eternal torment.'"
• Me: "You were attempting to defend one falsehood (Kimpearson's suggestion that tithing 'is a forced taking') with another (that Latter-day Saints believe that people will be 'damned to eternal torment for avoiding tithing.'  You then quoted D&C 19:10, which says nothing about failure to pay tithing resulting in 'eternal torment.'"
• Me: "God has never said that 'His punishment' for failure to pay tithes is - as you put - "eternal torment."  Instead, the more accurate characterization would be found in D&C 76."
• Me: "I am calling you out for flagrantly misrepresenting our beliefs by . . . pointing to those misrepresentations and calling them what they are."
• Me: "Another falsehood.  '{D}amned to eternal torment for avoiding tithing' is your language."

This is all me rebutting your distortions, caricatures, misrepresentations, etc. of our beliefs.  I don't see where I caricatured you or your position.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

.  I don't see where I caricatured you or your position.  

Of course you don’t. 👍

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

 

Have you ever spoken to people trying to get medical services from the VA?

Are you sure you want to inflict that sort of astonishingly vast incompetence on expectant and new mothers?

 

If there is a problem, make it better.

I believe I spoke to that very point:

Quote

 

The government, in a word, sucks.  It is vastly incompetent, particularly as to matters outside its constitutional mandates (such as providing health care).  Exhibit A: The VA.

Historically, private groups (that is to say, private religious groups - it's not like secularists/atheists often step up) have provided such holistic services in charitable ways.  I think such private groups need to continue and improve on this wonderful tradition.  

You did not pay any attention to this.  

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Don't tell me it's hopeless. 

I didn't.  I pointed to the above proposal.  Here's another: Let's work against efforts by you Elizabeth Warren to shut down Crisis Pregnancy Centers.  IIRC you admire and support her, yes?  Do you support her efforts on this point?  See here:

Quote

Elizabeth Warren Wants To Shut Down All of the Country's Crisis Pregnancy Centers

Doing so would be blatantly unconstitutional.

LIZ WOLFE | 7.14.2022 10:45 AM

 

"In Massachusetts right now, those crisis pregnancy centers that are there to fool people who are looking for pregnancy termination help outnumber true abortion clinics by three to one," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) told NBC 10 Boston. "We need to shut them down here in Massachusetts and we need to shut them down all around the country."

"You should not be able to torture a pregnant person like that," she added, referring to the work done by the pro-life charities.

It's unclear what legal authority Elizabeth Warren would use to enact her will. In fact, a sitting U.S. senator trying to shut down charitable organizations, like crisis pregnancy centers, for no violation of laws but rather due to the fact that they further the pro-life cause, would be quite blatantly unconstitutional.

Per Warren's comments and legislation, it's clear she has a problem with crisis pregnancy centers and their work, which she claims is tantamount to "torture." But she can't harness the power of the federal government to go after these organizations because she dislikes the cause they're promoting.

If a specific crisis pregnancy center is engaged in fraudulent activity—breaking actual laws—that's cause for investigation and possible shutdown. And she is correct to claim that some of them do provide misleading information. An NBC News investigation, in which reporters went undercover, found that a crisis pregnancy center at the southern border "played a video saying that abortions cause mental illness," and had a staffer "impl[ying] that abortions can cause cancer and infertility." When a producer visited another crisis pregnancy center as part of the investigation, a counselor repeated infertility scaremongering before gifting her baby booties for her child. Claims about abortion being linked to infertility and cancer are not true; medically speaking, abortion is actually quite safe (for the mother, that is).

Sometimes these centers steer women toward viewing ultrasounds of their babies, in the hopes of guilting them into keeping them by showing them how much they already resemble tiny humans. Some crisis pregnancy centers use aggressive, deceptive marketing to capture women's abortion-related search results and lure them into the centers, which get disguised as clinics. (As Reason's Elizabeth Nolan Brown wrote recently, some Democratic senators—Warren included—are trying to pressure Google CEO Sundar Pichai to restrict crisis pregnancy centers from search results and to attach disclaimers to the pregnancy centers that do pop up.)

Warren misses or obscures the fact that many of these centers provide clothing, diapers, formula, and counseling to women who are severely in need—all while ignoring that these centers have recently come under attack by arsonists and vandals all over the country who are trying to prevent these centers from performing the charitable work they set out to do. Of course, volunteers and workers at these centers are not agnostic about which choice women make; these charities are all founded to persuade women to choose not to abort their babies. They're attempts by pro-lifers to spend their time and resources in a way that's consistent with their convictions.

Pro-choicers frequently criticize pro-lifers for abandoning women once they've made the decision not to abort or for being insufficiently charitable toward mothers in need. But crisis pregnancy centers are attempts, however imperfect, at precisely that. Whatever you think of their tactics, calling for them to be shut down by the federal government would be a gross misuse of state power.

I quite agree with the foregoing sentiments regarding Crisis Pregnancy Centers.  Do you?

Meanwhile, the government continues to suck, to be vastly incompetent, particularly as to matters outside its constitutional mandates (such as providing health care, as demonstrated by the horribleness of the VA).  

Again: Have you ever spoken to people trying to get medical services from the VA?

Again: Are you sure you want to inflict that sort of astonishingly vast incompetence on expectant and new mothers?

In sum:

1) You ignored my point about private groups providing services to expecting and new mothers.

2) You ignored my point about the vast incompetence of the VA as a rebuttal to notion of putting government (!) in charge of maternal care.

3) You ignored my questions about about your familiarity with the quality of VA care and whether you want expectant and new mothers to endure that kind of horribleness.

4) After having ignored all these things you tell me to "make it better."

Oi.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your proposal seems to be to have the same government that has spent the past many, many decades providing horrible medical care to veterans to also be in charge of pre- and post-natal services to mothers and babies.  Is this a correct characterization of your position?

The government has a substantial and dismal track record for providing appallingly poor medical care, so "let's have the government do it, but this time they'll get it right!"-style approaches just don't work for me.

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I have received effective pre and post natal care through government help.

Glad to hear it. 

Meanwhile, however, the reality is that "{w}aste in the U.S. healthcare system is $760 billion to $935 billion annually, or 25% of total medical spending, according to a new analysis published in JAMA {Journal of the American Medical Association}." 

Imagine how much health care could be provided by using, instead of wasting, nearly a trillion dollars a year.  That's the status quo.  You seem to be arguing for more government in health care.  Is that correct? 

If so, how many hundreds of billions of dollars in wasted expenditures will it take for you to reconsider the "More Government!" approach?  $1 trillion?  $2 trillion?  

And I note that the issue of vast amounts of wasted money is in addition to the appalling quality of care provided by government via the VA.  Do you really think that the same government that is so vastly inept at managing the VA will somehow be able to turn things around in terms of providing perinatal care to millions and millions of expectant/new mothers?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

I don't see where I caricatured you or your position.  

Of course you don’t. 👍

Well, okay.  CFR.  Chapter and verse, please, where I caricatured you or your position.

Thanks,

-Smac