Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Justice Kennedy increasingly sides with Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan. Soon Justice Garland - or, possibly, an even more liberal Justice nominated in his stead by President Clinton - will join them.
Justice Ginsberg will very likely retire during the term of President Clinton. Her replacement will not change the makeup of the high court, but it will lock that seat away from the regressives until the year 2040 or beyond.
Justice Kennedy turns 80 in less than a month. While he sides with the liberal Justices more often than he used to, he still joins the regressive block frequently - he, too, will probably be replaced with a liberal Justice under President Clinton.
Then there are the reports that Justice Thomas will retire after the election.
Justice Kennedy increasingly sides with Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan. Soon Justice Garland - or, possibly, an even more liberal Justice nominated in his stead by President Clinton - will join them.
Justice Ginsberg will very likely retire during the term of President Clinton. Her replacement will not change the makeup of the high court, but it will lock that seat away from the regressives until the year 2040 or beyond.
Justice Kennedy turns 80 in less than a month. While he sides with the liberal Justices more often than he used to, he still joins the regressive block frequently - he, too, will probably be replaced with a liberal Justice under President Clinton.
Then there are the reports that Justice Thomas will retire after the election.
The tide is turning...
You are putting the cart before the horse when you speak of "President" Clinton. There is a lot that can happen between now and November. Afterall there is that little FBI invesigation that hasn't been settled yet. Perhaps it is just wishful thinking on your part.
You are putting the cart before the horse when you speak of "President" Clinton. There is a lot that can happen between now and November. Afterall there is that little FBI invesigation that hasn't been settled yet. Perhaps it is just wishful thinking on your part.
President Clinton, President Sanders or President Biden. Any of those three could beat the Republican nominee.
It sounds like you need to a) probably keep it in your pants a lot more and b) use protection. If you want to avoid the whole messy affair of fertility, let your own solution begin at home ... in your own pants.
FYI I didn't have children until my wife and I both wanted and could afford them.
I know.........that must be such an odd, foreign concept to you.
As a christian and quasi messanic my view regarding abortion still basically stands, ( pro life), but as I deal with some variables . I 'm left ( especially as a guy) without a remedy within certain issues including the following:
1 self abortion ( where the woman is lacking transportation and funds to even travel to distant clinics
( naturally I wish the entire scenario was unnecessary. ). This is a risky situation.
2. Complications associated with even doctors who have privileges at a hospital . Infection and
systemic sepsis . I do concede that the hospital provides sterilization , but if inspected peripheral
locations can qualify for similar standards. In the past some of the rogue docs didn't eve use
gloves!! They were addicted to drugs, alcohol, sex offenders many on observed probation.
3. Since we cannot control abortions based on our religious convictions alone and the abortion is
inevitable then my christian view is make sure it is performed correctly and monitored. This does not
mean I condon abortion , but a safe haven must be provided for woman otherwise at risk.
In the biggest reproductive rights case since Casey, Texas law HB2 - which required that abortion providers have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles and that abortion providers adhere to the same requirements as for outpatient surgical providers.
Of course, these requirements had no purpose whatsoever other than to make providing and obtaining an abortion more expensive and more of a hassle.
Justice Breyer authored the majority opinion in the 5-3 case, which broke along predictable lines.
Let's forget about abortion for a second and just look at the laws themselves.
From a patient safety standpoint and from the standpoint of not making the lives of every emergency department'S personnel a total nightmare, it is imperative that physicians who perform invasive procedures have an admitting hospital so that they themselves can take care of the complications that arise from these procedures.
I'm not even talking about abortions. I think this should be true across the board. You have no idea what kind of problems this causes.
Yes, in all likelihood this law was made to be obstructionist to abortions. But frankly it is actually a really good idea. I wish it was the law for every "outpatient" procedure. So the rest of us aren't left holding the bag.
And, as a total aside and PSA...FTLOG, would you people who have surgeries or established specialists at one hospital quit going to random ERs for problems related to what they've been treating???!! At best, you're going to get delayed care. At worst, you're going to get a lengthy and expensive transfer that risks your health, costs thousands more for no reason, and risks the lives the other patients in the emergency department who have to wait while your complicated transfer process is being arranged. Go back to original hospital. Please!!!
Abortion is an unpleasant procedure to think about or discuss, but from a medical standpoint it's just a procedure - much like removing a wisdom tooth, a mole, cataracts, or an infected big toenail.
consider it just from the medical standpoint. If you can, and compare procedures, it should be patently obvious what an overreach this law was.
Um, no.
In the 60,000+ patients I have seen in my career, not one has ever come in in extremis secondary to mole removal or cataract surgery.
I consider this very much from a medical standpoint.
Let's forget about abortion for a second and just look at the laws themselves.
From a patient safety standpoint and from the standpoint of not making the lives of every emergency department'S personnel a total nightmare, it is imperative that physicians who perform invasive procedures have an admitting hospital so that they themselves can take care of the complications that arise from these procedures.
I'm not even talking about abortions. I think this should be true across the board. You have no idea what kind of problems this causes.
Yes, in all likelihood this law was made to be obstructionist to abortions. But frankly it is actually a really good idea. I wish it was the law for every "outpatient" procedure. So the rest of us aren't left holding the bag.
Great post ER Doctor Stan4. Spoken like someone I would want taking care of me if needed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
