Culture

[Irish#1]

A common taking point in many threads has been what a bunch of losers millennials are. About two weeks ago I worked as a crew leader/technical adviser on a volunteer trail building project. The majority of the volunteers were millennials and I have to say it was one of the best volunteer workday experiences I have been a part of. They worked hard, were polite and constructive when they did have questions about what we were doing. 1.5 miles of new trail were built in a local park. Score one for the millennials.

Millennials are like any other age bracket. They have their good and their bad. I'm not sure millennials are afraid of work, but I do believe there is a good portion of them that believe their path to success should be short and sweet. I had one working for me. Nice kid, fresh out of college. A couple of things always puzzled me. He would always leave a mess in the kitchen/break room. Rather than calling him out, I sent an email to the staff reminding everyone to clean up after themselves. Shortly after, I hear him say to another employee, "Don't we have a cleaning lady come in on the weekends?"

When I hired him, I told him if he had patience after a year his role would be expanded. He was at eleven months when our company posted an opening for a marketing manager. He applied and of course with no experience or education in marketing he wasn't selected. A few weeks later, he turned in his notice as he took another job. Talking to him he said he felt he should be much further along in his career.

 

[ACamp1900]

Millennials are like any other age bracket. They have their good and their bad. I'm not sure millennials are afraid of work, but I do believe there is a good portion of them that believe their path to success should be short and sweet. I had one working for me. Nice kid, fresh out of college. A couple of things always puzzled me. He would always leave a mess in the kitchen/break room. Rather than calling him out, I sent an email to the staff reminding everyone to clean up after themselves. Shortly after, I hear him say to another employee, "Don't we have a cleaning lady come in on the weekends?"

When I hired him, I told him if he had patience after a year his role would be expanded. He was at eleven months when our company posted an opening for a marketing manager. He applied and of course with no experience or education in marketing he wasn't selected. A few weeks later, he turned in his notice as he took another job. Talking to him he said he felt he should be much further along in his career.

I'd actually say that it's somewhat trendy for our current youth to be fast tracked. At least in my experience... if you are over the age of 30 and want to move up and have not already done so good freaking luck in 2018. Every opening around me seems to getting filled with millennials fresh out of college with little to no experience for the job in question while numerous well qualified candidates of various ages (but all over 30) are lucky to get a second interview. It sure seems that the current hiring trend is find someone young... period.

 

[wizards8507]

I'd actually say that it's somewhat trendy for our current youth to be fast tracked. At least in my experience... if you are over the age of 30 and want to move up and have not already done so good freaking luck in 2018. Every opening around me seems to getting filled with millennials fresh out of college with little to no experience for the job in question while numerous well qualified candidates of various ages (but all over 30) are lucky to get a second interview. It sure seems that the current hiring trend is find someone young... period.

Depends on the field. In corporate finance, if you're not a manager by 30, you suck.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

It's your right to ignore the points about the loss of women's health care to those counties.

Abortion and provision of contraceptives are not "healthcare".

I doubt your assertion about G and PP.

From wikipedia:

It was founded in 1968 as the Center for Family Planning Program Development, a semiautonomous division of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. It was renamed in memory of Alan Frank Guttmacher, an obstetrician-gynecologist and former president of Planned Parenthood.

That they found it politically expedient to "spin off" Guttmacher doesn't suddenly make them an objective source.

With the loss of those clinics, women in those areas face a tough alternative for their health.

No, they won't. There are only 600 PP clinics across the country, compared to 13,000 federally qualified healthcare-centers which offer a much wider array of services (without abortion). Outnumbered nearly 20 to 1.

PP likes to portray itself as offering critical healthcare services to vulnerable females because that helps to justify the public funding they receive, but that image is belied by their own annual reports. For instance, last year PP clinics provided only 8,000 prenatal services compared to 321,384 abortions.

They are abortionists first, and contraceptive dispensers second. That's always been their core mission since their founding by outspoken racist and eugenicist Margaret Sanger (which is also why most clinics are located in minority neighborhoods). I honestly don't understand how any person of good will can continue supporting such an organization once you learn even a little bit about it's founder, it's history, and what it actually does.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">"Nine-month-old boys strongly preferred 'boy toys.' Nine-month-old girls preferred 'girl toys.' ... Campbell’s study is especially striking because she showed clearly that nine-month-old infants have no clue what gender they belong to." <a href="https://t.co/rJVJrKc9BH">https://t.co/rJVJrKc9BH</a></p>— W Bradford Wilcox (@WilcoxNMP) <a href="https://twitter.com/WilcoxNMP/status/1001571753192288259?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 29, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Legacy]

AT WORST, those women would lose their contraception. Contraception isn't healthcare.

Two incorrect assertions in two sentences. Congrats. You need to school yourself on their services.

 

[ACamp1900]

I honestly don't understand how any person of good will can continue supporting such an organization once you learn even a little bit about it's founder, it's history, and what it actually does.

 

[Legacy]

Abortion and provision of contraceptives are not "healthcare".



From wikipedia:



That they found it politically expedient to "spin off" Guttmacher doesn't suddenly make them an objective source.



No, they won't. There are only 600 PP clinics across the country, compared to 13,000 federally qualified healthcare-centers which offer a much wider array of services (without abortion). Outnumbered nearly 20 to 1.

PP likes to portray itself as offering critical healthcare services to vulnerable females because that helps to justify the public funding they receive, but that image is belied by their own annual reports. For instance, last year PP clinics provided only 8,000 prenatal services compared to 321,384 abortions.

They are abortionists first, and contraceptive dispensers second. That's always been their core mission since their founding by outspoken racist and eugenicist Margaret Sanger (which is also why most clinics are located in minority neighborhoods). I honestly don't understand how any person of good will can continue supporting such an organization once you learn even a little bit about it's founder, it's history, and what it actually does.

4.4 million STD tests and treatments.
2.7 million people using their contraception services
660 thousand cancer screenings
Care to 2.4 million people from their 600 clinics.
1.5 million people using its education and outreach services.

Impressive women's health care services. That's worth supporting whether you don't consider me as a person of good will or not. You may wish to speak with some of the Catholic and other religions care providers at those clinics about why they work there.

Many states have so lowered their standards for qualifying for Medicaid that a single, non-disabled person cannot meet them. PP clinics fill the needs for the services above.

 

[wizards8507]

4.4 million STD tests and treatments.
2.7 million people using their contraception services
660 thousand cancer screenings
Care to 2.4 million people from their 600 clinics.
1.5 million people using its education and outreach services.

Impressive women's health care services. That's worth supporting whether you don't consider me as a person of good will or not. You may wish to speak with some of the Catholic and other religions care providers at those clinics about why they work there.

The repeated, misleading claim that Planned Parenthood ‘provides’ mammograms

Many states have so lowered their standards for qualifying for Medicaid that a single, non-disabled person cannot meet them.

Good?

 

[Bishop2b5]

Even if PP's claims of "abortion is only 3% of what we do" and the "essential healthcare services" they provide were true (they're actually exceptionally misleading and dishonest), it wouldn't offset the morally repugnant act of killing innocent unborn humans. If someone raped or murdered a few women each year, would anyone think it was OK since they also sponsored an orphanage, treated the poor for free, volunteered at a homeless shelter, and helped little old ladies across the street? No amount of good deeds would offset the rapes & murders.

PP's claims are extremely misleading, inaccurate, and self-serving dishonest propaganda, but even if they weren't, it wouldn't make up for what they do. They're overwhelmingly just an abortion operation, but with a bit of window dressing that lets them claim they're really something else.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

4.4 million STD tests and treatments.
2.7 million people using their contraception services
660 thousand cancer screenings
Care to 2.4 million people from their 600 clinics.
1.5 million people using its education and outreach services.

Impressive women's health care services.

See wizards' link above about PP's mythical mammograms. They're handing out contraceptives and pressuring vulnerable women into murdering their own children. You might be impressed by that, but they're certainly not in the business of providing "health care services".

That's worth supporting whether you don't consider me as a person of good will or not. You may wish to speak with some of the Catholic and other religions care providers at those clinics about why they work there.

You really don't want to do this with me. I'm on the board of the largest crisis pregnancy center in Phoenix, and give significantly of my time and treasure to actually helping the women these ghouls target.

I have spoken with a couple "Catholics" on PP's payroll. I'm not sure why you think I'd find the arguments in favor of feticide more persuasive in the mouths of those who have chosen to excommunicate themselves from the Church.

And just so we're clear, if you're familiar with Sanger's project and you're still willing to advocate for PP, then no, I don't consider you a person of good will. You never answered my question in the Healthcare thread: do you consider yourself a Catholic? Because a lot of the cartoonishly Progressive positions you advocate for put you well beyond the Church's pale.

Many states have so lowered their standards for qualifying for Medicaid that a single, non-disabled person cannot meet them. PP clinics fill the needs for the services above.

As I mentioned above, they're pushing abortions and contraceptives. The rest is window dressing or outright fabrications. And despite their protestations on the subject, since their clinics are outnumbered 20 to 1 by federally-qualified healthcare centers, there's virtually no one who relies on PP for actual healthcare services.

If you're in a deep blue state that insists sacrificing children to Mammon is necessary for the Economy™, Sexual Autonomy™, Female Liberation™, etc., then by all means let them operate in your communities. But there is absolutely no reason why every American should be forced to subsidize their barbarity with federal tax dollars, or to even give them a foothold within the lines of dissenting jurisdictions.

 

[Legacy]

See wizards' link above about PP's mythical mammograms. They're handing out contraceptives and pressuring vulnerable women into murdering their own children. You might be impressed by that, but they're certainly not in the business of providing "health care services".



You really don't want to do this with me. I'm on the board of the largest crisis pregnancy center in Phoenix, and give significantly of my time and treasure to actually helping the women these ghouls target.

I have spoken with a couple "Catholics" on PP's payroll. I'm not sure why you think I'd find the arguments in favor of feticide more persuasive in the mouths of those who have chosen to excommunicate themselves from the Church.

And just so we're clear, if you're familiar with Sanger's project and you're still willing to advocate for PP, then no, I don't consider you a person of good will. You never answered my question in the Healthcare thread: do you consider yourself a Catholic? Because a lot of the cartoonishly Progressive positions you advocate for put you well beyond the Church's pale.



As I mentioned above, they're pushing abortions and contraceptives. The rest is window dressing or outright fabrications. And despite their protestations on the subject, since their clinics are outnumbered 20 to 1 by federally-qualified healthcare centers, there's virtually no one who relies on PP for actual healthcare services.

If you're in a deep blue state that insists sacrificing children to Mammon is necessary for the Economy™, Sexual Autonomy™, Female Liberation™, etc., then by all means let them operate in your communities. But there is absolutely no reason why every American should be forced to subsidize their barbarity with federal tax dollars, or to even give them a foothold within the lines of dissenting jurisdictions.

Ridiculous statements. When did I assert that PP provided mammograms? See my figures. I get that you do not care about the health care services that PP provides because of their involvement in abortions. You believe that PP "pushes contraceptives"? As opposed to any other health care providers who listen to their patients' requests for family planning? Evidently you feel comfortable in attacking my beliefs based on concern for the loss of these non-abortion services and classifying me as someone without good will, in favor of feticide, have cartoonish positions, and feel like I owe you an answer on my beliefs. Of course, you feel comfortable judging another person's morality and ethics and that you would put "Catholic" health care providers in quotes just because they work for PP even if they do not perform abortions.

 

[NorthDakota]

Of course, you feel comfortable judging another person's morality and ethics and that you would put "Catholic" health care providers in quotes just because they work for PP even if they do not perform abortions.

...from my fairly simple understanding, it looks like they excommunicated themselves.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

It's the only thing Elizabeth Warren has ever gotten right. The surge of working women has depressed wages while inflating the cost of housing and childcare. Childcare is free when you don't outsource it to strangers.

I just saw this. I'm currently reading this book now. Not far in, but have already noticed how contradicting this book is to her public political views on wages, free college, housing, vouchers, etc.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Whiskey, thanks for pointing out the biased position of the Guttmacher Institute. That was something in which I wasn't aware. Just a quick search re: abortion rates in countries where they have a right to choose, I noticed the citations are always via the Guttmacher data. It seems like common language to say that places with a right to choose, better access to contraceptives, and better sex education have lower abortion rates. Is this not accurate? Can you steer me in the right direction for research?

 

[Legacy]

I'm a Catholic obstetrician who had an abortion. This is not politics or religion. It's life. (USA Today)

I grew up in an anti-abortion world, but voting that way doesn't reduce abortions. We need to weigh the impact of our value-based political decisions.

My job is to take care of women. As an obstetrician-gynecologist working in Botswana, I see women through the highs and lows of their reproductive lives. Until last year, I personally had only experienced the highs. In 2015, I gave birth to a perfect baby at the right time in my life given my values and goals. A few years later, when I was ready, I got pregnant with my second child.

Last August, I went for my 20-week ultrasound, expecting to find out if number two was a boy or a girl. Instead, I looked to the monitor and found a fetus struggling to survive in my womb. I’m used to being on the other side of that ultrasound probe, so I knew what was next. I would have said the same thing: “The baby can’t survive. And you can get very sick.”

I found no judgment. I was meeting this doctor for the first time, and she embraced me as if I were her daughter. She knew my pain and shared in my sadness. She assembled a team in no time. I felt loved and supported.

“Terminate the pregnancy” were the words I chose to explain what was happening to my friends and family in Ohio. I was in sub-Saharan Africa, far away from them. I don’t know if they understood that I was preparing to have an abortion. I suspect they didn’t realize that people like me with a highly desired pregnancy sometimes need an abortion.

I grew up in an anti-abortion world, the third of four children in a middle-class, strongly Catholic household. My father had been in the seminary, planning to dedicate his life to the Church; my mother attended church as often as she could while raising four children. I went to Catholic grade school and Catholic high school and to church every Sunday.

I was part of our youth group and joined a “pro-life” march in Washington, D.C. I went to Notre Dame for college and lived and worked with missionaries for two years after graduation. I was indoctrinated to the highest degree in Catholic doctrine and dogma and at the end of it, I came away with the deep conviction that my upbringing and my religion were guiding me to live a life centered on social justice.

I had no idea how formative my Catholic education was in preparing me for my first encounter with a patient who needed an abortion. Empathy was one of the core values I was taught by my parents, who had a First Nation's People's proverb hanging in our house: “Do not judge your neighbor until you walk two moons in his moccasins.” My patient opened a door for me, revealed to me the dark and sad space in her life, and I could understand that for her, an abortion was both right and necessary. And for her to be able to make the choice was just.

When faced with my own abortion several years later, I was devastated. Yet at the same time, I was grateful that in a region of the world where many women do not have access to safe abortions, this care was readily available to me, in a setting of love and support.

Just a few months earlier, I had been called to the operating room in our district hospital. I found a young woman on the table and an even younger doctor attempting to gain control over a life-threatening complication of an attempted home abortion. I worked feverishly on her as her life drained away. I watched her blood turn from red to pink to clear. Despite all of my training, I was unable to undo what had been done. She was a mother of five who had seen abuse and abandonment. And there she was, dying in my hands.

I do not expect anyone to transform their moral ideology or religious convictions. We do, however, need to weigh very seriously the consequences of the political decisions we make based on our values. In my Catholic, middle-class community growing up, we were single-issue voters. We believed that we were preserving family values by voting “pro-life.” But what the data show, and what my own experience has demonstrated, is that theillegality of abortion does not decrease either the likelihood that women will seek an abortion, or that someone will provide an abortion.

When I began writing this confession, it stemmed from fear. I am afraid for the millions of women whose reality is different than mine. There are voices in politics that think it is okay to limit access to abortion and to deny women coverage for contraception. The rhetoric is around family values. But if we would recognize women’s right to self-determination, they and their families would become stronger. Women make the best decisions when they can make them for themselves and their families. Could we, not in spite of, but rather because of our moral convictions, focus our energy on uplifting women, making them stronger and breaking the structural violence that keeps them from controlling their own lives?

I am confessing outside of the confessional today because I have hope. When my community in Ohio saw me — their sister, daughter and friend — in front of them, my decision to have an abortion didn’t seem like a choice, but rather, a necessity. Something terrible and sad happened to me and in our intimate space, the response was obvious.

Every woman lives within her own intimate space. If we could extend that empathy to all women, those we have not yet nor will ever meet, to walk in their shoes, then we might trust all women to make the best decisions for themselves.

 

[Irish#1]

I'd actually say that it's somewhat trendy for our current youth to be fast tracked. At least in my experience... if you are over the age of 30 and want to move up and have not already done so good freaking luck in 2018. Every opening around me seems to getting filled with millennials fresh out of college with little to no experience for the job in question while numerous well qualified candidates of various ages (but all over 30) are lucky to get a second interview. It sure seems that the current hiring trend is find someone young... period.

That could be true, but I'm not sure that's across the board. One reason for fast tracking would be all of the baby boomers that are retiring so quickly. Those position need to be filled, but fast tracking a millennial because of a companies need to do it and because a millennial believes it's their right are two different things.

 

[zelezo vlk]

Yeah this is actually pretty simple, Christians don't kill their young. It's antithetical to the Christian belief (covered in the Didache) and really quite insulting when people say that it's reconcilable with the faith.

Go ahead and throw No True Scotsman out there, but Christianity requires orthopraxy, as well as orthodoxy. Rejecting the Church's teaching on abortion (or any number of teachings) means that you're not living a Catholic life and have separated yourself from the faith. Call it what you like, but you ain't Christian.

Reconciliation is always possible, but it demands more than muttering your sins through a screen (or confessing them in an article). It takes true metanoia, a turning away from sin in the heart. Incurvatus in se, literally a turning in on one's self is the term that Augustine used to described our disposition while sinful. Instead the beloved child of God must reveal their heart to God and turn away from sin.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Ridiculous statements. When did I assert that PP provided mammograms? See my figures.

It's directly relevant to the claim that PP is providing "healthcare services". Its apologists regularly point to mammograms as one of the "crucial services" they provide to vulnerable women that would go unserved if PP were defunded. Cecile Richards, Hillary Clinton, and countless congressional Democrats have repeated it, but it's a total fabrication. PP doesn't own a single mammography machine, and has never performed a mammogram in one of its clinics. But they "refer clients out for it", so their supporters think that counts. Never mind the fact that women old enough to need a mammogram are typically well past their reproductive prime, and thus make up only 7% of PP's core demographic...

I get that you do not care about the health care services that PP provides because of their involvement in abortions. You believe that PP "pushes contraceptives"? As opposed to any other health care providers who listen to their patients' requests for family planning?

I do care very much about the "services" PP provides. I simply dispute that they're accurately described as "healthcare". Read up on Sanger's eugenic mission. PP's original goal, which remains largely unchanged today, is to provide contraception, sterilization and abortion among demographics that our WASPy elites consider undesirable. And that still covers the vast majority of what they do. The fact that they've picked up some low-hanging fruit recently like mammography referrals, pap smears and HPV screenings in order to gain political cover for their real mission doesn't really change anything.

Evidently you feel comfortable in attacking my beliefs based on concern for the loss of these non-abortion services and classifying me as someone without good will, in favor of feticide, have cartoonish positions, and feel like I owe you an answer on my beliefs. Of course, you feel comfortable judging another person's morality and ethics and that you would put "Catholic" health care providers in quotes just because they work for PP even if they do not perform abortions.

Spare me. We've exchanged tens of thousands of words on this subject over the years. I'm quite familiar with your position. And yes, I'm very comfortable putting scare quotes around "Catholic" there as well since the Church is crystal clear about the consequences of abortion: automatic excommunication for anyone who procures one, or assists in the procurement. And while excommunication isn't automatic for those who simply advocate for such a grave evil, they're in an extremely tenuous situation.

Whiskey, thanks for pointing out the biased position of the Guttmacher Institute. That was something in which I wasn't aware. Just a quick search re: abortion rates in countries where they have a right to choose, I noticed the citations are always via the Guttmacher data. It seems like common language to say that places with a right to choose, better access to contraceptives, and better sex education have lower abortion rates. Is this not accurate? Can you steer me in the right direction for research?

It's technically correct, but it's very misleading. Our TFR just hit a historic low of 1.77. Replacement rate is 2.2. If you think our politics are unstable now, just wait until our shrinking tax base and rapidly graying population push us into full-blown crisis mode. American women have also been failing to have as many children as they say they want for many years now. There are lot of factors behind this, but they all fall into one of two categories: (1) our economy is hostile to family formation; and (2) our culture encourages practices and technologies that are also hostile to family formation.

PP is major contributor to (2). So I don't give them any credit for falling abortion rates. Why should anyone be cheered that we're murdering a smaller proportion of our own children because people simply aren't having kids anymore? The "medicine" is worse than the disease here.

I'm a Catholic obstetrician who had an abortion. This is not politics or religion. It's life. (USA Today)

What a joke. There's absolutely no analysis of why her baby "was struggling in the womb", what the medical options were, etc. She may have been morally justified in undergoing a procedure that resulted in the loss of her baby's life as secondary effect. But in that case, it's still a tragic outcome which should not be described with such language.

This woman excommunicated herself from the Church, and took to the pages of a nationally syndicated magazine not to "confess", but to try to convince other Catholic women to follow her example. This isn't going to convince anyone who doesn't already share your priors, Legacy.

 

[Irishize]

It's directly relevant to the claim that PP is providing "healthcare services". Its apologists regularly point to mammograms as one of the "crucial services" they provide to vulnerable women that would go unserved if PP were defunded. Cecile Richards, Hillary Clinton, and countless congressional Democrats have repeated it, but it's a total fabrication. PP doesn't own a single mammography machine, and has never performed a mammogram in one of its clinics. But they "refer clients out for it", so their supporters think that counts. Never mind the fact that women old enough to need a mammogram are typically well past their reproductive prime, and thus make up only 7% of PP's core demographic...



I do care very much about the "services" PP provides. I simply dispute that they're accurately described as "healthcare". Read up on Sanger's eugenic mission. PP's original goal, which remains largely unchanged today, is to provide contraception, sterilization and abortion among demographics that our WASPy elites consider undesirable. And that still covers the vast majority of what they do. The fact that they've picked up some low-hanging fruit recently like mammography referrals, pap smears and HPV screenings in order to gain political cover for their real mission doesn't really change anything.



Spare me. We've exchanged tens of thousands of words on this subject over the years. I'm quite familiar with your position. And yes, I'm very comfortable putting scare quotes around "Catholic" there as well since the Church is crystal clear about the consequences of abortion: automatic excommunication for anyone who procures one, or assists in the procurement. And while excommunication isn't automatic for those who simply advocate for such a grave evil, they're in an extremely tenuous situation.



It's technically correct, but it's very misleading. Our TFR just hit a historic low of 1.77. Replacement rate is 2.2. If you think our politics are unstable now, just wait until our shrinking tax base and rapidly graying population push us into full-blown crisis mode. American women have also been failing to have as many children as they say they want for many years now. There are lot of factors behind this, but they all fall into one of two categories: (1) our economy is hostile to family formation; and (2) our culture encourages practices and technologies that are also hostile to family formation.

PP is major contributor to (2). So I don't give them any credit for falling abortion rates. Why should anyone be cheered that we're murdering a smaller proportion of our own children because people simply aren't having kids anymore? The "medicine" is worse than the disease here.



What a joke. There's absolutely no analysis of why her baby "was struggling in the womb", what the medical options were, etc. She may have been morally justified in undergoing a procedure that resulted in the loss of her baby's life as secondary effect. But in that case, it's still a tragic outcome which should not be described with such language.

This woman excommunicated herself from the Church, and took to the pages of a nationally syndicated magazine not to "confess", but to try to convince other Catholic women to follow her example. This isn't going to convince anyone who doesn't already share your priors, Legacy.

https://mobile.twitter.com/lilagracerose/status/1002589472200880128

 

[Legacy]

I'll articulate my thoughts as best I can with an illustration. For others. see my thoughts and W's in the HC thread with our differing thoughts. Both to me are respectful posts and we exchanged PMs.

A couple has two daughters (and a son) but the daughters are for the comparison. One has graduated from ND and married an Ob-Gyn and they are expecting. The other is a student at ND, was raped , and is with child as a result. She has shared this only with her sister not her parents. Both are having significant bleeding requiring trips to the ER emergently. The older sister is elsewhere, goes to a non-Catholic hospital. The younger sister is transported to St. Joes. The physicians for both inform them that their fetuses are not expected to live, but they have heartbeats. The eldest daughter and her husband have the difficult discussion with the Ob-Gyn, with full understanding of the risks and situation, of course. At St. Joe's the physicians cannot inform the younger daughter of the possibility of the alternative of inducing an abortion at another hospital due to constraints based on the hospital following Catholic doctrine and the U.S. Bishop's dictates (Ethical and Religious Doctrine or ERDs) since her life at this time is not in danger. All also understand Catholic teaching. The younger daughter is stabilized and sent home with the instruction to return ASAP for further bleeding. She does have the bleeding agains, more serious this time. Although she is more serious, she is stabilized with blood transfusions and sent back to her dorm. Again she cannot be informed of the standard of care and recommendations by her Ob-Gyn at St. Joes due to hospital policy, as her sister was, in order to make their decision. The St Joe's physician is also constrained from telling her that at Memorial she could have been of the possibility of an abortion. Both fetuses still have heartbeats. The older sister and husband make the unbearably difficult decision to end her pregnancy because she, too, is having worsening hemorrhaging. Both fetuses still have heartbeats. The younger sister is again sent home, possibly violating state laws, EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act) as well as Ob-Gyn national standards of care by not informing her of the alternatives choices her sister has made and that Indiana law permits abortion for rape. The physicians are also constrained from transferring her to another hospital where she might obtain an abortion. Her bleeding worsens and she dies on transport back to St. Joe's ER. The parents arrive too late and face the tragedy of a daughter's death as well as the deaths of two fetuses and that the surviving daughter and her husband may be considered by the Church to be excommunicated by their decision to abort. The father, a lawyer, also understands the situation the hospital lawyer for St. Joe's is in - as well as the ER doc and the Ob-Gyn at St. Joe's - in defending hospital policy based on the Catholic Bishops' ERDs. Others may have sued but the parents do not. In some ways, this may be similar to the story above written by an Ob-Gyn who also graduated from ND.

I am open to any thoughts and clarifications on this hypothetical which also has had real examples.

 

[Wild Bill]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-baker/supreme-court-hands-narrow-win-to-baker-over-gay-couple-dispute-idUSKCN1J01WU

-7-2 decision

-narrow win

 

[BleedBlueGold]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-baker/supreme-court-hands-narrow-win-to-baker-over-gay-couple-dispute-idUSKCN1J01WU

-7-2 decision

-narrow win

Good.

It's my opinion that the baker should have just conducted business as usual and left his religion and the sexual orientation of the potential customers out of the transaction. However, he has a right as a business owner to make that call. There's no need for the government to get involved here. Let the local market dictate what happens next. People can choose to boycott and take their business elsewhere, ultimately driving that baker out of business. Or not.

 

[ACamp1900]

That could be true, but I'm not sure that's across the board. One reason for fast tracking would be all of the baby boomers that are retiring so quickly. Those position need to be filled, but fast tracking a millennial because of a companies need to do it and because a millennial believes it's their right are two different things.

Sure. I just threw that side point out there... at least in Education it's thing, I'm lucky I got my seat when I did. If I were to have to look for another admin spot now my numerous degrees and experience would matter not at all in comparison to some kid who literally just graduated and has zero relative experience. It's been pretty striking over the last couple years. I wouldn't say anyone needs to do it though, it't not like there aren't other people in the pond besides Boomers and Millennials. For whatever reason youth has been greatly prioritized recently.

 

[Legacy]

Beyond the Rhetoric: The Real-World Impact of Attacks on Planned Parenthood and Title X (Guttmacher)

In recent months, social conservatives have doubled down on various long-standing proposals to deny public funding to Planned Parenthood and other providers focused on reproductive health. This includes efforts by Congress and the Trump administration to bar Planned Parenthood from receiving funding through federal programs—including Medicaid and the Title X national family planning program—as well as attempts to eliminate or reshape Title X, based on the premise that the program indirectly subsidizes abortion. Proponents of such restrictions are ultimately seeking to make abortion inaccessible for U.S. women, and so are seeking to shutter Planned Parenthood health centers and any safety-net health center providing publicly funded family planning services that additionally offers abortions (using other funds), or is affiliated with an abortion provider.

However, the consequences of these proposals reach far beyond abortion. Nationwide, Planned Parenthood health centers serve two million (32%) of the 6.2 million women who obtain contraceptive care from some type of safety-net family planning center.1 And 1.6 million (41%) of the 3.8 million contraceptive clients served by Title X–funded providers are served at Planned Parenthood health centers.

Recent analyses conducted by the Guttmacher Institute have looked at the impact of four different scenarios that align with many of the specific antiabortion policy attacks that have been proposed at the federal and state levels. Each scenario would radically undermine the nation’s family planning safety net and blatantly jeopardize women’s access to family planning care.

Scenario 1: Exclude Planned Parenthood from all publicly funded programs.

Scenario 2: Bar federal funding to Planned Parenthood, with the expectation that FQHCs can fill the gap.

Scenario 3: Exclude Planned Parenthood from Title X.

Scenario 4: Eliminate or restructure Title X to shift funding to FQHCs.

 

[NorthDakota]

Good.

It's my opinion that the baker should have just conducted business as usual and left his religion and the sexual orientation of the potential customers out of the transaction. However, he has a right as a business owner to make that call. There's no need for the government to get involved here. Let the local market dictate what happens next. People can choose to boycott and take their business elsewhere, ultimately driving that baker out of business. Or not.

There was a few other items he wouldn't do as well. I believe alcohol related, gay bashing, or other themes he did not think were appropriate.

That business almost certainly got targeted. Happy he won.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Legacy, with all due respect, Whiskey pointed out the extreme propagandistic bias that is the Guttmacher Inst. I'm interested in reading your posts, but could you at least try to find other sources, please?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Whiskey, thanks for pointing out the biased position of the Guttmacher Institute. That was something in which I wasn't aware. Just a quick search re: abortion rates in countries where they have a right to choose, I noticed the citations are always via the Guttmacher data. It seems like common language to say that places with a right to choose, better access to contraceptives, and better sex education have lower abortion rates. Is this not accurate? Can you steer me in the right direction for research?

BBG, I forgot to mention in my response above that it's not true that more permissive abortion regimes correlate with fewer abortions and better health outcomes for women. Ireland, for instance, has the most legal restrictions in all of Europe, and also enjoys the lowest abortion rate and some of the best health outcomes for women. There are similar correlations here in the US and elsewhere.

I'll articulate my thoughts as best I can with an illustration. For others. see my thoughts and W's in the HC thread with our differing thoughts. Both to me are respectful posts and we exchanged PMs.

A couple has two daughters (and a son) but the daughters are for the comparison. One has graduated from ND and married an Ob-Gyn and they are expecting. The other is a student at ND, was raped , and is with child as a result. She has shared this only with her sister not her parents. Both are having significant bleeding requiring trips to the ER emergently. The older sister is elsewhere, goes to a non-Catholic hospital. The younger sister is transported to St. Joes. The physicians for both inform them that their fetuses are not expected to live, but they have heartbeats. The eldest daughter and her husband have the difficult discussion with the Ob-Gyn, with full understanding of the risks and situation, of course. At St. Joe's the physicians cannot inform the younger daughter of the possibility of the alternative of inducing an abortion at another hospital due to constraints based on the hospital following Catholic doctrine and the U.S. Bishop's dictates (Ethical and Religious Doctrine or ERDs) since her life at this time is not in danger. All also understand Catholic teaching. The younger daughter is stabilized and sent home with the instruction to return ASAP for further bleeding. She does have the bleeding agains, more serious this time. Although she is more serious, she is stabilized with blood transfusions and sent back to her dorm. Again she cannot be informed of the standard of care and recommendations by her Ob-Gyn at St. Joes due to hospital policy, as her sister was, in order to make their decision. The St Joe's physician is also constrained from telling her that at Memorial she could have been of the possibility of an abortion. Both fetuses still have heartbeats. The older sister and husband make the unbearably difficult decision to end her pregnancy because she, too, is having worsening hemorrhaging. Both fetuses still have heartbeats. The younger sister is again sent home, possibly violating state laws, EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act) as well as Ob-Gyn national standards of care by not informing her of the alternatives choices her sister has made and that Indiana law permits abortion for rape. The physicians are also constrained from transferring her to another hospital where she might obtain an abortion. Her bleeding worsens and she dies on transport back to St. Joe's ER. The parents arrive too late and face the tragedy of a daughter's death as well as the deaths of two fetuses and that the surviving daughter and her husband may be considered by the Church to be excommunicated by their decision to abort. The father, a lawyer, also understands the situation the hospital lawyer for St. Joe's is in - as well as the ER doc and the Ob-Gyn at St. Joe's - in defending hospital policy based on the Catholic Bishops' ERDs. Others may have sued but the parents do not. In some ways, this may be similar to the story above written by an Ob-Gyn who also graduated from ND.

I am open to any thoughts and clarifications on this hypothetical which also has had real examples.

The wanted/unwanted, rape, incest, etc. factors are red herrings. The baby is never morally culpable for the circumstances that led to her conception, and they can never justify abortion. Adoption is always an option if such circumstances lead the mother to believe she cannot raise the child herself.

So let's cut right to risks to the life of these two women:

First, a direct abortion--meaning a procedure that's sole aim is the death of the child in utero--in never "medically necessary" to save the life of the mother. There are, however, certain treatments for the mother's life-threatening condition that have the unintended (but foreseeable) secondary effect of ending the child's life. So in your hypothetical above, St. Joe's would not have been constrained at all by Catholic doctrine in treating the younger daughter.

Second, the % of abortion that occur because the pregnancy actually threatened the mother's life are vanishingly small:

The maxim "hard cases make bad law" applies here. It does not say much about the strength of the case for abortion that its defenders immediately turn to the super rare cases of rape, incest, and threats to the life of the mother when the vast majority of abortions are performed without any compelling reason.

Third, your hypothetical reads like a Jack Chick caricature of Catholic institutions. A vulnerable woman is sent away multiple times without proper medical treatment for a seemingly arbitrary dogmatic reason (her baby still has a heartbeat); the compassionate doctor is "constrained", again arbitrarily, from informing the woman of her options; the Catholic hospital violates state law, etc. This is not remotely close to how Catholic hospitals operate, nor how the Church suggests that pregnant women with life-threatening conditions should be handled.

 

[Sureal]

So on the Protestant side of things- the SBC is getting capped (rightfully so) in the news right now.
https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2018/may/paige-patterson-fired-southwestern-baptist-seminary-sbc.html

https://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2018/may/my-statement-on-removal-of-paige-patterson.html

The SBC "convention" is next week. This will be interesting.

 

[Legacy]

Legacy, with all due respect, Whiskey pointed out the extreme propagandistic bias that is the Guttmacher Inst. I'm interested in reading your posts, but could you at least try to find other sources, please?

That assertion suits Whiskey. I post informative links, which, in this case, highlights the difficulty in switching over non-abortion services to Federally qualified health centers and others. That was the point of my original post with links and info provided. I don't necessarily dismiss a source because it is from the right or left or other than my own. All are worthy to be examined for their factual data. This Guttmacher article with its facts on increases in demand for services and the graphics is worth considering. I could not find other ones that had calculations for the increased needs of women's contraception needs - a service PP provides and that will receive federal funds anymore with the current Trump regulation change. Perhaps anti-abortion foes do not wish to address this need except with a broad "let them go to the FQHCs" and "it's a propagandistic arm of PP". As a rule, I don't advocate any source but share information in an article after a review.

If clients in FQHCs for contraceptives go up 116% and additional clients go up 55%, and if all but six states would have to double or triple their patient loads to provide contraceptive services should PP shut down, those are worth considering for women's health service. Regardless, anti-abortion advocates can't just ignore the other services it provides but must address these needs. You may have noticed that I do not advocate for abortion. Should we as a nation solve the demand and capacity for women's healthcare choices and availability for low-income, often minority, women, we shall move forward.

Did you notice that the link Whiskey provided on Abortion Facts was from "Abort73.com" with sublinks to "Bringing an End to Abortion" and "The Case against Abortion"? Propaganda? There are two different tables for reasons for abortion, though he posts the figures for one from just Florida. Reflective of reasons nationally? He should do better.

However, I'll go with their stated facts there that say black women are 3.5 time more likely to have an abortion than white women and that the abortion rate for Medicaid patients is three times as high as others.

To add to a previous link:
Women of Color More Likely to Give Birth in Hospitals Where Catholic Beliefs Hinder Care
(Rewire)