White House Defines Contraception as Abortion?
- Thread starter frocher
- Start date
xxManBeaterxx
Well-known member
They say younger women in their teens and early 20's have had eggs live up to 3 days!!!! and young male sperm up to 7 in a womans mucas cervix.. And as you age the sperm becomes less hyper active and slows down what i call the wiggle factor and it can last for 2-3 days. When i learned that in class no wonder doctors say your chances of getting pregnant younger increaces significantly.
*Stargazer*
Well-known member
This news story made me think of this post.
Quote:
FOXNews.com - Arkansas Doctor Reprimanded for Secretly Sterilizing Patient With 'Learning Difficulties' - Health News | Current Health News | Medical News
It made me think of this post because here we have someone interfering with the reproductive rights of another woman and getting a slap on the wrist. Scary.
Quote:
| The Arkansas State Medical Board has reprimanded an obstetrician who once practiced in Berryville after she admitted to secretly tying the fallopian tubes of a patient with learning difficulties. Dr. Shirolyn Ruth Moffett, who now has a private practice in Eureka Springs, performed the procedure on a patient last year during a Caesarean section. A split medical board vote 6-5 Thursday to place the reprimand on Moffett's permanent record, but it doesn't stop her from practicing medicine. Moffett says she performed the procedure because she feared the lining of the patient's uterus would burst if she got pregnant again. Moffett has resigned from her post at St. John's Hospital in Berryville. She also has decided never to deliver babies again. |
FOXNews.com - Arkansas Doctor Reprimanded for Secretly Sterilizing Patient With 'Learning Difficulties' - Health News | Current Health News | Medical News
It made me think of this post because here we have someone interfering with the reproductive rights of another woman and getting a slap on the wrist. Scary.
mona lisa
Well-known member
Quote:
TDoll is right, this merely says that the "morning after pill" will not be available for free at clinics like Planned Parenthood if it passes. That will hardly touch on other forms of contraception at all. But we really need to be careful how we approach this issue.
For example, though some states have separate right to privacy laws, there is no federal right to privacy in the Constitution. None whatsoever! And barring a constitutional amendment to provide for one, we cannot merely say such a right exists because either we want it to or because a judicially activist court in the mid 1960's (Griswold v. Connecticut circa 1965) on some of the most logically absurd pretense of "reasoning" decided to invent one out of thin air. That is legislating from the bench which is form of judicial corruption.
The same kind of judicial legislation was in play back in 2005 with the Kelo case where the court decided that big businesses could petition the state to steal your land under eminent domain for their own usage in blatant violation of the part of the fifth amendment which states that "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Notice this says that the eminent domain principle is forbidden unless the private property is taken for public use and cannot be without just compensation. But the court back in 2005 said that private businesses can arrange to steal individuals property and under-compensate them for it under the pretext of the private business being able to pay more in taxes and the like to the state coffers than the private individual could. And the court said this is supposedly "constitutional."
Now then, unless you do not mind justifying the "right" of private companies to steal your property and not justly compensate you for it as "constitutional" you would do well to not pretend that a similar fiction of a federal "constitutional right to privacy" exists. Because consistency would require that you either accept both propositions or reject them both as the same invention of non-existent "rights" is prevalent in both cases. This principle is either right or wrong period, not right or wrong only when you want it to be.
Originally Posted by purrtykitty
But, the Supreme Court as of right now has determined that a state does not have the right to interfere with a woman's fundamental right of privacy |
TDoll is right, this merely says that the "morning after pill" will not be available for free at clinics like Planned Parenthood if it passes. That will hardly touch on other forms of contraception at all. But we really need to be careful how we approach this issue.
For example, though some states have separate right to privacy laws, there is no federal right to privacy in the Constitution. None whatsoever! And barring a constitutional amendment to provide for one, we cannot merely say such a right exists because either we want it to or because a judicially activist court in the mid 1960's (Griswold v. Connecticut circa 1965) on some of the most logically absurd pretense of "reasoning" decided to invent one out of thin air. That is legislating from the bench which is form of judicial corruption.
The same kind of judicial legislation was in play back in 2005 with the Kelo case where the court decided that big businesses could petition the state to steal your land under eminent domain for their own usage in blatant violation of the part of the fifth amendment which states that "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Notice this says that the eminent domain principle is forbidden unless the private property is taken for public use and cannot be without just compensation. But the court back in 2005 said that private businesses can arrange to steal individuals property and under-compensate them for it under the pretext of the private business being able to pay more in taxes and the like to the state coffers than the private individual could. And the court said this is supposedly "constitutional."
Now then, unless you do not mind justifying the "right" of private companies to steal your property and not justly compensate you for it as "constitutional" you would do well to not pretend that a similar fiction of a federal "constitutional right to privacy" exists. Because consistency would require that you either accept both propositions or reject them both as the same invention of non-existent "rights" is prevalent in both cases. This principle is either right or wrong period, not right or wrong only when you want it to be.
