Social credit in America - Politics invades personal finance

Finance
2304

How the hell can anyone support this?

Under no circumstance shall a student who is transgender be required to share a room with students whose gender identity conflicts with their own," the policy said.

I’m sorry, but under no circumstances should an 11 year old girl be forced to sleep in the same bed as a penis, regardless of how you want to dress up the owner of said penis. For all the BS crap that gets spun as being sexual harassment these days, and this is what gets labeled as intolerant discrimination if it is not allowed without question?

The other girls in the room were not informed about the biological male in their room, according to the ADF.

And those girls should all press charges for sexual assault. Against the school; at least the guy had the decency to tell the one girl, before being instructed by the chaperones to lie.

The really sad part of this story is that the complaint needs to be framed as being due to their Christianity. Religion has nothing to do with why this is wrong on so many levels. Im sure there were some boys on that trip who this girl would’ve been far more comfortable sharing a room with (due to being trusted friends), but the mere suggestion of giving her that choice would’ve been summarily shot down as being outrageously inappropriate. Yet forcing the same thing on her is school policy.

I didn’t think this could get any more insane. I was wrong.

4 Likes
2305

Really? Just put a D in front of it, and listen for the braying. :slight_smile:

ETA: Or just put a Star of David in front of it … then duck and cover, quickly. :frowning:

1 Like
2306

Cox is currently carrying a pregnancy with virtually no chance the baby – who has trisomy 18 – will survive to birth or long afterward. She’s said she has been denied the safest form of abortion care for her – a dilation and evacuation procedure.

Kate Cox asked a Texas court for an abortion to preserve her fertility.

Cox said she “desperately” wants a chance to have another baby and grow her family.

Maybe I’m just stupid, but how do those two dots connect?

Texas’ bans include exceptions that allow abortions in cases of medical emergencies and fatal fetal diagnoses, but doctors and patients claim, in another lawsuit filed in March, that they are unable to provide care or have been denied care, respectively, under the laws.

Then instead of all this grandstanding and virtue-signaling, perhaps everyone should simply look at the law and find out where the disconnect is happening? So that the exceptions are available exceptions as intended?

(hint: it has nothing to with exceptions, it’s all about certain people “interpreting” the law in the worst way possible just so they can bitch about it…)

1 Like
2307

Perhaps trisomy 18 doesn’t fall under “fatal fetal diagnoses”, because there’s a small chance of survival (wikipedia says 5-10% for the first year), so who is supposed to determine the specifics? In a law that creates restrictions, all exceptions must be explicitly and unambiguously codified. Anything open to interpretation creates a potential legal liability for the providers.

1 Like
2308

Exactly (50/50 odds for the fetus to survive through birth).

So it’s just a tantrum because the law doesnt allow what she wants. Kill the defective kid so she can try again for a normal one. Best I can tell, the burdon of the defective baby surviving is the only thing that could potentially prevent her from having more children.

1 Like
2309

Could not happen to nicer guys.

After today’s meeting of the board of trustees of Penn, Pres Magill still Hanging on. I predict that she will tough it out since otherwise the Republicans might be perceived to have gotten the win. But she is under pressure
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/07/business/penn-emergency-meeting-liz-magill/index.html

UPenn president Liz Magill under fire: Wharton’s board of advisors calls for immediate leadership change

Edit. the pressure is on

Live updates: Board of Trustees chair plans to speak with Magill about stepping down, CNN reports

3 Likes
2310

Here’s an image of a straight pride flag that I found on the Internet

2 Likes
2311

I’m not a woman or a doctor and it’s not mentioned in the wikipedia article, but if that argument was not contested, then perhaps there’s a risk of complication to the point where the mother might end up losing or damaging the uterus if she continues to carry the baby with trisomy 18.

2312

Boy Howdy!

And maybe he/she will get stepped on as he/she steps down. Yay! Safety Wins!!

1 Like
2313

The job of a college president is basically fundraising and if donors are fleeing, she’ll be gone soon enough.

2 Likes
2314

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/07/us/texas-abortion-ruling/index.html

The state allows for abortions after six weeks if a woman experiences a “medical emergency,” which is defined in the law as “a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that, as certified by a physician, places the woman in danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless an abortion is performed.”

Johnathan Stone, special counsel with the state attorney general’s office, said Cox’s doctor made a “subjective” belief that Cox qualified for an abortion, rather than basing her medical opinion on “objective” standards outlined in the law.

They want to allow an abortion, so they try to manufacture justification for it. The end justifies the means. I’m sorry, but the pro-abortion cause has done this to themselves; so adamently rejecting the law and making it clear they’ll do whatever necessary to sidestep it, you’d have to be insane to take anything they claim at face value.

Before the Texas Supreme Court last week, an attorney with the state’s attorney general office argued the law was clear and that if women with life-threatening medical issues were not receiving abortions, then it should be considered negligence on the doctor’s part.

Women with “life threatening” medical issues arent getting abortions because their doctors know full well their issues arent actually life threatening. These doctor’s lack of confidence is the damning part of the whole complaint.

Cox said that although she has gone to the emergency room three times with severe cramping, the law is too vague to make clear whether an abortion under those circumstances would be legal.

This seems to be the basis for the pregnancy being life threatening. (And it’s from a CNN article, so no pro-life spin.)

“They have moved the goalposts once again. Now a patient must be about to die before a doctor can rely on the exception,” she said of the state, calling the position “cruel and dangerous.”

So they’ve “moved the goalposts” from life threatening to life threatening. “Cruel and dangerous” is the crux of their argument, applying that characterization to anything that includes a “no, you cant do it”. The rest is irrelevant circumstance being played up to try to garner sympathy.

1 Like
2315

One part of the hearing was questions on sources of funding. It turns out that the universities received $100s millions from the governments of Qatar and China. The Presidents all said that this did not affect their policies.

Edit. More on foreign funding of US universities

3 Likes
2316

LOL. Again, not a doctor, but I’d say that “substantial impairment of a major bodily function” would by its very definition require a “subjective” opinion of a doctor. Human body is not a machine, or at least we don’t yet understand it as well as we understand machines, so it’s impossible to form a medical opinion that is “objective” if the law itself is subjective.

2317

In this case, there’s a risk of such impairment. The same risk that will be present in any future pregnancy, which she fully intends to pursue. She’s baby shopping; it’s no different than wanting to abort a female fetus because you only want to raise one child and really want a son. Even the pro-abortion crowd wont openly try to claim that is a valid reason for an abortion.

Regardless, the key part is where the doctor says “You qualify for an abortion under the law, but I wont perform it because I dont know if you qualify for an abortion under the law.” Pick a lane; either stand behind your medical conclusions, or refrain from drawing any medical conclusions.

1 Like
2318

It’s at least a little different in that the fetus is severely ill, will have a short and poor quality life, if any. Furthermore, it does carry a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function, namely the ability to birth another child. I pretty much called it on the uterus:

Why do you say the risk is the same? I’m not a doctor, but I suspect that carrying this specific fetus puts her at a much greater risk of uterine rupture and hysterectomy than if the fetus was healthy.

Per the article:

How can the doctor be certain of anything if the state’s AG is still threatening the doc and all the hospitals with criminal and civil (~$100K?) penalties?

2319

Why? Because that’s exactly what it says - it’s her history that informs the current risk, not the fetus’s genetic defect. And that history doesnt get aborted away.

Because those criminal and civil penalties are for not following the law. If the doctor has concluded the conditions exist as required by the law, there’d be no hesitation to do the procedure and there’d be the necessary medical evidence to support that decision. But there is hesitation, because the doctor knows the conclusion is based more on a perceived entitlement to an abortion than following the law.

1 Like
2320

I don’t think so. While I would guess that prior C-sections may increase risk of uterine rupture and hysterectomy slightly, I think it is still very low in otherwise healthy pregnancies. So I suspect the risk is higher in this specific pregnancy because of trisomy 18, not because of prior C-sections. But again, neither one of us is a doctor.

The hesitation is not caused by what the doc thinks he must do, but by what the doc thinks the AG will think about what the doc will have done. The doc is afraid to do what he knows is right because the law can be interpreted differently by the AG (who is not a doc, but will cost the hospital and the doc money to defend against).

2321

Common sense says that if this were the case, it would be in the article and their primary legal claim would be that there is additional risk due to this birth defect. Not highlight the additional risk due to have had 2 c-sections in the past. The only reason to not call out the birth defect as an additional risk to the mother is if there is no data establishing an additional risk to the mother. Carrying a fetus is the risk, and after aborting the pregnancy she intends to go out and get pregnant again anyways.

That’s the entire cause of the hesitation. The doctor thinking, rather than applying medical knowledge and standards. Yes, doctors need to think regardless, but he’s injecting personal biases into the equation. Which creates the doubt in his mind, since he knows not everyone shares those same biases.

That’s a him problem, not a law problem. There’s a divergence between what is legal and what he wants to do. And he knows that there is no getting around the legal consequences if he does what he wants to do anyways. Shift attitudes to prioritize following the law (rather than doing what you’ve decided is “right” regardless of the law) and those fears quickly evaporate.

2322

what a shame :grin::grin:

3 Likes
2323

Ha! Considering she’s Saul Goodman’s sister, she should have better been able to hide her racism, or quicker on her feet. A sad comment on the Magill family. It seems like she can’t even spell. :sunny:

1 Like