Welcome to PatsFans.com

Oklahoma abortion laws, healthcare and the "nanny state"

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by chicowalker, Apr 29, 2010.

  1. chicowalker

    chicowalker Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,102
    Likes Received:
    126
    Ratings:
    +253 / 3 / -4

    New Oklahoma abortion law among toughest in U.S. | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Texas Regional News

    Oklahoma has passed 2 very aggressive laws regarding abortion. The first, as I understand it, requires an invasive (not external) ultrasound and mandates certain things must inform the patient of. The second, as I understand it, permits doctors to lie about birth defects without the possibility for malpractice suits.

    I started this thread not as a debate on abortion, but to pose a couple questions to those so vehemently oppose "Obamacare" on the grounds that the government has no business coming between a patient and doctor or that the government has no business forcing individuals to buy health insurance, and also to those who often complain about the "nanny state" (I happen to agree with the latter).

    Do you see similar problems with this? After all, the state is now forcing a doctor to tell patient certain things that have nothing to do with the patient's care, and to do so even if the patient doesn't want to hear it. It's permitting doctors to lie to their patients because of their own personal (not medical) beliefs. Furthermore, the state is requiring an invasive procedure -- is that OK, but having to buy health insurance is not?

    And as for the nanny state, I am not sure if any of the politicians have come forward with similar remarks, but one of the comments I read, from an anti-abortion group supporting these bills, is that all of this is for the good of the patient -- not because of the "unborn baby," but the woman.
     
  2. khayos

    khayos In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I see the fight you're picking here but the main protest, like that with Roe v Wade, is that the federal government should not have imposed a standard. We're generally okay if the states implement their own standards. At least procedurally. It's a different topic that the Life v Choice debate but closely related. It's the Fed v State authority.
     
  3. chicowalker

    chicowalker Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,102
    Likes Received:
    126
    Ratings:
    +253 / 3 / -4

    "the fight I'm picking" is to see whether people really believe what they claim to believe, or if it's just partisan bickering.

    The federal v. state distinction is certainly a valid one.

    However, I'm skeptical that when people say they want "small government," that only refers to smaller federal government (if they mean it) -- first example that comes to mind is the largesse of California poltiicians.

    I'm skeptical that when people say they don't like the "nanny state," that only refers to the federal government -- first examples that comes to mind are complaints about NY's food labeling laws and various local anti-smoking laws.

    And I'm skeptical that when people complained about the government getting between patients and their doctors, they only had a problem with the federal government getting in the middle of that relationship but are OK with the state government doing so.
     
  4. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,799
    Likes Received:
    180
    Ratings:
    +367 / 11 / -27

    These same people are the folks who claim government intrusion in just about everything, now when a woman wants to get an abortion they will stick a ultrasound stick up her vagina, probably the consummate government intrusion.. wanna bet that the Oklahoma legislature is mostly men.. if anytime a man had to make a decision about their body and a prerequisite was an anal probe it would not be law..

    About 19 out of 149... guess who made that decision???
     
  5. khayos

    khayos In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I am in favor of localizing authority. So I am in favor of State governments owning things more that the Federal government, County governments owning more than State governments, Town governments owning more that County governments and Individuals owning more than Town governments.
     
  6. chicowalker

    chicowalker Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,102
    Likes Received:
    126
    Ratings:
    +253 / 3 / -4

    OK -- so are you OK with these law Oklahoma passed? are these acceptable examples of government intervention b/t patient and doctor? is this nanny statism?

    (I don't remember your opinions of the Dems' healthcare bill, but I'm assuming you were opposed to it -- though that could have been on various grounds)
     
  7. khayos

    khayos In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I'm saying it's not my call on Oklahoma... that's up to the Oklahomans.
     
  8. chicowalker

    chicowalker Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,102
    Likes Received:
    126
    Ratings:
    +253 / 3 / -4

    So as long as it's at the state level, you don't care at all? No thoughts on what's appropriate in terms of government intervention in people's lives, etc.?

    (and if so, I presume we won't see you posting against any state or local laws in any threads here, unless they happen to be in your state?)
     
  9. khayos

    khayos In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    You were asking about if people were ticked off about another state government intervention into the lives of their citizens because it would be a "nanny state". Regardless of what type of intervention it is, I'm saying that it's up to them to decide. I get riled up when higher levels of government e.g. Federal overrules State. Or like with Cape Wind, where the local populace is opposed and its being forced on us.
     
  10. khayos

    khayos In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    To clarify: I think San Francisco is a bunch of crazy nutballs but that's what they decide to be. I can hate what they stand for but it doesn't make me a hypocrite to say that but at the same time say that they have the right, as a local community, to make their own laws.
     
  11. chicowalker

    chicowalker Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,102
    Likes Received:
    126
    Ratings:
    +253 / 3 / -4

    so the answer to the questions was "yes"
     
  12. khayos

    khayos In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    So as long as it's at the state level, you don't care at all? No thoughts on what's appropriate in terms of government intervention in people's lives, etc.?

    I think that the more local the decision is made the better it reflects on the people making it. I'm sure the counties will sue the state on some parts of it, etc.

    (and if so, I presume we won't see you posting against any state or local laws in any threads here, unless they happen to be in your state?)

    No, I can say I don't agree with what they're doing but can't complain about "nanny state" because it's what they're government should be doing.
     
  13. chicowalker

    chicowalker Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,102
    Likes Received:
    126
    Ratings:
    +253 / 3 / -4

    This is one I disagree with you on. I don't think the government -- any level of government -- should be forcing invasive medical procedures or telling doctors they can lie to their patients just because of their own (and the pols' own) non-medical beliefs.
     
  14. khayos

    khayos In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    So you don't believe in Obamacare???
     
  15. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,136
    Likes Received:
    223
    Ratings:
    +533 / 6 / -2

    I'm with Khayos with respect to federal, state, and local authority. Ultimately, most issues are best left decided locally, and when they are, it's not so much a matter of my agreeing with them, as it is theirs.


    This I have no problems with, if it's what the people of OK want.


    This I do have an issue with. Doctors shouldn't withhold, or lie to patients, under any circumstances what so ever.

     
  16. chicowalker

    chicowalker Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,102
    Likes Received:
    126
    Ratings:
    +253 / 3 / -4

    There are things I like about the healthcare bill, things I don't like.

    But I'm not aware of any aspect of it that requires an invasive procedure or gives docs license to lie to patients.
     
  17. chicowalker

    chicowalker Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,102
    Likes Received:
    126
    Ratings:
    +253 / 3 / -4

    I'm a bit amazed that anybody would be all right with this. Are you aware that this is a physically invasive procedure? It's not an ultrasound done externally.

    I think somebody earlier was right (Darryl?). If this were a bill mandating that men get, say, a colonoscopy, no way it passes or anybody thinks it all right so long as it's the "will of the people."
     
  18. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Oh brother.
     
  19. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    San Franciscans are extremely cool when they're not being pretentious. Much cooler than any right wing authoritarian.

    Have you had your 2 minutes hate today? American fascists are certainly a hateful and excuse making lot, parsing very fine and hypocritical arguments to support their hate and oppression.

    Look out Oklahoma women, Hannah Arendt was right.
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2010
  20. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,870
    Likes Received:
    108
    Ratings:
    +239 / 8 / -13


    Do you really believe that is how a fetal ultrasound is done?

    Wow just wow.......:rolleyes:

     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>