• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Citing staffing issues and political climate, North Idaho hospital will no longer deliver babies.

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
You appear to have a very faulty sense of perception.
Not really.

I live in the People's Republic of New York, and am quite aware of the Democratic party's intense pathological desire to forcefully control your life as if they know what's better for you than you do.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Only with means...

This type of thinking in legislation is how the wealthy get more rights than those who can't afford them.
That's a whole another topic.

I agree, as people like you and me are seen as mere cattle to be milked for money and votes.

The the last thing they want is or one of their cattle to wander off into another state.

Keep the cattle poor and dependant and penned in.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
No I side with the states with most personal and economic freedom in this country. Not the Democrat run Socialist/Marxist states with the least personal and economic freedom in the entire country.

You can continue to happily live in your People's Republic utopia as long as you like and support their Socialist/Marxist inspired agenda.
We're talking about healthcare, not your political boogeymen. The states you love so much are stripping people of this right.
And we've been over this, your sources consider Indiana very free despite the fact Hoosiers get very few and very little votes over what happens in their states. That's not free when the politicians are making calling nearly all the shots.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
The left is now getting some if it's own medicine.
The right has a long history opposing rights, freedom, and equality for LGBT, women, racial and religious minorities, etc.

...and how is it "the left" getting a taste of their own medicine when it's these legislators own constituents paying the consequences? They gave themselves a dose by whom they voted for.

Everytime, no matter the actual circumstances, with sweat pouring down your beet-red face, teeth clinched and lips trembling, you contort yourself into a pretzel performing mental gymnastics to pin blame on the Dems as if they were cartoon villains.
Sorry, but the right's culpability can't be boot-licked away.
 
Last edited:

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
The right has a long history opposed rights, freedom, and equality for LGBT, women, racial and religious minorities, etc.

...and how is it "the left" getting a taste of their own medicine when it's these legislators own constituents paying the consequences, so they gave themselves a dose by whom they voted for.

Everytime, no matter the actual circumstances, with sweat pouring down your beet-red face, teeth clinched and lips trembling, you contort yourself into pretzel performing mental gymnastics to pin blame on the Dems as if they were cartoon villains.
Sorry, but the right's culpability can't be boot-licked away.
You don't know history then.


 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
You don't know history then.




Nanny state is a term of British origin that conveys a view that a government or its policies are overprotective or interfering unduly with personal choice.[1][2] The term likens such a government to the role that a nanny has in child rearing. An early use of the term comes from Conservative British Member of Parliament Iain Macleod who referred to "what I like to call the nanny state" in the 3 December 1965 edition of The Spectator.[3][4]

The term was popularised by journalists Bernard Levin[5] and Auberon Waugh[6] and later by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

By the 2000s, the term entered use in the United States by some political commentators. The term was used in an at-large sense against the legislative tendencies of liberal political ideology such as in the banishment of smoking in public places or the enactment of mandatory bicycle helmet laws.[20][21]

In 2012, a proposal by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to restrict the sale of soft drinks in venues, restaurants, and sidewalk carts to 16 ounces led to the occasional derision of the mayor as "Nanny Bloomberg."[22][23]

David Harsanyi has also used the term to describe food labeling regulations, the legal drinking age, and socially conservative government policies.[24]

Conversely, Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research think tank used the term in 2006 to describe conservative policies that protect the income of the rich.[25]

I think the term "nanny state" can be applied to both the left and the right on certain issues.

Prohibition might be an early example of a nanny state in operation, as well as Reefer Madness, the War on Drugs, proposals to ban jazz, rock-and-roll. These all come from the right-wing, not the left.

The left didn't start embracing this kind of thing until the Reagan era, when Tipper Gore went on some crusade against rock lyrics. That's when the left started learning from and imitating the right, at least to some extent.

Seat-belt laws were purely right-wing and corporate, as well as mandatory auto insurance. Raising the drinking age to 21 was also a right-wing deal (while the previous liberal trend had been to lower the drinking age to 18 in many states).

The left then started supporting anti-smoking restrictions and higher tobacco taxes. And, while the War on Drugs was started by the right, the left seemed to be embracing that position as well and even now, the Democrats still vehemently oppose legalization at the Federal level.

But apparently, there are limits as to how much the public will put up with. Obviously, Bloomberg laid an egg by wanting to restrict the sale of sodas and sugary drinks.

Either way, it's clear that both parties have used or attempted to use the state apparatus to try to modify and control personal behaviors under the pretext that "it's good for you."
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
I account for it as the opinion of someone making rationalizations and justifications. Dr. Huntsberger wasn't getting the $$$ she wanted. So she took a cheap shot at the anti-abortion crowd on her way out. If there was a market for her services she wouldn't be leaving. And the reason there isn't a market is (again) due to demographics, not anti-abortion laws. It has less to do with truth and more to do with greedy self interest. But she's a baby killer and doesn't want to lose the $$$. I would expect it.
The procedures for aftercare of a miscarriage are the same procedures for an early abortion, which will now be denied to women trying to bear children and preserve their fertility.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
The procedures for aftercare of a miscarriage are the same procedures for an early abortion, which will now be denied to women trying to bear children and preserve their fertility.
Which is certainly unfortunate. But the reason is that the birthing age population is shrinking. This is true both in Sandpoint, Idaho and in general in the United States. The birth rate in the United States has fallen to about 1.6 per woman. Few pregnancies mean less birthing facilities. Yes, that sucks for those that are pregnant. But the cause is demographics not anti-abortion legislation. Anti-abortion legislation is a secondary factor only. The closure of this facility would happen eventually anyway. Those with a political agenda to decry abortion restrictions (their favorite whipping boy) as the prime cause are wrong to do so.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I account for it as the opinion of someone making rationalizations and justifications. Dr. Huntsberger wasn't getting the $$$ she wanted. So she took a cheap shot at the anti-abortion crowd on her way out. If there was a market for her services she wouldn't be leaving. And the reason there isn't a market is (again) due to demographics, not anti-abortion laws. It has less to do with truth and more to do with greedy self interest. But she's a baby killer and doesn't want to lose the $$$. I would expect it.
Ah, I see. So the "truth" is that the doctors that are leaving are lying about the reasons they've given for leaving.
You have some ability to read minds and you know the real reasons. Amazing!
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Oh okay. So you love the "nanny state" when you feel like it gets you some sort of revenge?
Maybe now, people might want to get rid of the nanny state.

Then again, maybe weaponize it as revenge politics.

Your probably right. It's going to be used as a tool for revenge.
 
Top