It's a wonderful presentation, and a ridiculous situation.
The "Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine" appears to know next to nothing about Hippocrates, and the Texas court/judge is untethered to consistency. Hippocrates, millennia ago, took his version of medicine very seriously (hence the Oath), and one feature was that he encouraged doctors to act in the interest of their patients, not in their own interest. The plaintiff in this case doesn't have a patient, but has presumably chosen to imagine that their patient is a fetus. The fetus, of course, has no legal rights, and has a guardian, who is the person who wants to take mifepristone. The plaintiff -- presumably doctors -- also feel put upon if they're asked to do what they chose, and wanted, to do when they decided to be doctors. Sure there are people who can't bear the sight of blood. They don't become doctors.
As for the state of Texas, the judge in this case presumably doesn't want to kill a fetus, while the state of Texas is one of the prominent actors in capital punishment, and is relatively liberal in arguing for civilian access to guns, which are the commonest cause of death in minors of all ages and in suicides. Is Texas opposed to death, or does it have an unhealthy appetite for as much of it as possible?
It is of course unknown what the SCOTUS will ultimately do with a mess like this. If only we had...oh, never mind.
Men dictating what women must and must not do...
That is very simply wrong!
If it is about women's bodies, then only the woman gets to choose.
The politicalization of healthcare has revealed itself as a fraud.
It's a wonderful presentation, and a ridiculous situation.
The "Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine" appears to know next to nothing about Hippocrates, and the Texas court/judge is untethered to consistency. Hippocrates, millennia ago, took his version of medicine very seriously (hence the Oath), and one feature was that he encouraged doctors to act in the interest of their patients, not in their own interest. The plaintiff in this case doesn't have a patient, but has presumably chosen to imagine that their patient is a fetus. The fetus, of course, has no legal rights, and has a guardian, who is the person who wants to take mifepristone. The plaintiff -- presumably doctors -- also feel put upon if they're asked to do what they chose, and wanted, to do when they decided to be doctors. Sure there are people who can't bear the sight of blood. They don't become doctors.
As for the state of Texas, the judge in this case presumably doesn't want to kill a fetus, while the state of Texas is one of the prominent actors in capital punishment, and is relatively liberal in arguing for civilian access to guns, which are the commonest cause of death in minors of all ages and in suicides. Is Texas opposed to death, or does it have an unhealthy appetite for as much of it as possible?
It is of course unknown what the SCOTUS will ultimately do with a mess like this. If only we had...oh, never mind.