I've heard about the Hillary supporters who are pro-choice but just can't bring themselves to vote for Obama. As a matter of fact I met one this morning. She had a Ned Lamont sticker on her bumper. Tessa yelled to her, "Hey, Lamonst-er" as the woman walked into the drugstore. She turned and said, "Yea, Ned Lamont". Then Tessa said, "Do you want an Obama bumper sticker"? The woman hesitated. I've seen that hesitation before. I knew immediately she was a Hillary supporter, but was angry at Obama.
What's new and news, from your daily source of leftist extremism:
Does Wal-Mart's reputation in Connecticut need to be damaged further? Apparently so, as commonweal documents Wal-Mart's SLAPP lawsuits to muzzle opponents to the proposed Groton store.
Tom Swan ran a session at the Democracy for America Night School, Holding Elected Leaders Accountable. (PDF link here.) It's a guide to help plan effective constituent meetings with elected officials.
Speaking of DFA, the Norwalk / Silver Star DFA will be having a universal healthcare discussion at their meeting tonight (no linky, website down).
There's also a Planned Parenthood phonebank in New Haven, an Amy Goodman appearance at Connecticut College, and a Bridgeport Young Dems meeting tonight - for more info, see the events calendar in the top left.
It's rare that a statement is so brazen that it's able to shock me, here in 2007, but this one does it:
Harwe, 26 at the time, was rushed to the hospital, where she learned that her left vertebral artery had been crushed. In the days and years that followed, Harwe suffered from paralysis, vision loss, weakness and coordination problems, a paralyzed vocal cord and an inability to swallow. Today, she still uses a feeding tube.
Harwe plans to tell state lawmakers Monday that she had no idea stroke was one of the risks of cervical manipulation by a chiropractor. The legislature's Public Health Committee is considering legislation that would require chiropractors to inform patients, both in writing and verbally, of the risks and possible side effects of their treatments.
State chiropractors say the legislation is unnecessary and unfairly punitive. They argue that a state law requiring a patient to give informed consent before a procedure is excessive given the statistically remote risk of injury and death.
"[A]t best this proposal is a misplaced attempt at patient advocacy and is perhaps prejudicial against the chiropractic profession," said Dr. Matthew N. Pagano, D.C., president of the Connecticut Chiropractic Association.
Since I don't work for Edwards, would it be impolitic to describe these people as some of the worst scum in our society?
Many doctors believe they have the right not to tell patients about treatments that they object to on moral or religious grounds and to refuse to refer patients elsewhere for the care, according to the first study to examine physicians' views on such situations.
In the survey of 1,144 doctors nationwide, 8 percent said they had no obligation to present all possible options to patients, and 18 percent said they did not have to tell patients about other doctors who provide care they found objectionable. [...]
When the researchers asked the doctors about their sense of obligation when patients request such procedures, they found that 86 percent felt obliged to present all possible options. But 6 percent were undecided and 8 percent felt no such responsibility. Sixty-three percent felt it was ethical to tell patients about their objections, and 18 percent felt no duty to refer patients to another doctor. Eleven percent were undecided.
Male doctors and those who described themselves as religious were the most likely to feel that doctors could tell patients about their objections and less likely to believe doctors must present all options or offer a referral.
Seems like a fine time to remind folks that Planned Parenthood of CT will be hosting a phone bank for the Compassionate Care for Rape Victims bill this Monday evening, February 12th in New Haven. Click here for address info and to RSVP.
UPDATE 2/9: There's also a great article hosted by the American Constitution Society (the progressive counterweight, if you will, of conservative legal think tanks like the Federalist Society) titled "Health Care Provider Refusals to Treat, Prescribe, Refer or Inform: Professionalism and Conscience" that details the legal issues and existing case law surrounding a doctor's refusal to treat his or her patients.
MLN is powered by