One-issue advocacy can blind people to nuance. Some may be on the side of that ER nurse who would rather let a woman bleed to death from a pregnancy complication (not an abortion!) than risk harming her fetus. But others should maybe think before they jump on the outrage train.
-
-
Show this thread
-
No MD should be forced to prescribe cross-sex hormones or perform SRS, but the Trump rule was a blunt instrument with potential to endanger lives & livelihoods. Allowing any MD or RN to refuse services for any personal reason is not the way to protect providers.
Show this thread -
It's very important to note this is not hyperbole. Referring to the ER nurse let the woman stand and bleed: "HHS’s lawyer conceded ... that, had the 'conscience rule' been in place, the hospital could have been found in violation and lost all HHS funding."
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Not treating placenta previa - with an immediate Caesarian if baby can survive - is likely to kill both mother and baby.
-
Can't believe some of the people who've shared and retweeted this article, because they're so blinded by their anger about medical transition that they can't even see the larger context.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The judge is right IMO - his ruling is abt legal authority and procedure, not the legitimacy of conscience concerns. The HHS is being used to (re)write laws through policy and (re)interpretation, often abridging civil rights. It's a bad idea to give agencies that authority.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.