Price "the moderate" shows just how far to the right the center has moved thanks to more than three decades of Saint Ronny's and the Democratic Leadership Council's (DLC) dogma setting the agenda in Washington DC.
The headline is in the wrong tense. Tom Price is not at the helm of HHS, but merely and ignorantly nominated for that post. And as the statements from NARAL, PPA, and HRC demonstrate, his nomination brings up all of his extremism to view beyond the narrow Georgia Congressional District that elected him. Every one of his flailings (none of them enacted, please note) becomes fodder for the nomination process, for hearings in the Senate and loud objections by We the People.
The ignorance displayed in this nomination is of the process and of the power of an agency head. The Secretary of HHS cannot change the law. Not one of the laws. Even if he could be confirmed, Price wouldn't be able to withdraw Medicaid funding for contraception (or the likes of cancer screenings). He might be able to decline to defend the established right to reproductive care in a SCOTUS challenge, but he would not be in a position to overturn that right on his own. Regulation has been given to the states. He might be able to damage ACA, but he'd need the help of his former colleagues in the House, and (a) the Tea Party ain't as popular as it used to be; and (b) every member of the House has constituents who are insured now and weren't before ACA, and they'll have to face them again in 2018. And that's just for non-starters.
I can only guess that DJT is hoping to delegate the full power of the Oval Office to stooges, and that he has no idea what the power of the Office is. So let's gird up our loins to oppose the nomination and school DJT on what he's gotten himself into. Keep it in the subjunctive, 'If he were to be,' and demonstrably unlikely.
What's next, laws applied to women like those in the Middle East?
I keep wondering what kind of mothers guys like this must have had that they hate women so much. What kind of women marry them, have kids with them and therefore make more of them. Women must have a choice in order to avoid bringing people like this into the world.
Well said! Thank you.
Guess Price did not take the Hippocratic Oath to heart when he graduated from med school...ABOVE ALL, DO NO HARM! He is against: women's right to choose and voted to deny emergency care related to abortion; anti-LGBTQ BIG TIME even voting to deny them basic human rights; any scientific evidence validating climate change (a climate denier); providing any kind of social safety net for disabled, elderly, retirees, single mothers, mentally ill, etc. He is pro: GUNS; leaving US citizens without access to health care/health insurance; dismantling any government oversight of myriad social or environmental functions, etc. Yet another dark and dangerous demon chosen to oversee the destruction of humanity in the U S. and worldwide.
He is a big pal of Pence, thus his nomination.
And the evil that is T-Dump keeps on proliferating!
To be blunt, are you serious, or just oblivious to much that has happened over the past 20 years? The DHH were in charge of our former poverty relief programs, and in phasing out those programs. They took the lead in the "war on women" by the 1990s, playing the lead role in tearing so many families apart. Now that this agenda is starting to nip at the heels of the bourgeoisie, they suddenly become aware of the war on women?
What is it with Americans, to inevitably blame a man's sick behavior on his mother? It would make more sense to ask what such men were taught by their fathers.
But they really love their wives and daughters.
It is interesting, to say the least, that Trump is choosing persons to fill the various posts that are against everything that post is designed to do. By doing so he is thumbing his nose at all of those who supported him. He is not even coming close to making America Great Again. It was all a con, every bit of it. He will be taking America and what democracy we have left right over a cliff. It becomes clearer with each new pick he chooses that his only intention is to see how far he can damage this country and how much money he can generate for his Trump trademark. We have elected a snake oil salesman, an ego posing as a presidential candidate. Without any respect for the office he has been elected to it will be the end of just about everything we have known to date.
That isn't part of the Oath. The original Oath, however, specifically contained an injunction against abortion.
Your name is fitting...
"The Hippocratic Oath is an oath historically taken by physicians. It is one of the most widely known of Greek medical texts. In its original form, it requires a new physician to swear, by a number of healing gods, to uphold specific ethical standards. Of historic and traditional value, the oath is considered a rite of passage for practitioners of medicine in many countries, although nowadays various modernized versions are often used; the message delivered is still the same, "Do no Harm."
"I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. Above all, I must not play at God." (Contemporary oath) The "pessary" part of the Greet oath was DELETED.
Got to give it to Trump - he is looking for slimy right-wing fringe under every rock & finding plenty. Oh, wait, his cabinet picks aren't fringe, but just typical mainstream GOP insiders. And I though GW Bush would be the worst president I would see during my lifetime. NO SUCH LUCK!
No he didn't. He was very obvious in what he would do. When he comes after their little pieces of dignity, I suspect they will just say "Thank you, sir, may I have another?". I guess pain really is the best teacher.
Thanks. Chose it myself.
"although nowadays various modernized versions are often used; the message delivered is still the same, "Do no Harm."
"Above all, I must not play at God." (Contemporary oath)"
That would be the logical equivalent of "do no harm" if and only if playing at God were the only way to do harm. Which it isn't. There are many ways to do harm without trying to imitate God. It isn't even established that emulating God is necessarily and always harmful. But even if the suggestion is that it is generally harmful, that says nothing flattering about God.
"The "pessary" part of the Greet oath was DELETED."
Which raises the obvious question: When you replace something with something different, is it really still the same thing?