TGIF...What's the story today?

[Z is for Zangie]

Have a fantastic Friday!

[Mike]

This goes waaay beyond Roe, beyond abortion. If there is no expectation of privacy in medical consultation and procedure for abortion, then there is no privacy in medical consultation and procedure PERIOD. HIPAA privacy rules go by the wayside; any employer can now determine your suitability for hire based on your medical history that they would now be able to access. Insurers could look at the entirety of your medical history, as well as that of all your blood relatives, and jack up your rates.

Because if medical records are confidential, yet abortion records are not, how does one find those records in someone’s medical chart?

And once medical records are no longer private, we can rationally say there is zero expectation of privacy in this nation. It crashes head-on into the 4th and 5th Amendments.

[Slip Shod]

Employers access to someone's medical records to put the thumbs up or down to qualify for employment is a big no no.
Does that mean those who have been counseled or treated for depression or emotional issues can't find a job because they're deemed unfit.
What will become of all these unfit people that cannot find employment. Expanded social dependency, welfare ? Labeled for life - the new order, let's put a star on them so to be easily recognized, these second class citizens

[Slip Shod]

one of the stories today it's Friday.

qFG4dgGE9qLUyKeHTS.gif (2.28 MiB) Viewed 1577 times

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

This goes waaay beyond Roe, beyond abortion. If there is no expectation of privacy in medical consultation and procedure for abortion, then there is no privacy in medical consultation and procedure PERIOD. HIPAA privacy rules go by the wayside; any employer can now determine your suitability for hire based on your medical history that they would now be able to access. Insurers could look at the entirety of your medical history, as well as that of all your blood relatives, and jack up your rates.

You are making a slippery slope argument. That's not to say that the concern isn't a valid one and something that will have to be addressed, but it is already true that illegal procedures are not protected. For instance marijuana prescriptions are not protected from federal investigation. There is currently no case of the feds taking advantage of this but it is true none the less. How these new laws fit into HIPPA will be something that each state will have to address as they make laws, or risk the law getting struck down in court. To assume this will mean employers will be able to use your medical records to make hiring decisions because of this isn't a conclusion that logically follows the premise

[Mike]

Gun rights supporters make the slippery slope argument routinely. Figured I’d borrow that tactic, so they might (a being such a large crossover with the antiabortion crowd) understand things a bit better.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

Gun rights supporters make the slippery slope argument routinely.

Yes they do and when I see such argument I call it out as well.

Unread post by Mike » Fri May 06, 2022 10:32 am
Gun rights supporters make the slippery slope argument routinely. Figured I’d borrow that tactic, so they might (a being such a large crossover with the antiabortion crowd) understand things a bit better.

The slippery slope argument about gay marriage is the worst.

[Tarmaque]

You are making a slippery slope argument.

There's no such thing as a "slippery slope argument." The slippery slope is a logical fallacy. It is a form of the more general "appeal to emotion" fallacy, in this case fear. Both are used by poor debaters to support positions when there isn't really any evidence to support their position.

[Mike]

More of 45: turns out he discussed with his staff and with the Pentagon the possibility, as a reaction to the supposed immigration crisis, of “quietly bombing” Mexico. Just as he wanted with BLM protesters “can’t you just shoot them?”

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

There's no such thing as a "slippery slope argument." The slippery slope is a logical fallacy. It is a form of the more general "appeal to emotion" fallacy, in this case fear. Both are used by poor debaters to support positions when there isn't really any evidence to support their position.

colloquially called a slippery slope argument.

[Tarmaque]

colloquially called a slippery slope argument.

When we submit to colloquialisms we are on a slippery slope to the degradation of our language.

[Slip Shod]

colloquially called a slippery slope argument.

When we submit to colloquialisms we are on a slippery slope to the degradation of our language.

I'm surprised that you Tarmac.. you, a language and word buff. Today's colloquialism is tomorrow's normal - for instance take some of your words from the 14 or 1500's you pointed out to me. I believe you accept the point that language isn't a constant but in constant development.
Oh look .. !

th-2591010030.jpg (29.3 KiB) Viewed 1509 times

I got poo on my shoe .

[Tarmaque]

Today's colloquialism is tomorrow's normal

True, but I also used "the slippery slope fallacy" which obviously negated my statement. Right?

[Mike]

You are making a slippery slope argument.

There's no such thing as a "slippery slope argument." The slippery slope is a logical fallacy. It is a form of the more general "appeal to emotion" fallacy, in this case fear. Both are used by poor debaters to support positions when there isn't really any evidence to support their position.

Which Alito himself deployed in his writings on this case, where he stated that “the right to autonomy… (could) license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution and the like”. And we already see Repub legislators positioning themselves to begin the process of banning contraception. And then there’s Sen. Mike Braun of Indiana, who had this to say on the issue of whether interracial marriage should be left to the states (a very possible outgrowth of this abortion case): "Yes, I think that that's something that if you're not wanting the Supreme Court to weigh in on issues like that, you're not going to be able to have your cake and eat it too. I think that's hypocritical." He later tried to walk that back by saying discrimination is illegal (“settled law”, perhaps?), but it’s clear how he, an average Republican, feels about it.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

When we submit to colloquialisms we are on a slippery slope to the degradation of our language.

What are you, French?

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

“the right to autonomy… (could) license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution and the like”

Could and should.

[Tarmaque]

What are you, French?

No.