SCOTUS 5/4 rules in favor of free speech of Crisis Pregnancy Centers.

whiteflame

It seems to me that an agency that receives state money to provide a service should not be lying about what they provide and the consequences of seeking other measures. In 2006, a congressional report found that federally-funded CPCs were informing patients who were seeking abortions that doing so “could increase the risk of breast cancer, result in sterility, and lead to suicide and ‘post-abortion stress disorder.’" It doesn't seem particularly ethical to don medical garb when many of these facilities offer absolutely no medical options, save ultrasounds. This may all be protected speech, but it also sounds a lot like false advertising. It's one thing to provide an option for women who may be seeking an abortion, it's quite another to deceive them into making the choice the organization deems most ethical. So, while SCOTUS may be most interested in upholding their First Amendment rights, the fact that they are a business receiving state funding should subject them to scrutiny that goes beyond that particular provision.

YeshuaBought

@whiteflame More liberal lies. They are NOT lying and they have the rights to freedom of religion and speech. I plan on volenteering. CareNet assists mothers in crisis to choose parenting and adoption and provide free ultrasounds and referals for pregnant mothers. YOU are way too SMART to fall for lies.

whiteflame

@YeshuaBought
Are you saying that they never said/did these things, or that what they said/did is accurate? If it's the former, I direct you back to that link to a congressional report from 2006 that clearly details what they said and how commonly it was stated by CPCs. If you think they're lying, then I look forward to hearing you explain what in the report is inaccurate, and provide your own factual information countering it. If it's the latter, would you care to provide any evidence that these statistics they provide are accurate? I'd be happy to provide more evidence regarding just how wrong these statistics are.

WordsMatter

@whiteflame don't feed the troll.

whiteflame

@WordsMatter

If she doesn't care to engage with the facts, then I'll disengage, but I'll give her the opportunity.

YeshuaBought

@whiteflame Freedom of speech is a right.

WordsMatter

@WordsMatter told you. I've reported this user twice. I've never seen her ever offer any sources outside of two hour YouTube videos. She also always refuses to address any points made by anyone who disagrees with her. Even her post where she marked you as "persuaded" is ridiculous as you agreed with her that abortion shouldn't be free. How is that persuaded? She's a troll

whiteflame

YeshuaBought said:

@whiteflame Freedom of speech is a right.

And consumer fraud is against the law. You don't seem particularly interested in engaging with that problem, though, so how about we leave off here?

whiteflame

WordsMatter said:

@WordsMatter told you. I've reported this user twice. I've never seen her ever offer any sources outside of two hour YouTube videos. She also always refuses to address any points made by anyone who disagrees with her. Even her post where she marked you as "persuaded" is ridiculous as you agreed with her that abortion shouldn't be free. How is that persuaded? She's a troll

If she is, that's fine, though I do feel the need to still correct the glaring oversight as I see it. However she chooses to respond doesn't matter much to me.

YeshuaBought

@whiteflame It is not proven fraud, and the government does not have the right to violate conscience rights of Christians.

whiteflame

YeshuaBought said:

@whiteflame It is not proven fraud, and the government does not have the right to violate conscience rights of Christians.

The statements made by many CPCs are clearly false. They are clearly in the business of deceiving women, both with regards to the purported dangers of abortions and their own status as both medical facilities and places that provide pregnant women with options (plural) as opposed to a single option. Now, unless you plan to actually engage with the evidence I've provided to support this instead of simply crying foul on repeat, I think we're done here.

YeshuaBought

@whiteflame Nope. They are not. Freedom of religion and speech are rights. You have the right to leave the clinic if you don't want their services, but you don't have the right to our way of life. You are only saying that because you are bigoted against Christ, Christians, and unborn people who have the right to live. If you don't want a baby, use prevention or don't have sex.

whiteflame

YeshuaBought said:

@whiteflame Nope. They are not. Freedom of religion and speech are rights. You have the right to leave the clinic if you don't want their services, but you don't have the right to our way of life. You are only saying that because you are bigoted against Christ, Christians, and unborn people who have the right to live. If you don't want a baby, use prevention or don't have sex.

Good to see those red herrings and straw men. If you're not interested in discussing the evidence, then we're done.

YeshuaBought

@whiteflame Cee U Next Tuesday. I could say the same about you, and I will not tolerate your bigotry. You are bigoted towards Christians. Have fun in Hell.

whiteflame

YeshuaBought said:

@whiteflame Cee U Next Tuesday. I could say the same about you, and I will not tolerate your bigotry. You are bigoted towards Christians. Have fun in Hell.

How...Christian of you?

YeshuaBought

@whiteflame How bigoted of you.

MayCaesar

I have noticed from your posts that you seem to believe that being a Christian somehow protects you from criticism, and that having guaranteed free speech protects you from lawsuits when someone believes that you are spreading misinformation to affect their service selection (which is an almost literal definition of false advertising). This is not how this country functions legally, and no matter what freedoms you have, you can potentially misuse them and have to face consequences.

A hospital employing persuasion and coercion techniques to try to get their patients to refrain from their prior decision to abort a fetus is a very questionable behavior - as can be seen from the results of the vote: 5-4 is hardly a unanimous agreement. Medical ethics code is a legally binding concept medical professionals have vowed to comply with, and a part of the code requires that the professional always provides the patients with objective information - and does not tweak the presentation of the information in order to affect the outcome based on their political views. I do not know the exact formulation of the court's ruling, but I do doubt that it changes this centuries-old concept of medical impartiality.

To put it plainly, you can be a Christian, a Republican, a conservative, a whatever else in your general life - but once you've put on a medical robe, you become a doctor, and all the other affiliations you might have are overridden by the code you have vowed to uphold. If you fail to do so and if you let your religious or political beliefs get in the way of upholding that code, then you are violating your vow, and any decent hospital will take a definitive action against you upon learning that.

If you want to do healthcare based on your religious views and not on the standalone medical ethics code, then you are free to do so as an independent individual, or as a church member (if the church allows it). But when you work at a certified hospital, you are expected to relinquish all of your personal views temporarily. If you are not able to do so, you should not work at a certified hospital.