Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Divernan

(15,480 posts)
50. She offered NO specific position on the issue-leaving typical Clinton wiggle room.
Wed Feb 4, 2015, 08:15 PM
Feb 2015

It's like any politician saying he or she is in favor of free speech, or motherhood, or apple pie. The devil is in the details.

It is unprecedented for our government, federal, state or local, to mandate medical treatment for children or adults, other than on a case by case basis. Traditionally, except in an emergency situation, parental consent is required in order to perform medical procedures on children, including adolescents. Courts throughout the world recognize that parents have rights but additionally recognize that these rights are not absolute and exist only to promote the welfare of children.

Well known international exceptions would be North Korea's current regime and Hitler's Nazi government, which arbitrarily euthanized or sterilized adults or children with physical or mental disabilities, without giving relatives or parents any hearings in a court of law. Even China, with its one child policy did not forcibly impose abortions or sterilizations, i.e., medical treatment without a patient's consent.

The One-Child Policy restricted the majority of Chinese families to one child each. The consequences of having a child without a birth permit varied by province, with fines reaching as high as several times the average annual income.

To enforce the One-Child Policy, the Chinese government used a quota reward system for Planning Officials who carried out the birth control policies. If they did not meet these quotas, they were either punished or lost the opportunity to earn promotions.
http://www.allgirlsallowed.org/one-child-policy

The U.S. has also had an abhorrent policy on forced sterilization, i.e, forced medical treatment -

1907-Indiana becomes the first state in the country to successfully pass a mandatory forced sterilization law, in this case impacting the "feebleminded" (mentally handicapped).
1909-California and Washington pass mandatory sterilization laws.
1922-Harry Hamilton Laughlin, director of the Eugenics Research Office, proposes a federal mandatory sterilization law. Like Lincecum's proposal, it never really goes anywhere.
1927-In Buck v. Bell, the U.S. Supreme Court rules (8-1) that laws mandating the sterilization of the mentally handicapped do not violate the Constitution. Writing for the majority, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes makes an explicitly eugenic argument:
It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.


1936-Nazi propaganda defends Germany's forced sterilization program by citing the United States as an ally in the eugenic movement, and its laws as proof of its status as same. World War II, and the atrocities committed by the Nazi government, would rapidly change U.S. attitudes towards eugenics.

1942-In Skinner v. Oklahoma, the U.S. Supreme Court rules unanimously against an Oklahoma law targeting some felons for sterilization (the plaintiff, Jack Skinner, was a chicken thief) while excluding white-collar criminals. The majority opinion, written by Justice William O. Douglas, rejects the broad eugenic mandate previously outlined in Buck v. Bell (1927):
Strict scrutiny of the classification which a State makes in a sterilization law is essential, lest unwittingly, or otherwise, invidious discriminations are made against groups or types of individuals in violation of the constitutional guaranty of just and equal laws.


1970-The Nixon administration dramatically increases Medicaid-funded sterilization of low-income Americans, primarily Americans of color. While these sterilizations are voluntary as a matter of policy, anecdotal evidence later suggests that they are often involuntary as a matter of practice as patients are often misinformed, or left uninformed, regarding the nature of the procedures that they have agreed to undergo.

1979-A survey conducted by Family Planning Perspectives finds that approximately 70% of American hospitals fail to adequately follow U.S. Department of Health and Human Services guidelines regarding informed consent in cases of sterilization.

1981-Oregon performs the last legal forced sterilization in U.S. history.
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexuality/tp/Forced-Sterilization-History.htm

True, our state governments have authorized forced sterilizations and lobotomies (Rosemary Kennedy), and even pulling the plug. But these have always been case-by-case decisions.

I personally am in favor of vaccinations for children, but as a lawyer I clearly see that this is an extremely delicate & complex legal issue. Hillary's folksy tweet is reminiscent of her phony black dialect - she's talking down to people and she's too emotionally tone deaf to realize it.

Feb 10, 2008 · Hillary Clinton speaking in a black church in a much different accent and dialect than normal. https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=Hillary+Clinton+black+accent&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001

And the thing is, and what, as a lawyer myself, really offends me about Clinton's cutsey, insultingly simplistic little grandma tweet, is that she is a lawyer and is completely aware of the legal complexities. So she wants to be hip/au currant and tweet? Great, but this is not the topic for such shallow treatment.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Incoming perfect shitstorm! NuclearDem Feb 2015 #1
Naaah. They're donors, but they aren't real "heavy hitters." MADem Feb 2015 #8
Please do not politicize public health. DearAbby Feb 2015 #2
And Hillary's response: JaneyVee Feb 2015 #3
Oh great. HappyMe Feb 2015 #4
I ask this guestion once again olddots Feb 2015 #5
is this all about single issue voters? Sheepshank Feb 2015 #6
I do not want Hillary to be President, Maedhros Feb 2015 #7
I Don't Either... WillyT Feb 2015 #12
Here's what Clinton had to say zappaman Feb 2015 #9
"The science is clear: The earth is round, the sky is blue, and vaccines work and whatchamacallit Feb 2015 #18
I don't see that quote. zappaman Feb 2015 #21
Man, you're really desperate to find a reason to justify Hillary Hate. You're embarrassing yourself, geek tragedy Feb 2015 #29
She's a tool whatchamacallit Feb 2015 #32
okay, so this isn't about the donors it's just that you think Clinton sucks horribly and geek tragedy Feb 2015 #33
Try as you will to reduce it to irrational hatred whatchamacallit Feb 2015 #34
whatever, if you were shown Warren or Sanders donors who were ant-vax you wouldn't give a shit geek tragedy Feb 2015 #35
See, this is where you got it all wrong whatchamacallit Feb 2015 #36
and you simply can't process the difference between (a) criticizing geek tragedy Feb 2015 #37
Do you think Koch donations are noteworthy? whatchamacallit Feb 2015 #38
How much money has Hillary taken from the Koch brothers? geek tragedy Feb 2015 #40
Here's the difference between us whatchamacallit Feb 2015 #41
That ship sailed a long time ago...nt SidDithers Feb 2015 #49
If I ran for office, I would take money from anyone. Ykcutnek Feb 2015 #45
So, there are tons of Anti-science GMO's are bad for you people who will donate to her as well. dilby Feb 2015 #10
"Please don't politicize public health" unless whatchamacallit Feb 2015 #11
paul and christie are stating their vaccine beliefs and politicizing themselves nt msongs Feb 2015 #14
So donor positions and affiliations are no longer probative? whatchamacallit Feb 2015 #16
No, nut-picking amongst donors is not probative. Maybe if you could show geek tragedy Feb 2015 #23
Paul and Christie politicized it by pandering to anti-vaxxers and making tremendously geek tragedy Feb 2015 #17
I see... whatchamacallit Feb 2015 #19
So you're whining that DUers are criticizing Republicans for saying false and crazy and geek tragedy Feb 2015 #22
No whatchamacallit Feb 2015 #24
Okay. She took some money from two people who hold one position that is incorrect, with geek tragedy Feb 2015 #25
Not a scandal whatchamacallit Feb 2015 #27
It's fine to air it, but it's not nearly as consequential, or meaningful. geek tragedy Feb 2015 #28
You are welcome to your opinion n/t whatchamacallit Feb 2015 #30
and you are welcome to hate on Hillary for whatever trivial reasons you want to. geek tragedy Feb 2015 #31
Yeah... And Attacking Political Donors, Is A "Cheap Shot"... WillyT Feb 2015 #51
Hillary Clinton: The earth is round and vaccines work Agnosticsherbet Feb 2015 #13
HRC's glib tweet in support is NOT a legal mandate. Divernan Feb 2015 #43
So you think Hillary wasn't detailed enough in her defense of vaccinations Cali_Democrat Feb 2015 #46
She offered NO specific position on the issue-leaving typical Clinton wiggle room. Divernan Feb 2015 #50
Her support of vaccination is all that is necessary at the moment. Agnosticsherbet Feb 2015 #48
I wouldn't assume you couldn't find a Warren or Sanders supporters among the anti-vaxxers brooklynite Feb 2015 #15
The anti-vaxxers know no particular party or candidate. HappyMe Feb 2015 #42
Though I've no idea yet who I'll vote for in the primaries, posts such as this do tend to illustrate LanternWaste Feb 2015 #20
Politicizing public health issues reminds me of Ronald Reagan and the Republicans of his era Bluenorthwest Feb 2015 #26
So, what does Hillary Clinton have to say about the vaccination issue? MineralMan Feb 2015 #39
Attacking politicians for taking donations from anyone has always been a cheap shot. Ykcutnek Feb 2015 #44
Meh. AtomicKitten Feb 2015 #47
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»These Anti-Vaxxers Are Fu...»Reply #50