Should States be able to ban medical procedures or leave it to Feds?

Hercules56

Penultimate Amazing
Hercules56
Joined
Aug 4, 2013
Messages
15,171
Should States be able to ban medical procedures for performed in their states?

Such as banning religious circumcision, banning breast implants, banning ear piercings, banning transgender medicinal/hormonal therapy for minors, banning assisted suicide for the terminally ill?

Or should all these decisions be Nationwide and governed by Congress?

Personally, I think since we are one country we should make these decisions as one country. But the US Constitution is the law of the land and seems to give a lot of authority and discretion of laws to the states, with regards to anything that is not specifically given to Congress' authority.

Supreme Court very recently said that government does have the right to make these decisions, but leaves it open for Congress to overrule state laws.
 
Flo said:
The question is less whether it is local or central authorities that apply a ban than whether it is based on beliefs and ideologies rather than science.
Click to expand...
Jewish and Muslim circumcision is not based on science, but faith. Does that mean States and Cities should have the authority to ban?

I just read that female genital mutilation is illegal in the USA.
 
Flo said:
The question is less whether it is local or central authorities that apply a ban than whether it is based on beliefs and ideologies rather than science.
Click to expand...
I mean, science argues for an aggressive selective breeding program. Maybe with several branches for various contingencies, but still a breeding program. All that remains is for you to decide which genes should be bred for which purposes. Assuming you live in a democratic society where your decision carries some weight, however small.
 
JayUtah said:
Are people in Texas exactly like people in Massachusetts?
Click to expand...
Well, I never been there, but I expect that just like in MA, the people of TX has two eyes, two ears, two arms, two legs, nose, mouth.

So yeah, scientifically speaking, we is the same.
 
The federal government should ban medical procedures only if it creates a federal issue. If Texas doctors implant machine guns in Texans' forearms, that would create an issue with interstate commerce because Massachusetts law doesn't allow Texans to show up with machine guns implanted in their forearms. If Massachusetts permits doctors to remove fully functional eyes of patients who want to blind themselves to show their devotion to Sithrak, that creates disability cases that the federal disability insurance system might have to pay for. A federal ban on both of those is justified.

No federal issue, no federal ban. If Massachusetts residents want to identify as trans plants, and our doctors figure out a way to implant leaves on their heads, what does it matter what politicians in Washington DC think of the idea?
 
JayUtah said:
But laws are about how people think about what’s right and wrong. That judgment varies widely across the continent. Does that judgment apply to medical procedures?
Click to expand...
The continent? I dont think Nova Scotia and Monterey, Mexico should have the same laws.
 
Hercules56 said:
The continent? I dont think Nova Scotia and Monterey, Mexico should have the same laws.
Click to expand...
What about Texas and Massachusetts? Nova Scotians are biologically nearly identical to Bostonians. If biological similarity justifies similar political treatment, why do Nova Scotians get to make different medicine laws than Bostonians?

Medicine involves science. It also involves ethics and uncertainty. Therefore I reject your rationale that the biological identicality of different humans mandates that all laws governing medicine be identical for all humans.

The division of land into political units that both distinguish (state’s rights) and unify (federalism) is only a gross approximation of the historical, moral, and cultural differences between different parts of the United States. Social scientists identify something like a dozen different nations with the U.S. defined by shared history, culture, and moral disposition. These people are likely to have different opinions on the “should” part of medicine. The Framers realized this would and should be the case, and thereby reserved police power to those political approximations.

Convince me that you can do better.
 
JayUtah said:
What about Texas and Massachusetts? Nova Scotians are biologically nearly identical to Bostonians. If biological similarity justifies similar political treatment, why do Nova Scotians get to make different medicine laws than Bostonians?

Medicine involves science. It also involves ethics and uncertainty. Therefore I reject your rationale that the biological identicality of different humans mandates that all laws governing medicine be identical for all humans.

The division of land into political units that both distinguish (state’s rights) and unify (federalism) is only a gross approximation of the historical, moral, and cultural differences between different parts of the United States. Social scientists identify something like a dozen different nations with the U.S. defined by shared history, culture, and moral disposition. These people are likely to have different opinions on the “should” part of medicine. The Framers realized this would and should be the case, and thereby reserved police power to those political approximations.

Convince me that you can do better.
Click to expand...
So under what circumstances do you think federal law should override state and local law? Regardless of what the Constitution says I want to know what you think.
 
JayUtah said:
Are people in Texas exactly like people in Massachusetts?
Click to expand...

This does not address the two main cases for universal validity or application in law under constitutional democracy:
  • a basic human or constitutional right is at stake or in question
  • matters of fact
JayUtah said:
Medicine involves science. It also involves ethics 2 and uncertainty 3. Therefore I reject your rationale that the biological identicality 1 of different humans mandates that all laws governing medicine be identical for all humans.
Click to expand...
  1. Agreed that it is not biology, rather personhood, as per language in the Constitution and as signatory nation to the UNDHR, that underpins political and human rights. Otherwise, the morbidly obese would be ◊◊◊◊ out of luck in my book. That's unfair. I should not be able to engage in such discrimination. Verdict: No going local on this one.
  2. Ethics is a tad slippery a term, as it skirts the matter of whether we address, say, a professional code of behavior (medical in this case), or a question of morality, 95% of the time in practice derived from Judeo-Christian tradition in the case of the US. The latter may inspire moral argument (ideal case), or be taken as literally applicable and not a matter for discussion (usual case). Professional ethics do not supersede local or federal law (though one may choose to yet act in accordance), and the literal application of religious law is unconstitutional. This leaves moral argument, thesis and persuasive support, as sole legitimate component of legal discussion. Verdict: Providing neither of the above universals is in question, fine, go local in a properly circumscribed manner.
  3. Uncertainty belongs as part of the discussion regarding matters of fact. Verdict: It cannot therefore be only a local question.
JayUtah said:
The division of land into political units that both distinguish (state’s rights) and unify (federalism) is only a gross approximation of the historical, moral, and cultural differences between different parts of the United States. Social scientists identify something like a dozen different nations with the U.S. defined by shared history, culture, and moral disposition. These people are likely to have different opinions on the “should” part of medicine. The Framers realized this would and should be the case, and thereby reserved police power to those political approximations.
Click to expand...

Agreed that the Framers left matters undefined in the Constitution up to the States. Agreed that different cultural traditions exist in the US. Not agreed that this has any application until and unless a specific type of medical procedure is identified, at which time, it is a question of determining if any universals, as termed above, apply.

JayUtah said:
Convince me that you can do better.
Click to expand...
Pass. I have bad days, too.
 
Hlafordlaes said:
This does not address...
Click to expand...
No argument with that.

Hlafordlaes said:
Pass. I have bad days, too.
Click to expand...
No need for you to feel called out. That was directed at the OP, not the thread at large. The Framers came up with a federal system that allowed for differences in governmental mandates across a diverse population. The OP's proposition involved a questionable premise leading to a conclusion that there should be one national standard of allowability for medical treatment.
 
theprestige said:
I mean, science argues for an aggressive selective breeding program.
Click to expand...
It doesn't, and can't. Science might be able to tell you what the likely result of such a program might be (history might be able to tell you a bit more) but the question of what we ought to do is fundamentally unanswerable with scientific inquiry alone.
 
What is the reason for a government, on any level, to ban a medical procedure? Because the risks outweight the benefits? Because the goal is good but it's likely to fail? Because the desired results are bad? Because the patient doesn't deserve the procedure? Because the goal is good but the means are bad? I don't see how one could assess the ethics behind a ban without knowing the reason behind the ban.
 
JayUtah said:
No argument with that.


No need for you to feel called out. That was directed at the OP, not the thread at large. The Framers came up with a federal system that allowed for differences in governmental mandates across a diverse population. The OP's proposition involved a questionable premise leading to a conclusion that there should be one national standard of allowability for medical treatment.
Click to expand...
Yes, including abortion.
 
Hercules56 said:
Yes, including abortion.
Click to expand...
You've done little to defend the premise that leads you to a one-size-fits-all conclusion for any nationwide ban on a medical procedure. You very easily painted yourself into a corner and then tried to shift the burden of proof. I'm interested in seeing whether you can get yourself out of the corner.

Hercules56 said:
General Welfare Clause may cover medical treatment.
Click to expand...
Would it justify nationwide vaccine mandates?

The problem with general welfare is that it has to be general. You can possibly justify a medical mandate for which individual compliance (including possible hardship) has actual, demonstrable consequences for the larger society, such requiring vaccination in order to prevent the spread of communicable diseases in the general population. But that doesn't justify laws where both the behavior and the consequences are individual. Banning my next door neighbor from getting a Prince Albert doesn't advance my welfare, or the general welfare, in the least.
 
JayUtah said:
You've done little to defend the premise that leads you to a one-size-fits-all conclusion for any nationwide ban on a medical procedure. You very easily painted yourself into a corner and then tried to shift the burden of proof. I'm interested in seeing whether you can get yourself out of the corner.


Would it justify nationwide vaccine mandates?

The problem with general welfare is that it has to be general. You can possibly justify a medical mandate for which individual compliance (including possible hardship) has actual, demonstrable consequences for the larger society, such requiring vaccination in order to prevent the spread of communicable diseases in the general population. But that doesn't justify laws where both the behavior and the consequences are individual. Banning my next door neighbor from getting a Prince Albert doesn't advance my welfare, or the general welfare, in the least.
Click to expand...
I believe that there should be a nationwide mandate allowing abortion on demand until the 16th week. Im not really interested in the different beliefs people may have in Texas vs Massachusetts.

You agree?
 
Hercules56 said:
I believe that there should be a nationwide mandate...
Click to expand...
The premise you cite for nationwide mandates in general is problematic for the reasons I gave, and which you seem unwilling to address.

Hercules56 said:
I'm not really interested in the different beliefs people may have in Texas vs Massachusetts.
Click to expand...
If you're unwilling to revisit your premises then there is no point engaging you further.
 
JayUtah said:
The premise you cite for nationwide mandates in general is problematic for the reasons I gave, and which you seem unwilling to address.


If you're unwilling to revisit your premises then there is no point engaging you further.
Click to expand...
You're saying you oppose national healthcare mandates like in Obamacare, and the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act and national minimum wage and national child labor laws?
 
theprestige said:
I mean, science argues for an aggressive selective breeding program. Maybe with several branches for various contingencies, but still a breeding program. All that remains is for you to decide which genes should be bred for which purposes. Assuming you live in a democratic society where your decision carries some weight, however small.
Click to expand...
Science does not argue for an aggressive breeding program. Science does not argue for anything. At most you could say science supports evolution.
 
theprestige said:
I mean, science argues for an aggressive selective breeding program. Maybe with several branches for various contingencies, but still a breeding program. All that remains is for you to decide which genes should be bred for which purposes. Assuming you live in a democratic society where your decision carries some weight, however small.
Click to expand...
I disagree with this premise. Defend it.
 
JayUtah said:
The premise you cite for nationwide mandates in general is problematic for the reasons I gave, and which you seem unwilling to address.


If you're unwilling to revisit your premises then there is no point engaging you further.
Click to expand...
Yet, regardless of H56's formulation, the idea that abortion rights are a national issue does lead us to the need to debate reasons for and against abortion being considered a matter of human or constitutional rights; namely, a woman's right to decide about her own body, as well as the moral reasoning we might add.

Google's AI summary: The core premise of Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision, was that the U.S. Constitution protects a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, and states cannot ban the procedure before fetal viability. The decision established a woman's right to privacy, which includes the right to decide whether to have an abortion, while also recognizing the state's interest in protecting potential life.
Click to expand...
This is now disputed, and I would argue that the recent decision reversing this ruling is fundamentally flawed and backdoors literal interpretations of scripture, not moral reasoning. But the argument is indeed centered on whether univerals apply; a federal issue given constitutional law is germane.
 
Last edited:
I think there are two issues that require abortion to be addressed at a federal level.

First that it addresses a fundamental right of a woman (and her foetus). For the woman it is control over her own body. For the foetus it is a right to life. These are not rights that should vary across states. These are fundamental rights that should be universal (and certainly not alter depending on which side of an arbitrary line you are).

Second that some states are trying to exert extra-territorial authority and seeking prosecution and extradition of persons resident in other states, or making it an offence to cross into another state to have a procedure that is legal in that state.

A lesser issue is interference with interstate commerce, a manufacturer of a drug that is federally licensed for termination of pregnancy should be allowed to sell that drug through out the US.

(My personal opinion is that it should be an individual woman's right to choose, I never had to make the choice, and don't know what I would have decided, but I wouldn't want the option taken from me.)

ETA I always thought the 'privacy' justification from Roe was a weak argument, and struck me as a compromise argument allowing the SC to come to the right conclusion without offending religious sensibilities, or having to balance competing rights of mother and child. What is needed (and won't happen) is a constitutional amendment.
 
Last edited:
Hlafordlaes said:
This is now disputed, and I would argue that the recent decision reversing this ruling is fundamentally flawed and backdoors literal interpretations of scripture, not moral reasoning. But the argument is indeed centered on whether univerals apply; a federal issue given constitutional law is germane.
Click to expand...

To continue:
As for the moral reasoning, we have agreed that personhood, not genetics or biology, is the foundation for being considered a rights-holding individual. It was common in the more distant past, and in Scripture, to treat the unborn as not having attained personhood or its equivalent in the thinking of the time.

What is a person? For me, it is a human with a functioning identity, even in its initial stage. A process of experiential learning starts that creates a lifelong record of having a self, the persona and personal history that is there when we wake or recover from sedation. This forms the basis for granting pre-birth rights to late-stage fetuses, and to denying the same to individuals who have experienced functional brain death and loss of the required faculties to sustain a personal narrative, history or identity.

And, of course, this stage comes late in pregnancy, making abortion morally neutral prior to that time. The interruption of causality being an immoral act if it prevents emergence of personhood is an admitted counterargument (one that is used, e.g., against contraception), one to which I do not subscribe, as once the full play of all possible outcomes becomes a basis for prosecution before the fact, justice becomes a guessing game with few boundaries.

So, an issue of fundamental rights, one of alignment with the language of the Constitution ("persons"), and one, I venture, of matters of fact (the neuro and cognitive science thereof pending argument for now). In this case, a State should not be able to ban this medical procedure (nor could a SCOTUS with its bigboy pants on).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom