Daily review 09/12/2022

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, December 9th, 2022 - 21 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

21 comments on “Daily review 09/12/2022 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. SPC 1
    9 December 2022 at 6:04 pm

    SCOTUS has agreed to decide on a case as to states determination of federal elections.

    the independent state legislature doctrine … holds, in its purest form, that state constitutions have little to no ability to constrain state legislatures. The doctrine emerged from a novel interpretation of the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause, which grants states the authority to set the “time, places and manner” of federal elections.

    At the core of the dispute is whether the framers intended the word “legislature” in the document to be understood strictly, or whether they meant that other institutions — like state courts, governors and secretaries of state — also had important roles to play in setting and interpreting the rules around elections and voting

    If adopted, the doctrine would, among other things, bar state courts from ensuring that state laws comply with a requirement, common in many state constitutions, that elections be “free and fair” — with potentially vast implications for rules on redistricting, citizen-led commissions and voting.

    Four conservative justices have written sympathetically about the theory, and it only takes five to form a majority. But the middle of the court — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — seemed on Wednesday to be looking for a middle ground.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/08/us/politics/supreme-court-independent-legislature-theory.html

  2. SPC 2
    9 December 2022 at 6:28 pm

    Another ex Guardian journalist

    The wheels have been coming off the bus of so-called “gender ideology" for some time, though if you only read certain newspapers, saw certain comedians or watched only the BBC you would scarcely know that. Censorship is too strong a word to use about how the subject of trans rights are covered. It is more that any conflict with women's rights are dismissed, ignored or deemed “transphobic”.

    What I feel most upset about is the absolute dereliction of basic journalism by the Left-wing media. The first lie is that there is no conflict between trans rights and women's rights, and no harm ever caused by self-identification. In truth, there is a conflict – and it is ripping apart the SNP, whose leader, Nicola Sturgeon, backs a Bill that would make it easier for people to legally change gender without a medical diagnosis. The issue has also divided the Greens and, in effect, ended the Women's Equality Party. In private, half of Labour do not think that women can have a penis; they just won’t say it publicly.

    “Every journalist is a moralist. It's absolutely unavoidable.” wrote Marguerite Duras. Well, the good ones are. But don’t tell The Guardian that. Cowardice is free, but facts are sacred.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2022/12/06/guardian-hiding-truth-trans/

  3. SPC 3
    9 December 2022 at 6:46 pm

    WASHINGTON — The House on Thursday gave final approval to legislation to mandate federal recognition for same-sex marriages, with a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers voting in favor of the measure in the waning days of the Democratic-led Congress.

    With a vote of 258-169, with one member voting “present,” the landmark legislation cleared Congress, sending it to President Biden to be signed into law and capping an improbable path for a measure that only months ago appeared to have little chance at enactment.

    Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the tally triumphantly, banging the gavel repeatedly as if to applaud as members of the House cheered.

    “Today, we stand up for the values the vast majority of Americans hold dear: A belief in the dignity, beauty and divinity — spark of divinity — in every person, and abiding respect for love so powerful that it binds two people together,” Ms. Pelosi said in a speech from the House floor before the vote.

    In a statement, Mr. Biden called the action by Congress “a critical step to ensure that Americans have the right to marry the person they love.”

    The measure’s success reflected a broader cultural and political shift on the issue of same-sex marriage, which only a decade ago was regarded by members of both parties as divisive and risky terrain. It has become so broadly accepted in American society that it can now generate decisive bipartisan majorities in both chambers of Congress. In the years since, same-sex marriage has become widely accepted by members of both parties, and polls show that more than 70 percent of voters support same-sex marriage.

    In the Senate, the legislation was revised to address concerns among some Republicans that it would punish or restrict the religious freedom of institutions that refuse to recognize same-sex marriages. That version passed last month, forcing it back to the House for a second vote to approve the changes.

    The push to pass the legislation began after Justice Clarence Thomas suggested in his opinion in the June ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade, which had established a constitutional right to abortion, that the court also “should reconsider” precedents enshrining marriage equality and access to contraception.

    In a condition that Republican backers in the Senate insisted upon, the measure would guarantee that religious organizations would not be required to provide any goods or services for the celebration of any marriage, and could not lose tax-exempt status or other benefits for refusing to recognize same-sex unions.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/08/us/politics/same-sex-marriage-congress.html

  4. Robert Guyton 4
    9 December 2022 at 7:38 pm

    "A leading member of the Iwi Chairs Forum has slammed the Māori and Green parties for voting against Labour’s three waters reform.

    The Greens voted against the third reading of the Water Services Entities Bill last night because the Government had second thoughts about the constitutionality of an entrenchment clause aimed at stopping future privatisation, while the Maori Party says the bill failed to recognise Maori ownership of water.

    Outgoing Te Rarawa chair Haami Piripi says that’s a vote for the status quo, which entrenches white privilege.

    “Those privileges have been allocated to different elements of our community and society which have promoted their development. They get the water first. There’s been a whole history of marginalisation and I’m just amazed the Maori Party can vote for white privilege. I’m more amazed the Greens can vote against an environmental issue in support of a financial one,” he says.

    Te Rarawa and other Muriwhenua iwi have been fighting to get the water they need to develop land returned in their treaty settlements."

    https://waateanews.com/2022/12/09/three-waters-no-a-vote-for-white-privilege/?

  5. Incognito 5
    9 December 2022 at 8:18 pm

    In a statement last night, Justice Gault said he had been informed by the lawyer acting for Te Whatu Ora that the baby's parents had prevented doctors from taking blood tests, performing a chest X-ray and performing an anaesthetic assessment.

    The parents objected and the hospital asked the police for help.

    A new ruling last night ordered the parents not to do so.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/480419/blood-donor-case-baby-s-surgery-takes-place-at-starship

    I do have some doubts about the future medical care of the child, which is likely to be ongoing for some time unless the parents ‘complicate’ things.

    • gsays 5.1
      10 December 2022 at 7:29 am

      That's interesting.

      Interesting that agents of the state are drip feeding the morsels into the public domain so we can keep tossing our reckons about and reinforce our biases.

  9. Shanreagh 9
    10 December 2022 at 12:44 am

    The Health and Disability Commissioner has released a decision on a Dr who sent a text to 600 of his patients advising against the Covid vaccination and referring them to New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out with Science (NZDSOS) for further information.

    https://www.hdc.org.nz/decisions/search-decisions/2022/21hdc01972/

    The HDC made these recommendations

    1. 'I recommend that should Dr A be granted a further practising certificate, the Medical Council of New Zealand consider undertaking a competence assessment and requiring that he practise with conditions that address the issues in this report.
    2. I recommend that Dr A separately apologise for his breaches of the Code, to each of the individual patients referred to in this opinion. The apologies are to be sent to HDC within three weeks of the date of this opinion, for forwarding.
    3. I recommend that should Dr A return to medical practice, he undertake training on professional and ethical standards, within three months of his return to practice, and report to HDC with evidence of his attendance and the content of the training.
    4. I recommend that Dr B and Dr C consider developing guidelines on the use of patient lists and the PMS system and, within three months of the date of this opinion, report to HDC on the outcome, including any guidelines put in place.'

    The Commissioner has also asked for the follow-up action

    1. 'I have carefully considered whether to refer Dr A to the Director of Proceedings in accordance with section 45(2)(f) of the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994, for the purpose of deciding whether any proceedings should be taken. I have decided that it is in the public interest to do so, as I consider that Dr A’s breaches of the Code are serious and had the potential to impact negatively on health outcomes (especially noting the vulnerable community in which he practised).
    2. A copy of this report with details identifying the parties removed will be sent to the Medical Council of New Zealand, and it will be advised of the names of Dr A, Dr B, and Dr C in the covering letter.
    3. A copy of this report with details identifying the parties removed will be sent to the Ministry of Health, Te Whatu Ora — Health New Zealand, Te Aka Whai Ora — Māori Health Authority, the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners, the New Zealand Medical Association, and the Health Quality & Safety Commission, and placed on the Health and Disability Commissioner website, hdc.org.nz, for educational purposes.'
    • weka 9.1
      10 December 2022 at 11:33 am

      Good.

      I'm curious what the professional and ethics training would be. Obviously there is a breach in texting patients with one's personal views like this. He's also wrong about the comparison with the flu, so is there's a competency issue there.

      Theoretically it should be possible to do the ethics training without making it about vaccines are always safe. Hard to see this happening with such polarised views. eg if the training is 'you have to accept the conventional view on covid vax' rather than 'your behaviour has to conform to these standards even if you disagree with covid vax'

  10. Patricia Bremner 10
    10 December 2022 at 8:17 am

    Apparently one was well known for his obdurate vaccination views, so there were 2 more? They should be named imo.

    • Nic the NZer 10.1
      10 December 2022 at 8:34 am

      Sounds like Dr B and Dr C are expected to put guidelines in place so Dr A can be told not to cross those lines again. I would think they are the more senior or directors of Dr A's practice, not that they are accused of doing anything wrong themselves. I'm also assuming the above was largely quoted so the specific wordings are significant.

      • weka 10.1.1
        10 December 2022 at 11:37 am

        that's my reading (without having read the whole document). I would guess that in many GP clinics in NZ it's currently possible for a GP to do what Dr A did. Training and development of good practice hasn't really kept up with the technological advances eg texting.

    • weka 10.2
      10 December 2022 at 11:35 am

      The report says there was no breach by Dr B and C.