Rad Onc Job Market, Supreme Court, and Hyper-Polarization of America

[medgator]

The leak is the story. Why would a 6-3 court decide any other way for this? The entire goal of the Federalist society since the early 1980s was for this outcome.

I am curious about the leak. Lib? Right wing hack? There are many theories!

Ummm most important SCOTUS decision in 50 years... If one was going to be leaked, this was going to be it. Hate to say i agree with the probationary status guy, but i do

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[TheWallnerus]

The rich folks are still going to travel and quietly have their procedures.

Did people not watch 'Dirty Dancing'???

 

[HolySmokes]

The leak is the story.

This is right wing hackery at its finest. Anyone who purports that the SCOTUS leak is the more important story than overturning 50 years of women's rights and setting the stage to overturn who knows how many other civil liberties is operating in bad faith to direct attention away from what's actually going on.

 

[deleted1111261]

This is right wing hackery at its finest. Anyone who purports that the SCOTUS leak is the more important story than overturning 50 years of women's rights and setting the stage to overturn who knows how many other civil liberties is operating in bad faith to direct attention away from what's actually going on.

Sorry- let me say this better

I had no doubt once Trump presidency was over that this would happen. I read a lot of right wing media (I already know what I believe - I need to know what they are thinking). If you follow along with that world, I think it is not a surprise and in June this was going to happen. This breach to me is incredible, because even if this is a political branch, there have been certain standards violated.

With the current make up of the court, I’m surprised that everyone is shocked.

 

[medgator]

. This breach to me is incredible, because even if this is a political branch, there have been certain standards violated.

With the current make up of the court, I’m surprised that everyone is shocked.

No different than the last guy managing his assets without a blind trust and directly profiting off the presidency while using his position to gain dirt during an election season. This is as nothingburger as it comes if we want to talk about violations of standards over the last decade....

 

[Mandelin Rain]

What if.... There are no longer standards to violate? (there aren't)

 

[communitydoc13]

I predict very little to any impact of this ruling on physician distribution issues. The NYT has a great granular map of the 2020 election. The political divide more closely approximates an "it looks like a population density map" than almost anything I can think of. Even moderate sized cities like Charleston WV or Lancaster PA are blue in a sea of RED. Despite ridiculous rulings in a place like Texas, young docs are usually not turning down jobs in cities in Texas.

The problem is that our 2 party system, our Senate structure and our congressional districting almost always overvalue rural voters.

The intersection of race and rurality cannot be overstated. Among young, white, urban voters, nearly 70% voted for Biden, whereas 60% of young, white rural voters voted for Trump.

Curious what percentage of your med school classes were made up of rural white Americans? At my East Coast state school, we had more Californians than in-state rural students.

 

[Lamount]

Sorry- let me say this better

I had no doubt once Trump presidency was over that this would happen. I read a lot of right wing media (I already know what I believe - I need to know what they are thinking). If you follow along with that world, I think it is not a surprise and in June this was going to happen. This breach to me is incredible, because even if this is a political branch, there have been certain standards violated.

With the current make up of the court, I’m surprised that everyone is shocked.

Even if an impending train wreck is unavoidable, it's still a pretty remarkable thing when it happens.

 

[deleted1111261]

Even if an impending train wreck is unavoidable, it's still a pretty remarkable thing when it happens.

No doubt.

But you have 6 avowed anti-abortion Supreme Court justices that the Federalist Society hand picked for this very reason - I am still curious to why people wouldn't think this would happen in June. The test cases were all picked specifically for this outcome. The other part is that it is a draft and the emotions are running high, but this is a draft. IIRC, there was a draft opinion about overturning Obamacare that changed and Roberts' wrote his opinion affirming it and calling the mandate a tax. I have not seen the draft, but I have heard of it existing.

The leak is a big story to me because I've been following the court for most of my adult life and this has never happened before. But, 6 conservative anti-abortion judges deciding against abortion? Seems like it was going to happen this summer. Anyone of the "surprised" people read the transcripts/read analysis of the arguments? Seemed pretty straightforward to me.

 

[jondunn]

Anyone of the "surprised" people read the transcripts/read analysis of the arguments? Seemed pretty straightforward to me.

what is straight forward about it?

 

[OTN]

what is straight forward about it?

I think he means that, given the currently ideological bend of the court, it should not be surprising that they went with a originalist/federalist/state's rights approach to Roe v Wade.

 

[Mandelin Rain]

what is straight forward about it?

That if the constitution doesn't explicitly outline a right, or if it's a right that is not (in their opinion) "deeply rooted in the Nation's history or traditions," this court can and and will overturn federal protection to said right.

I didn't realize that "Liberty" was not deeply rooted in this Nation's history and traditions.

I'm glad to be EnLito'ed.

 

[deleted1111261]

Everyone is an originalist when it favors their point of view.

 

[DoctwoB]

Not sure how you can read the opinion and not be worried for other rights.

Interpretation Y of clause X means abortion is constitutionally protected
Interpretation Y of clause X means gay marriage is constitutionally protected
Interpretation Y of clause X means interracial marriage is constitutionally protected
and so on and so on. Almost none of our civil liberties are explicitly stated in the constitution or amendments. They rely on interpretation of what things like "equal protection" mean. Which, idiot that i am, would think is obvious, but apparently isn't when it comes to persecuting women, minorities, LGBTQs, or non-christians.

Now it (may soon be) established case law that interpretation Y of clause X is invalid. Saying that it only applies to abortion is irrelevant because the legal reasoning is identical for any other case. All they are saying is that they are not deliberately invalidating those things right now. Now will they choose to go after these issues? I don't know. Abortion has been the holy grail for these federalist types for years, I don't necessarily see the same appetite for going after some of these rights. The SC may choose to deflect the next case involving gay marriage or other non-abortion based on standing or what not to avoid having to apply the same reasoning again. Or they may not. But giving themselves that option and power is rightly terrifying to much of this country, and undermines the very credibility that the SC requires to function

 

[evilbooyaa]

Given the relative monumentous nature of this draft and the significant ramifications it will have on willingness of women to work and live in the various states, I will make a one-time exception and allow this specific thread to proceed with the focus on the supreme court, roe v wade, and the resulting after effects on the Rad Onc department.

 

[Mandelin Rain]

Not sure how you can read the opinion and not be worried for other rights.

 

[DoctwoB]

Given the relative monumentous nature of this draft and the significant ramifications it will have on willingness of women to work and live in the various states, I will make a one-time exception and allow this specific thread to proceed with the focus on the supreme court, roe v wade, and the resulting after effects on the Rad Onc department.

I can safely say that my wife will never let us live in a red state after this. I, enjoying being married, will comply.

 

[Gfunk6]

As someone who lives in a deep blue region of a very blue state with an already high tax burden, I am afraid that by paying for out-of-state women to fly here, receive accommodations, get a legal abortion, and fly home my own tax burden will continue to rise. I mean, I agree it is the right thing to do but it is a hard pill to swallow when you have to pay for other people's decisions.

Furthermore, it looks like anti-abortion states are going to try to restrict their residents from going out of state for abortions. What crazy times we live in . . .

Of course, VIPs in red states can always get abortions for the mistresses in other states.

 

[medgator]

As someone who lives in a deep blue region of a very blue state with an already high tax burden, I am afraid that by paying for out-of-state women to fly here, receive accommodations, get a legal abortion, and fly home my own tax burden will continue to rise.

Is your state paying for that? From what I'm seeing, it's the amazons, Netflix's etc that are going to pay to fly their employees out if need be for that

 

[RickyScott]

Sound and hallowed jurisprudence at work here:In Leaked Abortion Decision, Justice Alito Relies on Jurist Who Supported Marital Rape, Executed 'Witches'

 

[Gfunk6]

Is your state paying for that? From what I'm seeing, it's the amazons, Netflix's etc that are going to pay to fly their employees out if need be for that

Can't say for sure until Supreme Court renders its final decision but all signs point to "yes."

 

[jondunn]

That if the constitution doesn't explicitly outline a right, or if it's a right that is not (in their opinion) "deeply rooted in the Nation's history or traditions," this court can and and will overturn federal protection to said right.

I didn't realize that "Liberty" was not deeply rooted in this Nation's history and traditions.

I'm glad to be EnLito'ed.

right - that is not straight forward to me, because it can be used in some very nefarious ways!

 

[jondunn]

Not sure how you can read the opinion and not be worried for other rights.

Interpretation Y of clause X means abortion is constitutionally protected
Interpretation Y of clause X means gay marriage is constitutionally protected
Interpretation Y of clause X means interracial marriage is constitutionally protected
and so on and so on. Almost none of our civil liberties are explicitly stated in the constitution or amendments. They rely on interpretation of what things like "equal protection" mean. Which, idiot that i am, would think is obvious, but apparently isn't when it comes to persecuting women, minorities, LGBTQs, or non-christians.

Now it (may soon be) established case law that interpretation Y of clause X is invalid. Saying that it only applies to abortion is irrelevant because the legal reasoning is identical for any other case. All they are saying is that they are not deliberately invalidating those things right now. Now will they choose to go after these issues? I don't know. Abortion has been the holy grail for these federalist types for years, I don't necessarily see the same appetite for going after some of these rights. The SC may choose to deflect the next case involving gay marriage or other non-abortion based on standing or what not to avoid having to apply the same reasoning again. Or they may not. But giving themselves that option and power is rightly terrifying to much of this country, and undermines the very credibility that the SC requires to function

yes. thank you. where were you yesterday lol.

 

[Chartreuse Wombat]

yes. thank you. where were you yesterday lol.

What Alito Got Right

The Court’s job is not to determine which rights we should possess but rather which rights we do possess.

www.theatlantic.com

Here is where the differences between conservative and progressive jurists are perhaps starkest. Going back to Justice Ginsburg’s 1992 remarks, she argued (quoting Oliver Wendell Holmes) that “judges do and must legislate.” Even though Justice Ginsburg argued for a change slower and more interstitial than Roe, conservative justices such as Alito would still strenuously disagree.

Instead, enacting legal change is precisely the role of the people’s elected representatives. Legislation is for the legislature, and if the people of the United States want to create a right to abortion, they have that power. They had that power before Roe, and if Alito’s opinion holds, they will still have that power.

 

[medgator]

What Alito Got Right

The Court’s job is not to determine which rights we should possess but rather which rights we do possess.

www.theatlantic.com

Lots of stuff up for grabs/rollbacks in that case

 

[RickyScott]

What Alito Got Right

The Court’s job is not to determine which rights we should possess but rather which rights we do possess.

www.theatlantic.com

Here is where the differences between conservative and progressive jurists are perhaps starkest. Going back to Justice Ginsburg’s 1992 remarks, she argued (quoting Oliver Wendell Holmes) that “judges do and must legislate.” Even though Justice Ginsburg argued for a change slower and more interstitial than Roe, conservative justices such as Alito would still strenuously disagree.

Instead, enacting legal change is precisely the role of the people’s elected representatives. Legislation is for the legislature, and if the people of the United States want to create a right to abortion, they have that power. They had that power before Roe, and if Alito’s opinion holds, they will still have that power.

If congress passed a law enshrining the right to abortion, dont you think the court would find some prestext to strike it down?

 

[HolySmokes]

As someone who lives in a deep blue region of a very blue state with an already high tax burden, I am afraid that by paying for out-of-state women to fly here, receive accommodations, get a legal abortion, and fly home my own tax burden will continue to rise. I mean, I agree it is the right thing to do but it is a hard pill to swallow when you have to pay for other people's decisions.

You are already paying for those peoples' decisions if you live in a blue state by subsidizing regressive red state economies with your federal taxes.

 

[medgator]

You are already paying for those peoples' decisions if you live in a blue state by subsidizing regressive red state economies with your federal taxes.

Yeppers. Purplish states like FL and TX end up breaking close to even iirc

AP FACT CHECK: Blue high-tax states fund red low-tax states

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican leaders have spent months promoting the myth that red low-tax states are subsidizing blue high-tax states because of the deduction for state and local taxes.

apnews.com

 

[jondunn]

when are they going to overturn SDN vs KHE

 

[medgator]

when are they going to overturn SDN vs KHE

Asking for a friend?

 

[RadOncMegatron]

I never thought Roe v Wade would go down but alas it did. This should be celebrated. A lot of people complaining about “human rights” but I have yet to see a good definition outside those that are “endowed by Our Creator.” The “right” to an abortion was made in the last century and given by the government. If one believes rights can be invented and comes from the government then don’t be surprised if they can come and go by government fiat.

The sanctity of the life of the fetus is worth protecting.

The autonomy of women should be protected.

In pregnancy these come into conflict, but it cannot justify the murder of a another human being. As an aside, reading through ethics textbooks and going though ethics classes, we easily forget to that many ethical dilemmas happen because 2 goods come into conflict.

If it is a life, it deserves the vaunted human rights everybody else has, but asking for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for a fetus is not some crazy regressive position. Just as my pro choice colleagues don’t want to deliberately kill babies for fun pro lifers are not out there trying to purposely enslave women.

I have had good conversations on this topic. It comes down to my pro choice friends saying “I recognize the fact that you care about the unborn, but I choose the right of autonomy of the woman over the right to life of the fetus.”

Not sure how much energy I have to argue these points, but wanted to make sure at least one pro-lifer comes on here to make a comment.

(Yes, I’m preparing for the onslaught to follow this post)

 

[medgator]

I never thought Roe v Wade would go down but alas it did. This should be celebrated. A lot of people complaining about “human rights” but I have yet to see a good definition outside those that are “endowed by Our Creator.” The “right” to an abortion was made in the last century and given by the government. If one believes rights can be invented and comes from the government then don’t be surprised if they can come and go by government fiat.

The sanctity of the life of the fetus is worth protecting.

The autonomy of women should be protected.

In pregnancy these come into conflict, but it cannot justify the murder of a another human being. As an aside, reading through ethics textbooks and going though ethics classes, we easily forget to that many ethical dilemmas happen because 2 goods come into conflict.

If it is a life, it deserves the vaunted human rights everybody else has, but asking for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for a fetus is not some crazy regressive position. Just as my pro choice colleagues don’t want to deliberately kill babies for fun pro lifers are not out there trying to purposely enslave women.

I have had good conversations on this topic. It comes down to my pro choice friends saying “I recognize the fact that you care about the unborn, but I choose the right of autonomy of the woman over the right to life of the fetus.”

Not sure how much energy I have to argue these points, but wanted to make sure at least one pro-lifer comes on here to make a comment.

(Yes, I’m preparing for the onslaught to follow this post)

Are you pro capital punishment? Many on the right seem to be, and given the underlying errors that have been seen in that system, i find that to be hypocritical

As an aside, rape, incest etc being looked at in a positive light with recent comments from some of those on the right is pretty disgusting imo and truly takes away women's autonomy and turns them into unwitting breeders for society.

 

[Ray D. Ayshun]

I never thought Roe v Wade would go down but alas it did. This should be celebrated. A lot of people complaining about “human rights” but I have yet to see a good definition outside those that are “endowed by Our Creator.” The “right” to an abortion was made in the last century and given by the government. If one believes rights can be invented and comes from the government then don’t be surprised if they can come and go by government fiat.

The sanctity of the life of the fetus is worth protecting.

The autonomy of women should be protected.

In pregnancy these come into conflict, but it cannot justify the murder of a another human being. As an aside, reading through ethics textbooks and going though ethics classes, we easily forget to that many ethical dilemmas happen because 2 goods come into conflict.

If it is a life, it deserves the vaunted human rights everybody else has, but asking for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for a fetus is not some crazy regressive position. Just as my pro choice colleagues don’t want to deliberately kill babies for fun pro lifers are not out there trying to purposely enslave women.

I have had good conversations on this topic. It comes down to my pro choice friends saying “I recognize the fact that you care about the unborn, but I choose the right of autonomy of the woman over the right to life of the fetus.”

Not sure how much energy I have to argue these points, but wanted to make sure at least one pro-lifer comes on here to make a comment.

(Yes, I’m preparing for the onslaught to follow this post)

I'm pro life and pro choice. There's really no argument to be made or discussion to be had as we're not talking about the same thing and never will be.

 

[radiation]

I never thought Roe v Wade would go down but alas it did. This should be celebrated. A lot of people complaining about “human rights” but I have yet to see a good definition outside those that are “endowed by Our Creator.” The “right” to an abortion was made in the last century and given by the government. If one believes rights can be invented and comes from the government then don’t be surprised if they can come and go by government fiat.

The sanctity of the life of the fetus is worth protecting.

The autonomy of women should be protected.

In pregnancy these come into conflict, but it cannot justify the murder of a another human being. As an aside, reading through ethics textbooks and going though ethics classes, we easily forget to that many ethical dilemmas happen because 2 goods come into conflict.

If it is a life, it deserves the vaunted human rights everybody else has, but asking for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for a fetus is not some crazy regressive position. Just as my pro choice colleagues don’t want to deliberately kill babies for fun pro lifers are not out there trying to purposely enslave women.

I have had good conversations on this topic. It comes down to my pro choice friends saying “I recognize the fact that you care about the unborn, but I choose the right of autonomy of the woman over the right to life of the fetus.”

Not sure how much energy I have to argue these points, but wanted to make sure at least one pro-lifer comes on here to make a comment.

(Yes, I’m preparing for the onslaught to follow this post)

anyone who is calling abortion murder without any sort of nuance is not trying to engage in any sort of productive conversation. Why does the conversation about pro-life always stop after the child is born? If you are pro-life for unwanted pregnancies, then I would hope you have also been giving the same amount of energy supporting legislation for social services that are necessary to help the children that are born from unwanted pregnancies as well as social services to provide contraception, family planning and meaningful sex education to prevent unwanted pregnancies from occurring.

 

[Lamount]

I never thought Roe v Wade would go down but alas it did. This should be celebrated. A lot of people complaining about “human rights” but I have yet to see a good definition outside those that are “endowed by Our Creator.” The “right” to an abortion was made in the last century and given by the government. If one believes rights can be invented and comes from the government then don’t be surprised if they can come and go by government fiat.

The sanctity of the life of the fetus is worth protecting.

The autonomy of women should be protected.

In pregnancy these come into conflict, but it cannot justify the murder of a another human being. As an aside, reading through ethics textbooks and going though ethics classes, we easily forget to that many ethical dilemmas happen because 2 goods come into conflict.

If it is a life, it deserves the vaunted human rights everybody else has, but asking for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for a fetus is not some crazy regressive position. Just as my pro choice colleagues don’t want to deliberately kill babies for fun pro lifers are not out there trying to purposely enslave women.

I have had good conversations on this topic. It comes down to my pro choice friends saying “I recognize the fact that you care about the unborn, but I choose the right of autonomy of the woman over the right to life of the fetus.”

Not sure how much energy I have to argue these points, but wanted to make sure at least one pro-lifer comes on here to make a comment.

(Yes, I’m preparing for the onslaught to follow this post)

When life begins is certainly debatable, but I think we can agree that any definition of “life” includes some aspect of self-sustainability. The way I see it, the POTENTIAL FOR LIFE (I.e. a fetus before the age of viability) is to LIFE (I.e. a living baby) as a med student is to a doctor. Just because a med student will become a doctor one day, doesn’t mean they should be treated as a doctor the whole time there in med school. In my eyes, given this distinction, the autonomy of a living woman trumps that of a growing fetus that has the potential for life after birth.

 

[medgator]

When life begins is certainly debatable, but I think we can agree that any definition of “life” includes some aspect of self-sustainability. The way I see it, the POTENTIAL FOR LIFE (I.e. a fetus before the age of viability) is to LIFE (I.e. a living baby) as a med student is to a doctor. Just because a med student will become a doctor one day, doesn’t mean they should be treated as a doctor the whole time there in med school. In my eyes, given this distinction, the autonomy of a living woman trumps that of a growing fetus that has the potential for life after birth.

George Carlin addressed this argument quite well

 

[RickyScott]

I am not sure what I think about abortion, but certainly wouldn’t tell someone else what to do.

 

[RadOncMegatron]

Lots of questions here, but can someone address try questioned I’ve asked. I genuinely curious about the definition of human rights and what rights a fetus has. Also kudos for a (mostly) civil talk.

But given the explosive nature of this issue and time required to discuss not sure I have the time or energy to do so. I’m sure ya’ll feel the same.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

As Carlin mentions, does my sperm (potential human) have rights?

 

[Lamount]

Lots of questions here, but can someone address try questioned I’ve asked. I genuinely curious about the definition of human rights and what rights a fetus has. Also kudos for a (mostly) civil talk.

But given the explosive nature of this issue and time required to discuss not sure I have the time or energy to do so. I’m sure ya’ll feel the same.

Personally, I believe the rights of the fetus are an extension of the rights of the mother, so long as it requires the mother’s body to live

 

[radoncftw]

I think there is a lot of hypocrisy from the conservatives. My body, my choice when it comes to vaccines, masking, etc.

 

[Ray D. Ayshun]

Lots of questions here, but can someone address try questioned I’ve asked. I genuinely curious about the definition of human rights and what rights a fetus has. Also kudos for a (mostly) civil talk.

But given the explosive nature of this issue and time required to discuss not sure I have the time or energy to do so. I’m sure ya’ll feel the same.

It's not that. Who hasn't had this conversation before? It goes nowhere. The gist of this whole situation is elections have consequences. That's the great thing about America.

 

[TheWallnerus]

As Carlin mentions, does my sperm (potential human) have rights?

Kind of?

In Judaism and Christianity, the improper "killing of sperm," ie the "seed," is a (theoretically) punishable-by-death sin and from where the word "onanist" is derived.

Genesis 38:8-10
Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife. Perform your duty as her brother-in-law and raise up offspring for your brother.” But Onan knew that the offspring would not belong to him; so whenever he would sleep with his brother’s wife, he would spill his seed on the ground so that he would not produce offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the sight of the LORD, so He put Onan to death as well.…

Naming kids after Biblical characters has always been one of the most popular baby-naming methods, but I've never met someone named Onan.

There've never been any Supreme Court decisions re: onanism. Strangely enough. Happy Sunday!

 

[RadOncDoc21]

Kind of?

In Judaism and Christianity, the improper "killing of sperm," ie the "seed," is a (theoretically) punishable-by-death sin and from where the word "onanist" is derived.

Genesis 38:8-10
Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife. Perform your duty as her brother-in-law and raise up offspring for your brother.” But Onan knew that the offspring would not belong to him; so whenever he would sleep with his brother’s wife, he would spill his seed on the ground so that he would not produce offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the sight of the LORD, so He put Onan to death as well.…

Naming kids after Biblical characters has always been one of the most popular baby-naming methods, but I've never met someone named Onan.

There've never been any Supreme Court decisions re: onanism. Strangely enough. Happy Sunday!

Oh my! I’ve done a lot of wrong in my lifetime!

 

[RadOncMegatron]

Kind of?

In Judaism and Christianity, the improper "killing of sperm," ie the "seed," is a (theoretically) punishable-by-death sin and from where the word "onanist" is derived.

Genesis 38:8-10
Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife. Perform your duty as her brother-in-law and raise up offspring for your brother.” But Onan knew that the offspring would not belong to him; so whenever he would sleep with his brother’s wife, he would spill his seed on the ground so that he would not produce offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the sight of the LORD, so He put Onan to death as well.…

Naming kids after Biblical characters has always been one of the most popular baby-naming methods, but I've never met someone named Onan.

There've never been any Supreme Court decisions re: onanism. Strangely enough. Happy Sunday!

This is not the mainline interpretation. Onan neglected his duty for a levirate marriage and did not want to have a child with the other woman only to have that child be in the bloodline of his brother along with the resultant resources. It has nothing to do with sperm being viable humans though this has been held. And cmon guys you know that is not an argument that is made.

@Lamount line of reasoning are the stronger pro-choice arguments I have heard and have had to think much more about.

 

[SubserviantToABR]

New radiation therapy indication: SABR - stereotactic abortive radiotherapy

 

[TheWallnerus]

This is not the mainline interpretation.

EXACTLY what an onanist would say I kid!

 

[TheWallnerus]

View attachment 354433

New radiation therapy indication: SABR - stereotactic abortive radiotherapy

Sorry, Evicore will not cover it

 

[deleted941485]

Sorry, Evicore will not cover it

The real abortionists in oncology are the med oncs.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

Damn, we are literally useless!