Good grief! I worked in healthcare management and that didn't make me an expert in medicine. Riepe is an old, sexist politician who shouldn't be making healthcare decisions for anybody else.
Nobody is claiming he's an expert. The comment was that he had "zero medical knowledge," which is demonstrably false.
> Riepe is an old, sexist politician
He's the reason it's a 12 week ban and not a total ban. Yeah, it's shit policy, but he kept it from being even shittier. Plus, the whole point if the article is he recognizes the problems with the law as it stands and regrets it. He introduced a bill to fix this problem this term.
It's a lot closer than most other people, though. You've at least had regular face time and conversations with actual professionals, rather than getting all your abortion information from pictures of "aborted fetuses" on Facebook that are definitely, totally not really just an unwrapped beef quesarito from Taco Bell.
Right, but you'd probably be better than the average person at identifying shotty electrical work, don't you think?
Nobody was saying someone who works in healthcare management would be expected to perform an abortion, but they probably have a better idea of what complications could arise from a law around it.
Not really, because abortion care is almost entirely provided at stand alone clinics and segregated from any other health care. He probably wouldn't have seen or dealt with abortion care, or more to the point, all the complications and issues that can arise in pregnancy.
He *in particular* might not have
I'm just disagreeing with this idea that, *on average,* people who work in healthcare management don't have a better working knowledge of how medicine generally operates than the typical person. If nothing else, they should at least have a better idea of what questions to ask. Like the carpenter would probably ask better questions to an electrician than an accountant would.
That is how you end up with paralegals giving bad legal advice and nurses giving bad medical advice. Just because they work in proximity to something doesn't mean they're well informed on the subject matter, especially when you're talking about things that are a subspecialty in a particular field.
It means he's an expert on how to overcharge and manipulate numbers to extract maximum profits for a simple medical procedure.
Fuck that guy and his shortsighted bigotry that prevented him from listening to doctors.
That's true and fair, but doesn't substantiate the idea that politicians need to be experts in every single field they touch legislation in.
If anything, you're refuting what they said -- the problem wasn't a lack of knowledge, it was intent.
Then, hear me out: maybe, just maybe, having a system where the same group of people decide the laws on *everything* is overly simplistic and should be replaced with a system that has an amount of nuance that reflects the reality of the lives of the people it governs?
I'm saying that if you're not an expert, then you shouldn't be making decisions on that topic. And if the current system makes it impossible for the people making decisions to be experts on anything, then we need a new system. That doesn't have to mean "representative democracy bad". Just that we can almost certainly do better than what we've got if we actually tried.
Look I'd love it if birth control was free and 100% subsidized and abortions were allowed up until birth.
But if we're being honest here, people are just playing this card to exclude right wing men from this one particular legislative topic.
And it's nice rhetoric, but is basically ineffective outside of echo chambers.
In the real world, leaders are rarely subject matter experts.
Instead, they focus on a holistic understanding of how the system works and coordinate with experts to distill down the decision to something manageable.
Once again, the problem here is not a lack of knowledge, it's that we elected bad leaders.
It's funny, 200 years ago when designing government from scratch they foresaw this problem.
> Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. - John Adams
What you’re describing is more of a technocratic form of government. Very different than the representative democracy we have. People can vote in specialists but the person above is saying no matter how specialized or competent someone is, it’s impossible to be specialized in everything. That is however why they have committees and subcommittees.
What I said was, in essence, "we need a more nuanced system than one group of people who decide every law". I don't know how the hell you jumped to technocracy from that, or that you think what I said is somehow at odds with representative democracy, but it sounds like you're bringing your own thing into it, dude
The problem with people like you is that you like to bitch and complain without ever feeling the need to offer up an alternative solution beyond some generic "do it better" idea. Not to mention I'd be shocked if you actually know how the legislative process on Nebraska works. It's all free to watch on public access TV, have you ever tuned in for a day, or do you just catch the floor debate highlights on Twitter?
And the problem with people like you, aside from leaping to making overgeneralized statements like "the problem with people like you...", is that you seem to be under the mistaken assumption that you need to have a viable working alternative to present before pointing out a flaw with something. That's not how anything has ever worked, especially in situations that require collective effort. Identifying problems is an integral part of the process, and almost always happens *before* a solution can even be conceived, let alone proposed or implemented. Moreover, both identifying problems and drafting/implementing solutions are two completely different skillsets that not everyone has. If you *actually* care about having a democratic process, then quit trying to silence people who are bringing to the table what they can.
This. And it’s not as if he straight up said he messed up. It’s only his answer to a question a reporter asked him. He will still vote to ban abortions.
If you have not yet signed the petition to protect abortion, please seek it out: https://protectourrights.com
And be aware there are two other petitions circulating which are pro-life with circulators incorrectly stating that they protect abortion rights. Sign the right petition.
Edit: There is a paragraph statement that the petition holder has to read to you BEFORE you sign. If they don’t, don’t sign. There are passionate volunteers like me who do it absolutely by the book but there are also paid people who may not care about or agree with the petition they’re holding, they’re paid by the hour and less frequently paid per signature.
Just make sure you read the proposed law or amendment at the top of the petition. They should also be reading the petition out loud before you sign anything. The guy I signed with yesterday did everything by the book and I was happy to sign.
Very true! I work for a sexual health org and even I got tricked into one of them. It was really disheartening. I was questioning him and such and he was just fully bullshitting me. As the person above me linked though, protect our rights is the only true legit one! I just sadly didn’t know.
Edit: I got tricked into signing the one that keeps it at 12 weeks. But he kept saying it would get it on the ballot and it was for people to vote to protect abortion. He sadly didn’t read it all out to me. He didn’t even tell me the unborn child protection part.
BS- insurance companies rule the effen world now! They need more power like a hole in the head!!! How many Medicare receipts would like to go back to private insurance???
We shouldn't be having people with zero medical knowledge making decisions that affect what medical treatments people recieve.
Agreed, but Riepe worked in healthcare management and is a healthcare consultant. He HAS knowledge in the medical.
Good grief! I worked in healthcare management and that didn't make me an expert in medicine. Riepe is an old, sexist politician who shouldn't be making healthcare decisions for anybody else.
Nobody is claiming he's an expert. The comment was that he had "zero medical knowledge," which is demonstrably false. > Riepe is an old, sexist politician He's the reason it's a 12 week ban and not a total ban. Yeah, it's shit policy, but he kept it from being even shittier. Plus, the whole point if the article is he recognizes the problems with the law as it stands and regrets it. He introduced a bill to fix this problem this term.
Healthcare management is not the same as having medical knowledge though
It's a lot closer than most other people, though. You've at least had regular face time and conversations with actual professionals, rather than getting all your abortion information from pictures of "aborted fetuses" on Facebook that are definitely, totally not really just an unwrapped beef quesarito from Taco Bell.
Working in construction, I have regular contact with electricians. That doesn't make me qualified to work on an electric panel or any wiring.
Right, but you'd probably be better than the average person at identifying shotty electrical work, don't you think? Nobody was saying someone who works in healthcare management would be expected to perform an abortion, but they probably have a better idea of what complications could arise from a law around it.
Not really, because abortion care is almost entirely provided at stand alone clinics and segregated from any other health care. He probably wouldn't have seen or dealt with abortion care, or more to the point, all the complications and issues that can arise in pregnancy.
He *in particular* might not have I'm just disagreeing with this idea that, *on average,* people who work in healthcare management don't have a better working knowledge of how medicine generally operates than the typical person. If nothing else, they should at least have a better idea of what questions to ask. Like the carpenter would probably ask better questions to an electrician than an accountant would.
That is how you end up with paralegals giving bad legal advice and nurses giving bad medical advice. Just because they work in proximity to something doesn't mean they're well informed on the subject matter, especially when you're talking about things that are a subspecialty in a particular field.
> Nobody was saying someone who works in healthcare management would be expected to perform an abortion
It means he's an expert on how to overcharge and manipulate numbers to extract maximum profits for a simple medical procedure. Fuck that guy and his shortsighted bigotry that prevented him from listening to doctors.
Where has anyone made a claim that he's an expert???
Politicians can't be experts on... Literally everything. They have to rely on subject matter experts and policymakers to advise them.
But they didn’t even listen to medical experts on this issue.
That's true and fair, but doesn't substantiate the idea that politicians need to be experts in every single field they touch legislation in. If anything, you're refuting what they said -- the problem wasn't a lack of knowledge, it was intent.
their point is that he has a penis and therefore is not qualified.
Qualified? No. Deterred? Also no.
Then, hear me out: maybe, just maybe, having a system where the same group of people decide the laws on *everything* is overly simplistic and should be replaced with a system that has an amount of nuance that reflects the reality of the lives of the people it governs?
I can't tell what you're saying other than you are upset by the very concept of representative democracy.
I'm saying that if you're not an expert, then you shouldn't be making decisions on that topic. And if the current system makes it impossible for the people making decisions to be experts on anything, then we need a new system. That doesn't have to mean "representative democracy bad". Just that we can almost certainly do better than what we've got if we actually tried.
Look I'd love it if birth control was free and 100% subsidized and abortions were allowed up until birth. But if we're being honest here, people are just playing this card to exclude right wing men from this one particular legislative topic. And it's nice rhetoric, but is basically ineffective outside of echo chambers. In the real world, leaders are rarely subject matter experts. Instead, they focus on a holistic understanding of how the system works and coordinate with experts to distill down the decision to something manageable. Once again, the problem here is not a lack of knowledge, it's that we elected bad leaders. It's funny, 200 years ago when designing government from scratch they foresaw this problem. > Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. - John Adams
What you’re describing is more of a technocratic form of government. Very different than the representative democracy we have. People can vote in specialists but the person above is saying no matter how specialized or competent someone is, it’s impossible to be specialized in everything. That is however why they have committees and subcommittees.
What I said was, in essence, "we need a more nuanced system than one group of people who decide every law". I don't know how the hell you jumped to technocracy from that, or that you think what I said is somehow at odds with representative democracy, but it sounds like you're bringing your own thing into it, dude
The problem with people like you is that you like to bitch and complain without ever feeling the need to offer up an alternative solution beyond some generic "do it better" idea. Not to mention I'd be shocked if you actually know how the legislative process on Nebraska works. It's all free to watch on public access TV, have you ever tuned in for a day, or do you just catch the floor debate highlights on Twitter?
And the problem with people like you, aside from leaping to making overgeneralized statements like "the problem with people like you...", is that you seem to be under the mistaken assumption that you need to have a viable working alternative to present before pointing out a flaw with something. That's not how anything has ever worked, especially in situations that require collective effort. Identifying problems is an integral part of the process, and almost always happens *before* a solution can even be conceived, let alone proposed or implemented. Moreover, both identifying problems and drafting/implementing solutions are two completely different skillsets that not everyone has. If you *actually* care about having a democratic process, then quit trying to silence people who are bringing to the table what they can.
Fuck this guy. He knew what he was doing.
This. And it’s not as if he straight up said he messed up. It’s only his answer to a question a reporter asked him. He will still vote to ban abortions.
He literally introduced legislation to expand access to abortion this past session.
Yup. He knew. He didn’t care
If you have not yet signed the petition to protect abortion, please seek it out: https://protectourrights.com And be aware there are two other petitions circulating which are pro-life with circulators incorrectly stating that they protect abortion rights. Sign the right petition. Edit: There is a paragraph statement that the petition holder has to read to you BEFORE you sign. If they don’t, don’t sign. There are passionate volunteers like me who do it absolutely by the book but there are also paid people who may not care about or agree with the petition they’re holding, they’re paid by the hour and less frequently paid per signature.
Thanks for posting this. I have six of my family going to sign tonight.
That makes me so happy! Thank you!
We only have six days left until turn in y'all! So if you haven't signed yet, please make a plan to do so!
Yes, and those other fake petitioners will be yelling about women’s rights and shit. They’re lying people!
Just make sure you read the proposed law or amendment at the top of the petition. They should also be reading the petition out loud before you sign anything. The guy I signed with yesterday did everything by the book and I was happy to sign.
Very true! I work for a sexual health org and even I got tricked into one of them. It was really disheartening. I was questioning him and such and he was just fully bullshitting me. As the person above me linked though, protect our rights is the only true legit one! I just sadly didn’t know. Edit: I got tricked into signing the one that keeps it at 12 weeks. But he kept saying it would get it on the ballot and it was for people to vote to protect abortion. He sadly didn’t read it all out to me. He didn’t even tell me the unborn child protection part.
You can submit an affidavit to have your name removed from the wrong one. https://law.justia.com/codes/nebraska/chapter-32/statute-32-632/
Yep! It’s great that those links are getting shared around. You can also call the treasurer I believe.
The fact that the petitioners are always men never fails to raise an eyebrow.
And it should. And I hate that one of them got me. It should always raise an eyebrow!
The correct petition has the wording "FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO ABORTION". If it doesn't state that, don't sign! <3
Glad he's sorry now.... that women can't decide on what's best for them. Just bullshit
Too little, too late if you ask me.
80 year olds shouldn’t be making decisions for anyone.
what age do you reckon we should cut people's voting rights off at?
Politicians need to GET THE FUCK OUTTA MY HEALTHCARE!!!!!💯🤬🤬🖕🖕🖕
100% privatized healthcare would offer more freedom of choice.
BS- insurance companies rule the effen world now! They need more power like a hole in the head!!! How many Medicare receipts would like to go back to private insurance???