Impeachment for Supreme Court Justices Who ‘Lied Under Oath’

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
User avatar
Leontiskos
Posts: 695
Joined: July 20th, 2021, 11:27 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas

Re: Impeachment for Supreme Court Justices Who ‘Lied Under Oath’

Post by Leontiskos »

Astro Cat wrote: June 28th, 2022, 9:40 pm
Leontiskos wrote: June 28th, 2022, 9:37 pm
Astro Cat wrote: June 28th, 2022, 9:28 pmVulnerable people have no recourse.
The most vulnerable person of all is the unborn child, and we kill them by the millions.
I know for a fact that you don't have time to get into the discussion we'd have to about what personhood means to go there :P

So, I will instead just declare victory pre-emptively under the assumption you crumble beneath the weight of my argument. (I'm obviously giving you crap. But we would have to have that conversation to get into this).
Objectively speaking, who is standing up for the vulnerable? Those who are trying to defend human fetuses from death, or those who are fighting for a right to abort human fetuses?

My patience with the rhetoric of the Left is waning quickly, and this business about "protecting the vulnerable" seems to be little more than heavy rhetoric.* An objective observer who knows nothing about the issues would quickly come to the conclusion that, in the abortion debate, the Right is attempting to protect the fetus' life and the Left is attempting to establish a right to abort the fetus. When the Left tries to recast themselves as the defenders of the vulnerable, I cannot stay quiet.

Now of course the Left sees a right to abortion as a necessary means to equality between the sexes, but this is hardly a straightforward matter of protecting the vulnerable, much less those who have no recourse (note that throughout history those who truly have no recourse are always labeled non-persons or at least non-citizens, and this is always done for legal reasons).


* The (also rhetorical) notion floating around that anti-abortion laws do not make provision for victims of rape or those dealing with ectopic pregnancies is simple not true. If it were true then the Left could honestly claim to be protecting the vulnerable, even though these cases constitute only a tiny percentage of abortions. In reality the Right is also keen to protect such vulnerable individuals, and the laws reflect this.
Wrestling with Philosophy since 456 BC

Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.
User avatar
Astro Cat
Posts: 451
Joined: June 17th, 2022, 2:51 am
Favorite Philosopher: Bernard dEspagnat
Location: USA

Re: Impeachment for Supreme Court Justices Who ‘Lied Under Oath’

Post by Astro Cat »

Leontiskos wrote: June 28th, 2022, 11:17 pm Objectively speaking, who is standing up for the vulnerable? Those who are trying to defend human fetuses from death, or those who are fighting for a right to abort human fetuses?

My patience with the rhetoric of the Left is waning quickly, and this business about "protecting the vulnerable" seems to be little more than heavy rhetoric.* An objective observer who knows nothing about the issues would quickly come to the conclusion that, in the abortion debate, the Right is attempting to protect the fetus' life and the Left is attempting to establish a right to abort the fetus. When the Left tries to recast themselves as the defenders of the vulnerable, I cannot stay quiet.

Now of course the Left sees a right to abortion as a necessary means to equality between the sexes, but this is hardly a straightforward matter of protecting the vulnerable, much less those who have no recourse (note that throughout history those who truly have no recourse are always labeled non-persons or at least non-citizens, and this is always done for legal reasons).


* The (also rhetorical) notion floating around that anti-abortion laws do not make provision for victims of rape or those dealing with ectopic pregnancies is simple not true. If it were true then the Left could honestly claim to be protecting the vulnerable, even though these cases constitute only a tiny percentage of abortions. In reality the Right is also keen to protect such vulnerable individuals, and the laws reflect this.
Those who suffer the most in absence of access to abortion are the most marginalized (socioeconomically). If it were really about protecting life, then the right would be foaming at the mouth to protect those fetuses if they do develop and become born; most of which would be into poverty or even abject poverty to wholly unprepared parents.

Bodily autonomy can't just be ignored. As it stands today, in my state, a corpse has more autonomy than I do: if a person doesn't wish for their organs to be taken to save another person's life, even though they're dead, it wouldn't be legal to force organ removal. If a person has an organ or a rare blood type that's desperately needed to save another person's life (even if it won't kill the person in question to do it), they can't be forced because they have bodily autonomy.

Do you think that we should enforce laws to force people to give up organs, blood, plasma, etc. if it would save someone's life that objectively needs it from them to survive? If not, why not?

You say that people in history have denied personhood to victims as a method of oppression, but surely you can see the fallacy in thinking that every challenge to personhood is of this nature.

So, we have to do this. Is abortion killing a person? What goes into the concept of personhood?

Is it having human DNA? Well, hair cells and cancer cells and all sorts of things have human DNA. A corpse has human DNA. Do all things with human DNA have the same moral obligations towards them? We don't assign the exact same moral obligations towards a corpse than we do to a living human person: if I slap a corpse in the face, it might still be considered bad, but on most cultures certainly less bad than slapping an innocent live human in the face.

So why do we feel as though a corpse has different moral obligations than a live person, what properties make up the difference? Instead of beating around the bush I'm just going to suggest something (and I'm not trying to be exhaustive just yet) like sapience and sentience have to play a part, because a lot of us would consider someone like Data from Star Trek TNG to be a person even though he doesn't have human DNA. Seems like the important part has nothing to do with the human DNA.

People seem to intuitively think that there are different moral obligations to humans at different stages of development. Consider if there's a fire at a fertilization lab and you only have time to save a tray with 10 fertilized embryos (with some kind of guarantee that you can implant them and get fetuses and babies from each one) or save a 6 year old child. I bet very few people would intuitively say that they'd save the tray of embryos and leave the child to burn. We have to ask ourselves: why?

The pro-choicer, at least not this one, isn't saying that we have no moral obligation to fetuses. We're saying that it's complicated, and it has to be weighed against other moral obligations like bodily autonomy, quality of life for mother and child, considerations like rape, incest, ectopic pregnancy, using IVF for struggling would-be mothers (which destroys embryos), and so on. It's a moral calculus. It's not as easy as "fetuses are human persons therefore they trump the mother in all respects."
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
--Richard Feynman
User avatar
Astro Cat
Posts: 451
Joined: June 17th, 2022, 2:51 am
Favorite Philosopher: Bernard dEspagnat
Location: USA

Re: Impeachment for Supreme Court Justices Who ‘Lied Under Oath’

Post by Astro Cat »

An additional question: does the number of embryos matter in the fire thought experiment?

Would anybody change their answer if it was 100 fertilized embryos? 1,000? 10,000?

Or would they probably always save the 6 year old child?
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
--Richard Feynman
User avatar
Leontiskos
Posts: 695
Joined: July 20th, 2021, 11:27 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas

Re: Impeachment for Supreme Court Justices Who ‘Lied Under Oath’

Post by Leontiskos »

Astro Cat wrote: June 28th, 2022, 11:33 pm
Leontiskos wrote: June 28th, 2022, 11:17 pm Objectively speaking, who is standing up for the vulnerable? Those who are trying to defend human fetuses from death, or those who are fighting for a right to abort human fetuses?

My patience with the rhetoric of the Left is waning quickly, and this business about "protecting the vulnerable" seems to be little more than heavy rhetoric.* An objective observer who knows nothing about the issues would quickly come to the conclusion that, in the abortion debate, the Right is attempting to protect the fetus' life and the Left is attempting to establish a right to abort the fetus. When the Left tries to recast themselves as the defenders of the vulnerable, I cannot stay quiet.

Now of course the Left sees a right to abortion as a necessary means to equality between the sexes, but this is hardly a straightforward matter of protecting the vulnerable, much less those who have no recourse (note that throughout history those who truly have no recourse are always labeled non-persons or at least non-citizens, and this is always done for legal reasons).


* The (also rhetorical) notion floating around that anti-abortion laws do not make provision for victims of rape or those dealing with ectopic pregnancies is simple not true. If it were true then the Left could honestly claim to be protecting the vulnerable, even though these cases constitute only a tiny percentage of abortions. In reality the Right is also keen to protect such vulnerable individuals, and the laws reflect this.
Those who suffer the most in absence of access to abortion are the most marginalized (socioeconomically). If it were really about protecting life, then the right would be foaming at the mouth to protect those fetuses if they do develop and become born; most of which would be into poverty or even abject poverty to wholly unprepared parents.

Bodily autonomy can't just be ignored. As it stands today, in my state, a corpse has more autonomy than I do: if a person doesn't wish for their organs to be taken to save another person's life, even though they're dead, it wouldn't be legal to force organ removal. If a person has an organ or a rare blood type that's desperately needed to save another person's life (even if it won't kill the person in question to do it), they can't be forced because they have bodily autonomy.

Do you think that we should enforce laws to force people to give up organs, blood, plasma, etc. if it would save someone's life that objectively needs it from them to survive? If not, why not?

You say that people in history have denied personhood to victims as a method of oppression, but surely you can see the fallacy in thinking that every challenge to personhood is of this nature.

So, we have to do this. Is abortion killing a person? What goes into the concept of personhood?

Is it having human DNA? Well, hair cells and cancer cells and all sorts of things have human DNA. A corpse has human DNA. Do all things with human DNA have the same moral obligations towards them? We don't assign the exact same moral obligations towards a corpse than we do to a living human person: if I slap a corpse in the face, it might still be considered bad, but on most cultures certainly less bad than slapping an innocent live human in the face.

So why do we feel as though a corpse has different moral obligations than a live person, what properties make up the difference? Instead of beating around the bush I'm just going to suggest something (and I'm not trying to be exhaustive just yet) like sapience and sentience have to play a part, because a lot of us would consider someone like Data from Star Trek TNG to be a person even though he doesn't have human DNA. Seems like the important part has nothing to do with the human DNA.

People seem to intuitively think that there are different moral obligations to humans at different stages of development. Consider if there's a fire at a fertilization lab and you only have time to save a tray with 10 fertilized embryos (with some kind of guarantee that you can implant them and get fetuses and babies from each one) or save a 6 year old child. I bet very few people would intuitively say that they'd save the tray of embryos and leave the child to burn. We have to ask ourselves: why?

The pro-choicer, at least not this one, isn't saying that we have no moral obligation to fetuses. We're saying that it's complicated, and it has to be weighed against other moral obligations like bodily autonomy, quality of life for mother and child, considerations like rape, incest, ectopic pregnancy, using IVF for struggling would-be mothers (which destroys embryos), and so on. It's a moral calculus. It's not as easy as "fetuses are human persons therefore they trump the mother in all respects."
Hmm, but I questioned your central putative motive, "Vulnerable people have no recourse." I asked how it is that pro-choicers are the champions of the vulnerable. Unless I am mistaken, you have mostly omitted a defense of that claim, for it seems to me that only the first two sentences relate to it (about 10% of your post). If this is true, and you are not willing to defend that claim, then are we in agreement that it was little more than a bit of rhetoric?

You mostly speak about bodily autonomy, and that is perfectly accurate. Bodily autonomy is the raison d'etre of the pro-choice position, not vulnerability.

Sticking to the topic I raised, let me address the part of your post that related to vulnerability. I won't have time to get involved in all of the secondary topics.
Astro Cat wrote: June 28th, 2022, 11:33 pmThose who suffer the most in absence of access to abortion are the most marginalized (socioeconomically). If it were really about protecting life, then the right would be foaming at the mouth to protect those fetuses if they do develop and become born; most of which would be into poverty or even abject poverty to wholly unprepared parents.
So the marginalized are vulnerable and pro-choicers believe they are helping them. But, contrary to your assertion, do not pro-lifers also help the vulnerable marginalized? I have personal knowledge that they do, for I have personally worked with a few different women's pregnancy shelters and women's pregnancy resource outfits that are devoted to this task.

So again, it's not clear to me that there is any merit to the claim that the pro-choice position is specially concerned with the vulnerable. The pro-choice movement is characteristically concerned with bodily autonomy and women's equality, whereas the characteristic mark of the pro-life movement is protection of the vulnerable.

If you don't believe me I would challenge you to run a social experiment by going up to random people and telling them, "I am a defender of the vulnerable who have no recourse." See if that causes them to infer that you are pro-choice or if it causes them to infer that you are pro-life. ;)
Wrestling with Philosophy since 456 BC

Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.
User avatar
Astro Cat
Posts: 451
Joined: June 17th, 2022, 2:51 am
Favorite Philosopher: Bernard dEspagnat
Location: USA

Re: Impeachment for Supreme Court Justices Who ‘Lied Under Oath’

Post by Astro Cat »

Leontiskos wrote: June 29th, 2022, 2:05 am Hmm, but I questioned your central putative motive, "Vulnerable people have no recourse." I asked how it is that pro-choicers are the champions of the vulnerable. Unless I am mistaken, you have mostly omitted a defense of that claim, for it seems to me that only the first two sentences relate to it (about 10% of your post). If this is true, and you are not willing to defend that claim, then are we in agreement that it was little more than a bit of rhetoric?

You mostly speak about bodily autonomy, and that is perfectly accurate. Bodily autonomy is the raison d'etre of the pro-choice position, not vulnerability.

Sticking to the topic I raised, let me address the part of your post that related to vulnerability. I won't have time to get involved in all of the secondary topics.

...

So the marginalized are vulnerable and pro-choicers believe they are helping them. But, contrary to your assertion, do not pro-lifers also help the vulnerable marginalized? I have personal knowledge that they do, for I have personally worked with a few different women's pregnancy shelters and women's pregnancy resource outfits that are devoted to this task.

So again, it's not clear to me that there is any merit to the claim that the pro-choice position is specially concerned with the vulnerable. The pro-choice movement is characteristically concerned with bodily autonomy and women's equality, whereas the characteristic mark of the pro-life movement is protection of the vulnerable.

If you don't believe me I would challenge you to run a social experiment by going up to random people and telling them, "I am a defender of the vulnerable who have no recourse." See if that causes them to infer that you are pro-choice or if it causes them to infer that you are pro-life. ;)
1) I read a loooot of feminist pages, and I can assure you that concern for the socioeconomically vulnerable is among the top concerns. Just google "abortion and marginalized communities" and you're not just going to find a couple of well-hidden hits, you're going to find it front and center in the list of concerns pro-choicers have.

2) Sure, pro-lifers help at women's centers and with pregnancy resource centers, but it's not enough. Marginalized women still face overwhelming odds when placed in a situation they're not prepared for.

3) Not all rape is reported or believed when reported (for many complex reasons!), and this is especially true for marginalized communities, so it's not even that marginalized women are "asking for it" (not that anyone said that here) by having sex. Women are often coerced into sex. Everyone here probably knows a woman that's been coerced into sex. Actually, I can say that with... well, certainty.

4) As for the social experiment, since I promise you that marginalized communities are a top concern for pro-choicers, I contend that the result of the experiment would be that those on each side would each assume the speaker is talking about their side.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
--Richard Feynman
AverageBozo
Posts: 502
Joined: May 11th, 2021, 11:20 am

Re: Impeachment for Supreme Court Justices Who ‘Lied Under Oath’

Post by AverageBozo »

Leontiskos wrote: June 28th, 2022, 9:37 pm
Astro Cat wrote: June 28th, 2022, 9:28 pmVulnerable people have no recourse.
The most vulnerable person of all is the unborn child, and we kill them by the millions.
I sympathize. But I realize that an unborn child is actually a potential human being. Potential human beings deserve their rights, but when their potential rights conflict with the real rights of living women, there must, sadly, be a compromise.
User avatar
UniversalAlien
Posts: 1578
Joined: March 20th, 2012, 9:37 pm
Contact:

Re: Impeachment for Supreme Court Justices Who ‘Lied Under Oath’

Post by UniversalAlien »

AverageBozo wrote: June 29th, 2022, 8:37 am
Leontiskos wrote: June 28th, 2022, 9:37 pm
Astro Cat wrote: June 28th, 2022, 9:28 pmVulnerable people have no recourse.
The most vulnerable person of all is the unborn child, and we kill them by the millions.
I sympathize. But I realize that an unborn child is actually a potential human being. Potential human beings deserve their rights, but when their potential rights conflict with the real rights of living women, there must, sadly, be a compromise.
So we say - But the Supreme Court has apparently ruled otherwise, or at least allowed states to rule otherwise - A woman's right to
choose is no longer protected as a Constitutional Right as far as this so-called Conservative Supreme Court has decided.

And what I am questioning is whether the current Supreme Court Justices nominated By Trump have not only misled the Congress in
being approved but have violated Constitutional principles, pertaining to women by allowing states to usurp their rights :?:

An impeachable offense :?:
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Impeachment for Supreme Court Justices Who ‘Lied Under Oath’

Post by LuckyR »

Leontiskos wrote: June 28th, 2022, 11:17 pm
Astro Cat wrote: June 28th, 2022, 9:40 pm
Leontiskos wrote: June 28th, 2022, 9:37 pm
Astro Cat wrote: June 28th, 2022, 9:28 pmVulnerable people have no recourse.
The most vulnerable person of all is the unborn child, and we kill them by the millions.
I know for a fact that you don't have time to get into the discussion we'd have to about what personhood means to go there :P

So, I will instead just declare victory pre-emptively under the assumption you crumble beneath the weight of my argument. (I'm obviously giving you crap. But we would have to have that conversation to get into this).
Objectively speaking, who is standing up for the vulnerable? Those who are trying to defend human fetuses from death, or those who are fighting for a right to abort human fetuses?

My patience with the rhetoric of the Left is waning quickly, and this business about "protecting the vulnerable" seems to be little more than heavy rhetoric.* An objective observer who knows nothing about the issues would quickly come to the conclusion that, in the abortion debate, the Right is attempting to protect the fetus' life and the Left is attempting to establish a right to abort the fetus. When the Left tries to recast themselves as the defenders of the vulnerable, I cannot stay quiet.

Now of course the Left sees a right to abortion as a necessary means to equality between the sexes, but this is hardly a straightforward matter of protecting the vulnerable, much less those who have no recourse (note that throughout history those who truly have no recourse are always labeled non-persons or at least non-citizens, and this is always done for legal reasons).


* The (also rhetorical) notion floating around that anti-abortion laws do not make provision for victims of rape or those dealing with ectopic pregnancies is simple not true. If it were true then the Left could honestly claim to be protecting the vulnerable, even though these cases constitute only a tiny percentage of abortions. In reality the Right is also keen to protect such vulnerable individuals, and the laws reflect this.
What's so special about the "vulnerable"?

The abortion debate is about a situation of conflicting rights, not simply about fetuses (as one side maintains) or about only women (as others suppose).

The issue is whose rights supersedes the other's. If someone wants the rights of unborn fetuses to supersede that of adult women, that is one opinion. I am unaware of any other instance where that is the logical and/or legal precident, but there you have it.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Baby Augustine
Posts: 31
Joined: November 24th, 2022, 10:30 am

Re: Impeachment for Supreme Court Justices Who ‘Lied Under Oath’

Post by Baby Augustine »

Roe was killing innocent human beings so its overturn is cause for joy.

As for 'lied under oath" i repair always to Lincoln and the exactly analogous case of his honest answer about Fugitive Slave Law.
He was utterly against slavery but he would honor the law until overturned. And that is the only way to be American and rational about things.

You seem to want the Abolitionist answer: IF you are for X , go to your death over it and forget prudence or law.

Abortion is evil and wrong and that is the issue not lying or oaths or Sen Collins obvious attempt to look good no matter what happened !

" When Judge Douglas says that whoever or whatever community wants slaves, they have a right to have them, he is perfectly logical if there is nothing wrong in the institution; but if you admit that it is wrong, he cannot logically say that any body has a right to do wrong. "
User avatar
Baby Augustine
Posts: 31
Joined: November 24th, 2022, 10:30 am

Re: Impeachment for Supreme Court Justices Who ‘Lied Under Oath’

Post by Baby Augustine »

Roe was killing innocent human beings so its overturn is cause for joy.

As for 'lied under oath" i repair always to Lincoln and the exactly analogous case of his honest answer about Fugitive Slave Law.
He was utterly against slavery but he would honor the law until overturned. And that is the only way to be American and rational about things.

You seem to want the Abolitionist answer: IF you are for X , go to your death over it and forget prudence or law.

Abortion is evil and wrong and that is the issue not lying or oaths or Sen Collins obvious attempt to look good no matter what happened !

" When Judge Douglas says that whoever or whatever community wants slaves, they have a right to have them, he is perfectly logical if there is nothing wrong in the institution; but if you admit that it is wrong, he cannot logically say that any body has a right to do wrong. "
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Politics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021