Well that's because food prices aren't included in core CPI, neither are energy prices. They're considered "too volatile".

They do the same thing with jury nullification too. The system doesn't want the people to throw a wrench in things.

The Indiana state AG stated that there was nothing in the law that would have prevented services being conducted in Indiana. The mother made no attempt to get services because she was attempting to cover up for her boyfriend, who after the doctor published the article went on the run and was later captured. I love how the idea of "don't publish the details of your patient's cases in a newspaper oped" somehow means we can't do medical research anymore, and this isn't about a violation of HIPAA law it's a question of "is it ethical to punish the details of a patient's case jeopardizing a child welfare investigation, in order to score political points?".

Well we can start with the fact that most of the information the doctor was given in this case, which she then released to the public was incorrect. Then we can talk about how further restriction of information could have protected the patient. Why disclose age? Why disclose race? In this case the doctor saw a way to use the details of their patients case to score political points. Details that upon investigation turned out to be false. She rushed to use her patient's suffering to further her political agenda using false information. To think that is a perfectly fine thing to do? No. Nope. No.

Just so I understand your position, you see no issue whatso ever with a doctor, in a public oped, disclosing details of a specific medical case?