That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
I don’t think so. Even if the FDA approval is revoked/suspended, the FDA has discretion in enforcement.Alefroth wrote: Wed Apr 19, 2023 6:59 pm WA has bought up a lot too. Won't it be illegal to prescribe though, regardless of how much is on hand?
Yeah, I’m no expert in this area, but from what I’ve read, the FDA has a host of tricks up its sleeve if it needs to rely on them to keep mifepristone available where it’s legal.Alefroth wrote: Wed Apr 19, 2023 11:33 pm Interesting. I wonder if the FDA could issue an EUA and re-approve it.
More like newscycle - drop the controversial stuff as late as possible on a Friday, when nobody is paying attention.Octavious wrote: Fri Apr 21, 2023 12:09 pm Ah I thought the order said AM not PM. So I'd expect they will say they can ban it at like 11:50 PM. Because America!
There’s-appetite but the other conservatives want a republican in the White House first. Also they still pretend to follow that they are examining the law and not the third chamber of Congress,malchior wrote: Fri Apr 21, 2023 6:57 pm FWIW I still think while they would love to break abortion in blue states, there isn't much appetite to do it by throwing the whole medical system into disarray. Which is nice I suppose. They are somewhat considerate tyrants at the least.
There's definitely appetite. I mostly don't think though that 5 or 6 want to take *this shot* because of all the collateral damage. They want something less disruptive and less totally out of control from a judicial temperament standpoint. Though perhaps they would if there was a Republican safely at the helm to aid and abet in their tyranny.waitingtoconnect wrote: Sat Apr 22, 2023 3:44 amThere’s-appetite but the other conservatives want a republican in the White House first. Also they still pretend to follow that they are examining the law and not the third chamber of Congress,malchior wrote: Fri Apr 21, 2023 6:57 pm FWIW I still think while they would love to break abortion in blue states, there isn't much appetite to do it by throwing the whole medical system into disarray. Which is nice I suppose. They are somewhat considerate tyrants at the least.
I feel like I have a list - like Arya Stark - of politically powerful people that are genuinely diminishing our society.Pence: I’d like to see this medication off the market.. but I also have deep concerns about the way the FDA went about approving Mifepristone 20 years ago.
I do.Smoove_B wrote: Sun Apr 23, 2023 4:39 pm I feel like I have a list - like Arya Stark - of politically powerful people that are genuinely diminishing our society.
Unless subconsciously he was revealing the fact that he thinks they went about approving it just fine... And so that information undermines his desire to see the medication off the market.
Yep. They want the radicalism to come from congress and a president, at which point they can certify it on back-worked premises.malchior wrote: Sun Apr 23, 2023 11:22 amThere's definitely appetite. I mostly don't think though that 5 or 6 want to take *this shot* because of all the collateral damage. They want something less disruptive and less totally out of control from a judicial temperament standpoint. Though perhaps they would if there was a Republican safely at the helm to aid and abet in their tyranny.waitingtoconnect wrote: Sat Apr 22, 2023 3:44 amThere’s-appetite but the other conservatives want a republican in the White House first. Also they still pretend to follow that they are examining the law and not the third chamber of Congress,malchior wrote: Fri Apr 21, 2023 6:57 pm FWIW I still think while they would love to break abortion in blue states, there isn't much appetite to do it by throwing the whole medical system into disarray. Which is nice I suppose. They are somewhat considerate tyrants at the least.
Gilead, perhaps?
Mandatory stays in cheap motel rooms with 30 year old King James bibles for all!!
Sign me up.waitingtoconnect wrote: Sun Apr 23, 2023 11:32 pm
Mandatory stays in cheap motel rooms with 30 year old King James bibles for all!!
What the Democratic Party proposes on abortion is barbaric. Abortion up to the moment of birth, taxpayer-funded.”
It's a little tricky, though. As much as we criticize the Republicans for ideas held by the fringes, we should recognize that is a fringe on the left as well. And I might be part of it. I'm still in the camp that it's a decision for the woman and her doctor and I'm not sure of if or when there should be a line past which it's not permitted.hepcat wrote: Mon Apr 24, 2023 10:33 am Jesus, the GOP just does not give a shit about the truth. Lindsey Graham is out there still spewing the lie that dems want to make abortion legal up until delivery.
What the Democratic Party proposes on abortion is barbaric. Abortion up to the moment of birth, taxpayer-funded.”
No, it's not "a little tricky". It's an outright lie. No dems are proposing that we allow abortion right up until the birth. There are provisions in H.R. 8296 allowing for such, but only in extreme cases where the mother's life is in danger. But zero dems are proposing that we allow abortion up until delivery as a standard procedure. Zero.stessier wrote: Mon Apr 24, 2023 10:56 am
It's a little tricky, though. As much as we criticize the Republicans for ideas held by the fringes, we should recognize that is a fringe on the left as well. And I might be part of it. I'm still in the camp that it's a decision for the woman and her doctor and I'm not sure of if or when there should be a line past which it's not permitted.
I did not watch the clip - he is my senator and I need no further reasons to want to punch him in the face - so I just went off the quote. I didn't realize it was talking about a specific bill. The bill is a nice first step. I still say a better bill is to allow up to delivery if a doctor agrees. I also believe in single payer healthcare - meaning the government should be footing the bill.hepcat wrote: Mon Apr 24, 2023 11:28 amNo, it's not "a little tricky". It's an outright lie. No dems are proposing that we allow abortion right up until the birth. There are provisions in H.R. 8296 allowing for such, but only in extreme cases where the mother's life is in danger. But zero dems are proposing that we allow abortion up until delivery as a standard procedure. Zero.stessier wrote: Mon Apr 24, 2023 10:56 am
It's a little tricky, though. As much as we criticize the Republicans for ideas held by the fringes, we should recognize that is a fringe on the left as well. And I might be part of it. I'm still in the camp that it's a decision for the woman and her doctor and I'm not sure of if or when there should be a line past which it's not permitted.
In my last post I understood you meant no bill was proposed allowing up to delivery. I also understand the attempt to portray pro choice people.hepcat wrote: Mon Apr 24, 2023 11:47 am I think we're talking at cross purposes. What I'm railing about is the attempt by republicans to portray pro-abortion proponents as wanting abortion legal right up to the moment of birth (and in some even more outrageous claims by Trump and a few other idiots, even after). They're trying to paint this portrait of baby killing murderers hungry for the blood of infants or something.
No bill is proposing that we allow abortion right up until delivery (except for extreme cases where the mother's life is in danger, as I mentioned earlier).
We'd do it because it supports the best and most humane healthcare outcomes? As I said, it's not the best stance for passing a bill. But a rational conversation on the topic would definitely include that possibility.hepcat wrote: Mon Apr 24, 2023 1:25 pm Republicans want to conflate the rare case of late term abortions that happen only when the mother's life is in danger (which we already had) into the standard setting. Why in god's name would we want to put a blank check out there stating that you can get an abortion up until the day of delivery for any reason? That's the kind of thing conservatives with an agenda have wet dreams about.
I think the part you keep missing is that they already had caveats for those very rare cases where the mother's life was in danger.stessier wrote: Mon Apr 24, 2023 1:52 pmWe'd do it because it supports the best and most humane healthcare outcomes? As I said, it's not the best stance for passing a bill. But a rational conversation on the topic would definitely include that possibility.hepcat wrote: Mon Apr 24, 2023 1:25 pm Republicans want to conflate the rare case of late term abortions that happen only when the mother's life is in danger (which we already had) into the standard setting. Why in god's name would we want to put a blank check out there stating that you can get an abortion up until the day of delivery for any reason? That's the kind of thing conservatives with an agenda have wet dreams about.
There are instances where the mother's life is not in danger but a termination is still a preferred option.hepcat wrote: Mon Apr 24, 2023 2:04 pmI think the part you keep missing is that they already had caveats for those very rare cases where the mother's life was in danger.stessier wrote: Mon Apr 24, 2023 1:52 pmWe'd do it because it supports the best and most humane healthcare outcomes? As I said, it's not the best stance for passing a bill. But a rational conversation on the topic would definitely include that possibility.hepcat wrote: Mon Apr 24, 2023 1:25 pm Republicans want to conflate the rare case of late term abortions that happen only when the mother's life is in danger (which we already had) into the standard setting. Why in god's name would we want to put a blank check out there stating that you can get an abortion up until the day of delivery for any reason? That's the kind of thing conservatives with an agenda have wet dreams about.
