Serious. Democrats have a blood lust for dead babies but sob at the thought of some rapist murderer getting the chair. That is one ****ed up party yo.
The abortion pill
- Thread starter vraiblonde
- Start date
Serious. Democrats have a blood lust for dead babies but sob at the thought of some rapist murderer getting the chair. That is one ****ed up party yo.
ontheriver
Well-Known Member
ontheriver
Well-Known Member
Oops.... Computer fart
I actually like this idea Monello
I actually like this idea Monello
If an addiction (food, smoking, eating hair...) can be classified as an illness why can't pregnancy be defined the same way?
That isn't vetting, but I see you don't care to understand what actually took place with the FDA's approval in the use of this poison.Merlin99 said:
I guess if you see pregnancy as an addiction. In my mind the illness would be in allowing someone to ingest poison over and over again to kill.
Tilted
..
For clarification: The abortion pill that's been at issue lately isn't the so-called morning after pill. That pill (I think there a couple of versions now) works pre-fertilization (or at least pre-implantation, I'm not sure about that part). It's effectively contraception and needs to be taken pretty soon after sex.
The pill that's been the subject of the recent court decisions is mifepristone, sometimes referred to as RU-486. It's used for medical abortions and can be taken up to 10 weeks into pregnancy. (It's then followed by a different pill a day or two later.) Reportedly it's now the method used for a majority of abortions in the United States.
From there derives the likely answer to your question. For some it's not enough to prohibit or severely restrict abortions in certain states, they'd also like to make abortions in other states less convenient or less traumatic or perhaps less safe. By taking away the medical abortion option, they can force those seeking abortions into surgical abortions. In effect, they can punish them (more) for having abortions.
In other words, the answer to your question is... LDS, or whatever we might call the female equivalent. People are largely consumed by their insecurities and one of the ways we cope with the way our insecurities make us feel is to seek power over others. On some level we assume that control over others can replace the sense of control over ourselves and our own circumstances which we desire but which is often lacking.
When in doubt... and confronting bad human behavior... and pondering the cause... assume LDS. You'll be right far more often than you're wrong.
Tilted
..
The answer to vrai's question aside, the original district court decision in this case was pure garbage. I don't say that lightly and it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether mifepristone should be available. It was just riddled with nonsensical legal reasoning and nonsensical factual arguments. It appears to be written by someone who doesn't even understand the basics of the various legal issues involved. But I don't believe that to actually be the case. In other words, I don't think Judge Kacsmaryk is as ignorant or - frankly - dumb as he makes himself out to be in that opinion.
I think he was just willing to take disingenuousness to a whole other level, even for a purely results seeking judicial decision. I've read countless court decisions - likely thousands of them. And, of course, many of them were bad and clearly just results seeking. But this was one of the worst. I could probably write for a day about the various problems with it, but no one wants to see that so I won't. I'll just provide one example for now (though I'm happy, time allowing, to get into other problematic aspects of the decision).
Assuming arguenda that the plaintiffs could overcome various threshold issues like standing (which they couldn't), on the merits there are a number of questions to consider. One is, essentially, whether the FDA fairly concluded that medical abortion with mifepristone provided therapeutic benefits over then-existing alternatives. To suggest that the FDA was wrong in concluding that, Judge Kacsmaryk looked to highlight problems with its use. So he says, without further qualification except to site a study in a footnote:
Okay. First, it turns out the study he relies on is from 2020. So it's irrelevant to the question at hand: Did the FDA act arbitrarily and capriciously in concluding what it concluded? Somehow Judge Kacsmaryk thinks it did because it didn't go forward in time two decades to consider this study. Second, the study wasn't even offered - best I can tell - as support by any of the parties in the case (for reasons I think will soon become apparent). It would seem the judge went googling or something to find some extra-evidential support - any support - for what he wanted to conclude.
Third, and here's the kicker, what was this study all about? You can't make this stuff up. It's too preposterous. Someone made a website called... called... called... Abortion Changes You. It's a website for people to go post about how abortion changed them and "begin the process of healing." Someone then did a study based only on postings - fewer than a hundred - made to that website. And, voila, apparently 83% of those posters mentioned something about their medical abortion changing them - 74% mentioned something ostensibly negative.
So what the judge meant to say was "83% of the anonymous posters on the Abortion Changes You website indicated that their medical abortion had changed them." That's, of course and for obvious reasons, not what he said. But, hey, I'm sold. The FDA was obviously acting arbitrarily and capriciously in concluding that medical abortion provides therapeutic benefits over surgical abortion because the FDA didn't travel forward in time two decades and find this study demonstrating that the vast majority of fewer than a hundred women who posted to the Abortion Changes You website claimed that their medical abortion changed them.
To be clear, I'm not nitpicking here to point out one absurdity I found in the judge's ruling. The whole thing is garbage. He, e.g., completely misconstrues third-party standing. He bungles the timeliness analysis. He styles his order as a stay even though it's pretty clearly, effectively, an injunction. Why does that matter? Because a stay typically wouldn't have been subject to interlocutory review (by the Fifth Circuit) and could thus remain in place while he was hearing the case. The Fifth Circuit didn't even bother going into much explanation on that issue; it didn't need to. It just - albeit politely - dispensed with that nonsense in a footnote with a Dikembe Mutombo like get-that-crap-out-of-here finger wag.
This is the problem with government. People aren't held accountable. If someone in the private sector did work like this, they'd most likely be fired immediately. Or they might end up in jail for gross negligence. But government actors are generally allowed to get away with most anything - whether it be intentional abuse of power or incredible incompetence.
I think he was just willing to take disingenuousness to a whole other level, even for a purely results seeking judicial decision. I've read countless court decisions - likely thousands of them. And, of course, many of them were bad and clearly just results seeking. But this was one of the worst. I could probably write for a day about the various problems with it, but no one wants to see that so I won't. I'll just provide one example for now (though I'm happy, time allowing, to get into other problematic aspects of the decision).
Assuming arguenda that the plaintiffs could overcome various threshold issues like standing (which they couldn't), on the merits there are a number of questions to consider. One is, essentially, whether the FDA fairly concluded that medical abortion with mifepristone provided therapeutic benefits over then-existing alternatives. To suggest that the FDA was wrong in concluding that, Judge Kacsmaryk looked to highlight problems with its use. So he says, without further qualification except to site a study in a footnote:
Okay. First, it turns out the study he relies on is from 2020. So it's irrelevant to the question at hand: Did the FDA act arbitrarily and capriciously in concluding what it concluded? Somehow Judge Kacsmaryk thinks it did because it didn't go forward in time two decades to consider this study. Second, the study wasn't even offered - best I can tell - as support by any of the parties in the case (for reasons I think will soon become apparent). It would seem the judge went googling or something to find some extra-evidential support - any support - for what he wanted to conclude.
Third, and here's the kicker, what was this study all about? You can't make this stuff up. It's too preposterous. Someone made a website called... called... called... Abortion Changes You. It's a website for people to go post about how abortion changed them and "begin the process of healing." Someone then did a study based only on postings - fewer than a hundred - made to that website. And, voila, apparently 83% of those posters mentioned something about their medical abortion changing them - 74% mentioned something ostensibly negative.
So what the judge meant to say was "83% of the anonymous posters on the Abortion Changes You website indicated that their medical abortion had changed them." That's, of course and for obvious reasons, not what he said. But, hey, I'm sold. The FDA was obviously acting arbitrarily and capriciously in concluding that medical abortion provides therapeutic benefits over surgical abortion because the FDA didn't travel forward in time two decades and find this study demonstrating that the vast majority of fewer than a hundred women who posted to the Abortion Changes You website claimed that their medical abortion changed them.
To be clear, I'm not nitpicking here to point out one absurdity I found in the judge's ruling. The whole thing is garbage. He, e.g., completely misconstrues third-party standing. He bungles the timeliness analysis. He styles his order as a stay even though it's pretty clearly, effectively, an injunction. Why does that matter? Because a stay typically wouldn't have been subject to interlocutory review (by the Fifth Circuit) and could thus remain in place while he was hearing the case. The Fifth Circuit didn't even bother going into much explanation on that issue; it didn't need to. It just - albeit politely - dispensed with that nonsense in a footnote with a Dikembe Mutombo like get-that-crap-out-of-here finger wag.
This is the problem with government. People aren't held accountable. If someone in the private sector did work like this, they'd most likely be fired immediately. Or they might end up in jail for gross negligence. But government actors are generally allowed to get away with most anything - whether it be intentional abuse of power or incredible incompetence.
Tilted
..
It certainly wasn't rushed through approval. The pill had been used for years (e.g. in Europe) before the FDA considered it here in the United States. There was considerable real world data and, IIRC, additional studies to look at. It passed the safety and efficacy prongs for approval, I suspect easily, and the FDA issued an approvable letter in 1996. But it was held up for several years, in effect because of ideological opposition. There was a new licensee for the U.S. and they had to sort out marketing and manufacturing agreements and processes, and that wasn't easy supposedly because many didn't want to be associated with the pill - apparently because or threats of violence and boycotts. In Europe companies were already facing problems - with what we'd today call cancel culture - for being associated with the pill.
Tilted
..
The drawn out citizen petition process (for the initial approval) is something I have questions about. I haven't been able to figure out why it was so drawn out, other than the obvious answer (absent another plausible one) - the FDA just wanted to draw it out.
But that question isn't really relevant to the legal considerations in this case. At some point the FDA rejected that petition and the plaintiffs in this case had 6 years to file a court challenge. They missed that window with regard to the original approval. Judge Kacsmaryk's analysis of the reopening doctrine is, being polite, misguided. The original approval was never reopened or put in doubt. As for the subsequent approvals, those challenges would seem to be timely if plaintiffs could establish standing.
The Comstock issue is a difficult one, I'm not sure what's right on that front, though think the OLC's position - that mailing mifepristone without an intent that it be used for unlawful abortions - is somewhat persuasive. Regardless, it probably shouldn't affect the FDA's approval because it isn't responsible for enforcing the Comstock Act - especially if there are any situations under which mailing mifepristone would be legal. That would be an issue for other agencies to take up if and when someone violated the law.
Tilted
..
The original citizens petition came after the original approval in 2000. It might have been stonewalled, but the approval itself does seem to have come after normal vetting. There was plenty of evidence on which to conclude that mifepristone was both safe and effective.
Judge Kacsmaryk seems to have misunderstood the role Subpart H played. It wasn't needed to approve the pill. The pill had already been approved and the FDA chose to invoke Subpart H in order to place certain kinds of restrictions on its distribution. At least, that's what the FDA claimed - even at the time. It didn't use that to expedite the approval; the approval wasn't expedited. The delay of several years was a result of Danco having to figure out marketing and manufacturing issues. Mifepristone had been deemed approvable (as safe and effective) in 1996.
As for considering pregnancy an illness, I suppose in some circumstances it could be considered an illness. But it doesn't really matter because Subpart H, as promulgated, was apparently meant to be available to be applied to treatments for serious illnesses and conditions. And, at any rate, the program that Congress later passed which effectively replaced it identifies conditions rather than just illnesses. So even if there were problems with the invocation of Subpart H, it shouldn't matter now. Congress has superseded that aspect of the approval and conditions with new processes.
But, if the plaintiffs are right that Subpart H shouldn't have been invoked, then what does that mean? It means the conditions that FDA put on mifepristone's distribution aren't valid. It doesn't mean that the approval of mifepristone is invalid.
Tech
Well-Known Member
Automatically for killing a cop, no. They fall in with the rest of us peons, this all the way to POTUS.
Causing a death in commission of a crime, fry them. Since most police deaths occur like this.
Use of a firearm in the commission of crime by a convicted felon, fry them.
Sexually assault a child, fry them.
Premeditated murder, fry them.
Identity theft, fry them. This includes squatters.