I once had to prove to my former mother in law that "offing" was a real word. She wouldn't believe me until one day she heard someone say it in a sentence. She called to tell me.
I heard a rumor that maybe an indictment could come down in Georgia Monday on , you know, President's Day. Wouldn't that be a hoot.
That could certainly screw up somebody's golf outing....just saying. The end.
Is it our lack of an adequate definition of the word 'News' that allows a company like FOX to get a license as a news organization? They are to the news as mechanic grease is to butter. I know they dispense some actual factual news... so do they call Carlson and Hannity 'opinion' to the FCC?
I think we are back to the stone age (language wise) scratching words into stone... hard and laborious. But, say there is a phenomenon we want to discuss, we will just have to describe what we see, with no short cuts or labels.
F A C T : I googled it. The truth about events as opposed to interpretation. A thing that is known or proved to be true. Fact: The chicken crossed the road. Interpretation: ...to get to the other side.
That second definition? A thing that is known or proved to be true? That doesn’t meet my criteria for what a fact is. Lots of things have been known to be true that are in fact, false. Also, and this is just me, if you can prove it, it most likely isn’t true.
And all of this started with Reagan abolishing The Fairness Doctrine in 1987. The end of possible access to truth from media outlets (Point/Counterpoint). Roger Ailes was thrilled.
If the viewers didn’t eat Fox News like catnip, things would change. They won’t until they start losing billions rather than raking in billions. From Alex Jones to Fox line up there’s more caca than a year’s worth in you condo-coop out back
Well worth diving into the filing. The specific and deliberate choice they made regarding lying for business considerations (e.g., to fix the backlash for truthfully reporting AZ for Biden by lying about/supporting airing of the lies about Dominion) actually appear to have taken away the one potential sliver they might have argued about "newsworthiness". Provably, they didn't do it for the news.
I wonder if the fact that mifepristone is indicated for a condition other than abortion is what will spare it, from a legal perspective, from being banned in the US? Could the court decide to ban its use for one indication and not another? Would the court see its way clear to parse the circumstances under which it might be used, sort of like saying a gun may be used to kill animals while hunting, but not humans with homicidal intent? A total ban would empty pharmacies, warehouses, etc across the states of the drug, whereas an indication-specific ban would leave it available broadly and allow some discretion in how it is prescribed by physicians and other practitioners with prescriptive privileges. This seems to be an important distinction in this case. If I'm not mistaken, mifepristone is a component of the "morning after" concoction that can prevent a pregnancy by preventing implantation of an embryo in the uterus, making it useful in cases of rape, as well as dysfunctional uterine bleeding and other conditions where shedding the uterine lining is useful in treatment. One hopes that a judge, irrespective of political persuasion, might yield to expert medical witness and not over-reach into the realm of diagnosis and treatment of conditions other than termination of an established pregnancy.
The drug is also used for treatment of Cushing’s syndrome, a disease of Type 2 diabetics where over production of cortisol makes control of blood sugar difficult or impossible. One hopes that the judge’s ban to prevent “killing of embryo” doesn’t also result in the killing of adults
Nathan, mifepristone is not used in the "morning after" pill. That medication (Plan B) is a large dose of levonorgestrel, a synthetic form of progesterone, which in high doses can inhibit ovulation. If the woman is already pregnant the extra progestin will not harm the pregnancy.
If you are using the substack iOS app, the three little dots don’t bring up an option to edit. Just Hide or Delete. One’s typos are left for the world to see.
I’m curious as to the possible reasoning a judge could use to rescind FDA approval for a drug that was tested and deemed safe and effective for its intended use, and with several years of use data to back up this efficacy and safeness. Would this not set a precedent for future lawsuits to ban medications on the basis of religious beliefs (as this one is), or any other arbitrary reason?
If this judge does indeed remove the approval for mifepristone, then I propose a lawsuit that would rescinded the approval for Viagra and its generics. That could go a long way toward preventing the unwanted/unplanned pregnancies in the first place, reducing the need for the drug mifepristone.
"The Biden Border Crisis" headline makes me wonder why we didn't have a "The Trump Pandemic Disaster" House Committee hearing. back in 2020. But I guess it's because we're not a**holes.
There should be no problem with retrofitting the last campaign using "The Trump Pandemic Disaster" for 2024. I'll write to the Dem campaign bout it. It's not being an a**hole to tell the truth and set 'em straight.
I became physically ill when I read that list of Republican members of the Judiciary Committee? The Republicans put up Jim Jordan as the Chair of the Judiciary Committee. Ludicrously unqualified and unlearned puppet.
“. . . with serious First Amendment implications involving Fox’s right to report the news.”
Fox rarely reports the news. It’s an editorial forum with paid speakers. Tucker and Hannity are unquestioned by their management as to the content of their dribblings.
Their “news” leads are determined by viewer polling as to what they want to hear as correct.
So true. Reviewed much of it with Mike Dunham's Litigation Disaster Tourism stream last week... will do more in the next day or so. (Find QuestAuthority on Twitch.TV). It's very informal but insightful.
Anticipatory schadenfreude at the thought of Tucker Carlson raising his hand and swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth... look for the fifth or lightening bolts.
Honestly, these Christian nationalists are trying to kill us. Banning a drug so you can advance your religious beliefs is frightening.
I once had to prove to my former mother in law that "offing" was a real word. She wouldn't believe me until one day she heard someone say it in a sentence. She called to tell me.
I heard a rumor that maybe an indictment could come down in Georgia Monday on , you know, President's Day. Wouldn't that be a hoot.
That could certainly screw up somebody's golf outing....just saying. The end.
William, I so agree about the the golf outing... cant wait 🤦🏼♀️😇
I am aghast that in 2023 we are having a discussion about sneaking women critical medicine in an underground market.
Is it our lack of an adequate definition of the word 'News' that allows a company like FOX to get a license as a news organization? They are to the news as mechanic grease is to butter. I know they dispense some actual factual news... so do they call Carlson and Hannity 'opinion' to the FCC?
Every day we have to argue over the definition or the word FACT
Yes, as I've said before... we are bastardizing our language to where we have to agree on definitions before we can understand what each other said.
I worry that the problem is we CANNOT agree. They don’t see or understand the difference between fact and fantasy.
I think we are back to the stone age (language wise) scratching words into stone... hard and laborious. But, say there is a phenomenon we want to discuss, we will just have to describe what we see, with no short cuts or labels.
F A C T : I googled it. The truth about events as opposed to interpretation. A thing that is known or proved to be true. Fact: The chicken crossed the road. Interpretation: ...to get to the other side.
That second definition? A thing that is known or proved to be true? That doesn’t meet my criteria for what a fact is. Lots of things have been known to be true that are in fact, false. Also, and this is just me, if you can prove it, it most likely isn’t true.
Truth is whatever most people agree on. Inaction indicates agreement.
Re-reading "Hitler's Willing Executioners".
That’s consensus, not truth.
They're a cable news organization so the FCC has no jurisdiction since they are nut using the public airwaves to send their message.
Their license should be suspended. They helped create J6!
How about prosecuted?
I thought Fox News doesn't have a news license and that's why they can get away with all they are doing. What's true here?
And all of this started with Reagan abolishing The Fairness Doctrine in 1987. The end of possible access to truth from media outlets (Point/Counterpoint). Roger Ailes was thrilled.
And Reagan was protecting himself as well.
If the viewers didn’t eat Fox News like catnip, things would change. They won’t until they start losing billions rather than raking in billions. From Alex Jones to Fox line up there’s more caca than a year’s worth in you condo-coop out back
Well worth diving into the filing. The specific and deliberate choice they made regarding lying for business considerations (e.g., to fix the backlash for truthfully reporting AZ for Biden by lying about/supporting airing of the lies about Dominion) actually appear to have taken away the one potential sliver they might have argued about "newsworthiness". Provably, they didn't do it for the news.
Murdock’s recipe for success has always been sesationalistic, bawdy news. But Fox went too far this time.
I wonder if the fact that mifepristone is indicated for a condition other than abortion is what will spare it, from a legal perspective, from being banned in the US? Could the court decide to ban its use for one indication and not another? Would the court see its way clear to parse the circumstances under which it might be used, sort of like saying a gun may be used to kill animals while hunting, but not humans with homicidal intent? A total ban would empty pharmacies, warehouses, etc across the states of the drug, whereas an indication-specific ban would leave it available broadly and allow some discretion in how it is prescribed by physicians and other practitioners with prescriptive privileges. This seems to be an important distinction in this case. If I'm not mistaken, mifepristone is a component of the "morning after" concoction that can prevent a pregnancy by preventing implantation of an embryo in the uterus, making it useful in cases of rape, as well as dysfunctional uterine bleeding and other conditions where shedding the uterine lining is useful in treatment. One hopes that a judge, irrespective of political persuasion, might yield to expert medical witness and not over-reach into the realm of diagnosis and treatment of conditions other than termination of an established pregnancy.
This judge spent his entire pre-judicial carrer working for anti-abortion organizations.
Not good.
The drug is also used for treatment of Cushing’s syndrome, a disease of Type 2 diabetics where over production of cortisol makes control of blood sugar difficult or impossible. One hopes that the judge’s ban to prevent “killing of embryo” doesn’t also result in the killing of adults
Nathan, mifepristone is not used in the "morning after" pill. That medication (Plan B) is a large dose of levonorgestrel, a synthetic form of progesterone, which in high doses can inhibit ovulation. If the woman is already pregnant the extra progestin will not harm the pregnancy.
Karen APRN/CNM Retired
"abortifacient" is a right wing anti-choice invented word.
I did not know that. I will see if I can repair my post. Thank you so much.
No, you were correct. Abortifacient is a medical term that has been around a long time.
Thank you so much. I was scared there for a minute!
I just deleted it. It was beyond saving.
If you click on the three little dots under your post, a box comes up with "edit post" - click on it and then edit away.
If you are using the substack iOS app, the three little dots don’t bring up an option to edit. Just Hide or Delete. One’s typos are left for the world to see.
Learning more every day here on Substack. Thank you so much.
Thank you Joyce! Just wanted to let you know that I made a great new chicken friend today. Such a sweetie. She didn't have a name so I named her Fern!
Thank you, Joyce, for a factual, calm debrief. I rely one you. Good luck with the chicken coop.
I’m curious as to the possible reasoning a judge could use to rescind FDA approval for a drug that was tested and deemed safe and effective for its intended use, and with several years of use data to back up this efficacy and safeness. Would this not set a precedent for future lawsuits to ban medications on the basis of religious beliefs (as this one is), or any other arbitrary reason?
If this judge does indeed remove the approval for mifepristone, then I propose a lawsuit that would rescinded the approval for Viagra and its generics. That could go a long way toward preventing the unwanted/unplanned pregnancies in the first place, reducing the need for the drug mifepristone.
Cathy I Like that Viagra idea, lol
"The Biden Border Crisis" headline makes me wonder why we didn't have a "The Trump Pandemic Disaster" House Committee hearing. back in 2020. But I guess it's because we're not a**holes.
There should be no problem with retrofitting the last campaign using "The Trump Pandemic Disaster" for 2024. I'll write to the Dem campaign bout it. It's not being an a**hole to tell the truth and set 'em straight.
I became physically ill when I read that list of Republican members of the Judiciary Committee? The Republicans put up Jim Jordan as the Chair of the Judiciary Committee. Ludicrously unqualified and unlearned puppet.
“. . . with serious First Amendment implications involving Fox’s right to report the news.”
Fox rarely reports the news. It’s an editorial forum with paid speakers. Tucker and Hannity are unquestioned by their management as to the content of their dribblings.
Their “news” leads are determined by viewer polling as to what they want to hear as correct.
Agree. And these specifics are addressed (mid forties pages) in the filing. It's an art form.
False premise.
Don’t forget Laura Ingraham.
Thanks for the heads up, Joyce. I'm rooting for a Dominion win, thank you very much!
I still have the Dominion brief on my desktop. It is over-the-top unbelievable what these sneaky people did to steal someone else's money.
So true. Reviewed much of it with Mike Dunham's Litigation Disaster Tourism stream last week... will do more in the next day or so. (Find QuestAuthority on Twitch.TV). It's very informal but insightful.
And help incite J6.
I wish for this family, that this matter might be included as “pattern of malicious behavior.”
https://apnews.com/article/52fe8b0d4e8e6256e16fe7ba0251b4f6
Anticipatory schadenfreude at the thought of Tucker Carlson raising his hand and swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth... look for the fifth or lightening bolts.
Honestly, these Christian nationalists are trying to kill us. Banning a drug so you can advance your religious beliefs is frightening.
Not religious beliefs. It’s just a cover for political beliefs.
Good point. I do think that personal religious beliefs plays into this as well.
What a Sunday treat.
A crazy week ahead but bullet points for easy sharing,
then Yo Yo Ma for the rest of the evening.
Thank you, Joyce!