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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
"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.
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.
Thanks for the heads up, Joyce. I'm rooting for a Dominion win, thank you very much!
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.
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!