The FDA has retained the Biden administration's lax mifepristone dispensing rules, while approving Evita's cheap generic. The result will be more abortions.
I do not advocate abortion or self-administering any drug with serious adverse effects listed for mifepristone. But we are not going to stop abortions anytime soon. Free birth control for everyone.
I mean...any drug has the chance of a serious adverse reaction. It's all about likelihood and risk - of which there are risks to both taking or not taking medication. As long as one is properly informed, there should be no issue.
As it was not directly linked, I found this evaluation from WaPp on the EPCC study: https://archive.is/JcPxz. There are issues with the study, and lack of peer-review - paired with the EPCC being an explicit "Judeo-Christian" group - lends credence to the criticisms of the study.
Well if they chose to lie and fake research that’s hardly Christian in practice. The reason given that the study was not peer reviewed is the group is Judeo-Christian in moral tone and therefore many presume they fit the data to their preordained conclusions. It would be wrong to do this but also wrong to presume it.
it's not necessarily a matter of faking research - or more accurately analysis of available info - but the issues with how they went about said analysis. If the analysis doesn't actually meet the proper academic rigor, that's fair criticism - especially if it's due to the group's desired result driving said bad analysis.
What we should want from the FDA is to evaluate drugs based on their actual performance, to document the risks, and let doctors and patients make informed decisions as to whether to use said drug.
Considering there was no evidence provided for that from RFK Jr, yes. Age of the father - and likely mother - is far more likely to be an issue than usage of Tylenol. Especially when you look at the available evidence.
I agree with you and wish pro life was still Trump’s priority. But let’s be fair: The Democrat party is so far gone on pro abortion that it prefers infanticide to pro life instead. Kennedy is a life long Democrat who is pro abortion but has initiated many other pro life health reforms of a different type. He is only in the Trump administration because the Democrats kicked him to the curb and he helped broaden the new Republican Party. I understand that Racket News must frame all issues in an anti Trump box and I don’t agree with everything Trump does. But with everything he has on his plate, I’ll take him over any Socialist aligned with the anti God, anti life, anti health, anti traditional family coalition.
Democrats are pro abortion, anti life. They frame abortion as “ women’s reproductive rights” as though there are laws in the U.S. against reproducing. They call abortion, “ healthcare” as though destroying your unborn baby will be good for your health. They want to feed children in school like Communists do in mess halls, indoctrinating them and parenting them from the cradle to the grave.The Democrat party does not believe it is possible to educate men and women that they can control their own bodies. They want to teach them they are animals with uncontrollable instincts so they supply children with birth control pills, condoms and abortions. They pass laws allowing children to get abortions without parental consent and send them to “ Planned Barrenhood,” their favorite charity whose main source of income is the destruction of unborn babies and resale of fetal organs. And on and on.
Women should be able to decide if and when they want to become mothers.
I really don't get your statement about communists and mess halls: if the school is gonna provide lunch, shouldn't it be healthy food? And how does that stop someone from bringing in their own lunch if they so choose?
The question is what achievable goal do you have - because either you want to try to reduce abortions to only those necessary via prevention and sex ed, or you want to try to force people to be something other than what they are: and sorry to break it to you, but we are in fact animals with all the evolutionary baggage that that contains. "Just say no" didn't work for drug usage, and it sure as heck won't work for preventing unwanted pregnancies.
And sorry to say, but yes: sometimes abortion is in fact medically necessary to save a woman's life. That is in fact medical care.
To ask: at what stage of development is a fetus actually a human? It isn't at conception, which is where two separate live things - a sperm and an egg - combine and start to interact. Is it life? Yes: but is it a human? Not until later, no. In Judaism - the religion of Jesus - life begins at first breath.
When does the soul - if one believes in that - actually enter the body? My understanding is the Bible says "We don't know". There's a number of parts where it states the soul has existed, but nowhere does it state when it enters the body...
Firstly, Democrats are not "pro abortion": they want to limit the number of abortions that occur by preventing pregnancy via contraception secondly by having fiscal and welfare policies that make it easier to have a child if one wished to. The GOP has paid lip-service towards anti-abortion positions, but has ultimately done nothing to make it easier to choose to have children. You can see this from demand for abortion having decreased from ~1990-2017, when it started to increase again.
When you talk about health reforms - what do you mean, exactly? Is it things you hated Democrats for - say, trying to get healthier meals into schools - that you now support because it's being done by RFK Jr under a Republican administration?
It's funny that you say you'd take Trump over any Socialist, when he is acting more like a Socialist than anyone else - literally starting to seize the means of production. At what point do we view this as projection?
"Senator Josh Hawley said, in outrage, that he has 'lost confidence' in the FDA’s leadership over this move. I think his outrage might be a bit late the game."
I imagine that his wife - bless her heart - is a good bit more pissed off, as she argued (and lost) the mifepristone case before SCOTUS[1]. But "who could have known"?
Too many people in our society devalue human life by trying to draw the line somewhere that is less in the public eye instead of drawing the line in the only place it can morally be — the very beginning of life, at conception.
That has its own moral problems too. There have been many discussions on the topic of abortion here in the past, so I won't rehash all of the arguments: I'll simply note that viability - which is dependent on access to advanced medical technology - is the best cut-off point, with the usual exceptions.
I do not advocate abortion or self-administering any drug with serious adverse effects listed for mifepristone. But we are not going to stop abortions anytime soon. Free birth control for everyone.
I mean...any drug has the chance of a serious adverse reaction. It's all about likelihood and risk - of which there are risks to both taking or not taking medication. As long as one is properly informed, there should be no issue.
As it was not directly linked, I found this evaluation from WaPp on the EPCC study: https://archive.is/JcPxz. There are issues with the study, and lack of peer-review - paired with the EPCC being an explicit "Judeo-Christian" group - lends credence to the criticisms of the study.
Well if they chose to lie and fake research that’s hardly Christian in practice. The reason given that the study was not peer reviewed is the group is Judeo-Christian in moral tone and therefore many presume they fit the data to their preordained conclusions. It would be wrong to do this but also wrong to presume it.
it's not necessarily a matter of faking research - or more accurately analysis of available info - but the issues with how they went about said analysis. If the analysis doesn't actually meet the proper academic rigor, that's fair criticism - especially if it's due to the group's desired result driving said bad analysis.
What we should want from the FDA is to evaluate drugs based on their actual performance, to document the risks, and let doctors and patients make informed decisions as to whether to use said drug.
Like Tylenol. Sorry could not resist.
Considering there was no evidence provided for that from RFK Jr, yes. Age of the father - and likely mother - is far more likely to be an issue than usage of Tylenol. Especially when you look at the available evidence.
Steve,
I agree with you and wish pro life was still Trump’s priority. But let’s be fair: The Democrat party is so far gone on pro abortion that it prefers infanticide to pro life instead. Kennedy is a life long Democrat who is pro abortion but has initiated many other pro life health reforms of a different type. He is only in the Trump administration because the Democrats kicked him to the curb and he helped broaden the new Republican Party. I understand that Racket News must frame all issues in an anti Trump box and I don’t agree with everything Trump does. But with everything he has on his plate, I’ll take him over any Socialist aligned with the anti God, anti life, anti health, anti traditional family coalition.
Thanks for providing an example of of the phenomenon that no matter how much Trump betrays his base, they will still keep coming back for more.
Personnel is policy.
Democrats are pro abortion, anti life. They frame abortion as “ women’s reproductive rights” as though there are laws in the U.S. against reproducing. They call abortion, “ healthcare” as though destroying your unborn baby will be good for your health. They want to feed children in school like Communists do in mess halls, indoctrinating them and parenting them from the cradle to the grave.The Democrat party does not believe it is possible to educate men and women that they can control their own bodies. They want to teach them they are animals with uncontrollable instincts so they supply children with birth control pills, condoms and abortions. They pass laws allowing children to get abortions without parental consent and send them to “ Planned Barrenhood,” their favorite charity whose main source of income is the destruction of unborn babies and resale of fetal organs. And on and on.
That's just not factual.
Women should be able to decide if and when they want to become mothers.
I really don't get your statement about communists and mess halls: if the school is gonna provide lunch, shouldn't it be healthy food? And how does that stop someone from bringing in their own lunch if they so choose?
The question is what achievable goal do you have - because either you want to try to reduce abortions to only those necessary via prevention and sex ed, or you want to try to force people to be something other than what they are: and sorry to break it to you, but we are in fact animals with all the evolutionary baggage that that contains. "Just say no" didn't work for drug usage, and it sure as heck won't work for preventing unwanted pregnancies.
And sorry to say, but yes: sometimes abortion is in fact medically necessary to save a woman's life. That is in fact medical care.
To ask: at what stage of development is a fetus actually a human? It isn't at conception, which is where two separate live things - a sperm and an egg - combine and start to interact. Is it life? Yes: but is it a human? Not until later, no. In Judaism - the religion of Jesus - life begins at first breath.
When does the soul - if one believes in that - actually enter the body? My understanding is the Bible says "We don't know". There's a number of parts where it states the soul has existed, but nowhere does it state when it enters the body...
Firstly, Democrats are not "pro abortion": they want to limit the number of abortions that occur by preventing pregnancy via contraception secondly by having fiscal and welfare policies that make it easier to have a child if one wished to. The GOP has paid lip-service towards anti-abortion positions, but has ultimately done nothing to make it easier to choose to have children. You can see this from demand for abortion having decreased from ~1990-2017, when it started to increase again.
When you talk about health reforms - what do you mean, exactly? Is it things you hated Democrats for - say, trying to get healthier meals into schools - that you now support because it's being done by RFK Jr under a Republican administration?
It's funny that you say you'd take Trump over any Socialist, when he is acting more like a Socialist than anyone else - literally starting to seize the means of production. At what point do we view this as projection?
So your alternative is what? Should I have voted for Kamala? Or be supporting the present resistance?
"Senator Josh Hawley said, in outrage, that he has 'lost confidence' in the FDA’s leadership over this move. I think his outrage might be a bit late the game."
I imagine that his wife - bless her heart - is a good bit more pissed off, as she argued (and lost) the mifepristone case before SCOTUS[1]. But "who could have known"?
[1] https://archive.is/418C1
As the SecWar says, personnel is policy. Applies to the FDA also.
Too many people in our society devalue human life by trying to draw the line somewhere that is less in the public eye instead of drawing the line in the only place it can morally be — the very beginning of life, at conception.
That has its own moral problems too. There have been many discussions on the topic of abortion here in the past, so I won't rehash all of the arguments: I'll simply note that viability - which is dependent on access to advanced medical technology - is the best cut-off point, with the usual exceptions.
“Best” is subjective. You aren't simply “noting” this; you are asserting your opinion.
One that changed someone's mind towards agreeing with me, yes.
Trump never was as pro-life as he claimed.
Can be applied to many in the GOP: it was solely a position to get pro-life voters to vote GOP, not something they actually wanted to be enacted.
Y'all got used