CANON_Grow
Well-Known Member
And here we go.....
Support for Roe v. Wade and hidden costs of repeal.
- Thread starter buckaclark
- Start date
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
It seems to me American's need to look outside their borders for solutions, massage the stats all you want but the simple fact remains that where other peer liberal democracies ban and regulate guns, we don't have those problems of mass regular murder. It has gotten to be both tragic and ridiculous, soon other people will stop feeling sorry and just laugh at the stupidity. What else can they do when ya keep punching yourself in the face and can't stop, if you don't care why should they.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
You support authoritarianism and would have no control over what they do once they grab power and don't let go. If someone shot and many would, a future President Trump, then see how long your guns would last, he would take them without due process and said so, have a look, he will fit right in with the guys in the meme. So, it's liberal democracy and regulations or "take the guns" and they will, remember your vote won't count or even be counted and piss him off and he will turn on you and abuse the full power of the state. Just the constitution in the way, but he's already wiped his ass with that.
Why not put up some other examples where they regulated guns and got rid of most, actual peer nations like Canada, Australia, NZ and the UK, we have the same legal systems and a small fraction of the gun deaths, we are just as free too. The wind direction has changed and it's grown stronger, and you are pissing against it.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
The gun control thread is found in the list that pops up when you click on Politics.
Drop That Sound
Well-Known Member
I never click my way into politics through the list that way. My news feed is flooded with political posts everyday, and there is no way to disable that feature. Surprised the mods haven't made that possible, but then again there probably wouldn't be a need to moderate much if they did, lol., Yeah, I click into the political posts anyway, to see what you guys have to say. You know how it is. Being a member on RIU, you're forced to have political threads, that seemingly only really serve to divide us even more. It's in your face everyday, when all some really want is to see how people grow their plants... Sometimes over 50% of the feed are trump derangement hate thread links, for people to obsess for years over staged political bread and circus. Even if I blocked everyone, those posts still show up in my feed. I'm banned from that thread btw. Not sure why, I never threaten or intimidate anyone, or take anything they say personally either.. I respect whatever reason though.., just like I respect what ever your guy's beliefs are.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Sickofitall420247
Well-Known Member
Near peer countries don't exist.
Grandpapy
Well-Known Member
Dead children do.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
I noticed all the Russian mobiks who don't want to be in Ukraine all have guns and no votes that count.
Last edited:
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
True, we don't have nearly as many gun murders per capita.
Sickofitall420247
Well-Known Member
Nor the economic power that we have. Or the military might that we have. Your country is so dependent on the U.S.A that 90% of your population lives within what 150 miles of the border? Maybe you should worry about the king and queen before you spout off at the mouth about the United States.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
It has nothing to do with gun control and our success at it and your failure, a failure illustrated by the death toll.
So, you must be what is called pro death and part of the pro death faction of the republican party as opposed to the "prolife" faction, it's amazing you folks can agree on anything. It is a good thing you people are being led to disaster by a moron, if he had a brain, he'd be a lot more dangerous, poor leadership will be your downfall, among other things. Make no mistake, once the fascists of America are down, the constitution demands that patriots keep you down.
click the people who frequent politics and ignore them, viola you no longer have politics.
We dont have that feature because we arent able to implement it for the software we use.
and yes we mod much more than politics. the grow areas get bad
if we did not have a political section it would bleed its way elsewhere onto the forum soit stays to its designated area
HGCC
Well-Known Member
The grow threads are insane compared to politics in terms of vitriol. They are way way way more upset about langbeinite than school shootings.
You can totally pick a fight with "nutrients are nutrients, plants don't know the difference." I think the jacks+coco fans are the democrats in this one.
You can totally pick a fight with "nutrients are nutrients, plants don't know the difference." I think the jacks+coco fans are the democrats in this one.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
The nice thing about being the restroom is that you can make it sparkle with two minutes and a hose.
CunningCanuk
Well-Known Member
The Plant Problems section is way more vicious than the Politics section.
HGCC
Well-Known Member
Would you like to talk about calcium?
The big fights seem to mostly be around organics, both in terms of methods and then of course vs synthetics. It is all very funny.
printer
Well-Known Member
Nothing forces you to read. When I find a poster that spews shit and is a waste of time I just skip over their posts and the replies they get. Really it is not that hard, you have the power.
The reason we are mainly along the border is that it is warmer than up north. When the migration to Canada came about they decided to settle where it is easiest to live. Then the railroad came in and more people settled where the infrastructure was greatest. Why would we worry about the king and queen, they have no bearing on what happens here (being across the pond) and the US right next door. Other than Coronation Street and a couple more shows Britain has no effect on us. The Canadian economy is linked to the US and as they say, when the US sneezes Canada gets a cold.
printer
Well-Known Member
Appeals court keeps abortion pill on the market but sharply limits access
A federal appeals court ruled late Wednesday that an abortion pill can remain on the market but only under strict conditions that prohibit its use beyond seven weeks of pregnancy and bar its distribution by mail.
In a 42-page order, a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to temporarily block the central aspect of a Texas-based federal judge’s ruling that suspended the FDA’s 2000 approval of the drug, mifepristone. But by a 2-1 vote, the panel permitted other aspects of that ruling to take effect that would block a seven-year effort by the FDA to widen access to the drug.
Among the policies temporarily blocked by the court’s order: the FDA’s decision to expand mifepristone’s availability until the 10th week of pregnancy; authorization for retail pharmacies to dispense the drug; eliminating the requirement for in-person office visits to obtain a mifepristone prescription and allowing physicians to prescribe the pills via telemedicine; allowing non-physicians to prescribe or administer the drug; and ending a requirement for prescribers to report “non-fatal adverse events” related to mifepristone.
Reining in the drug’s availability while keeping it on the market is likely to dramatically diminish its usefulness to patients seeking to terminate pregnancies in Republican-led states where severe restrictions on abortion kicked in or were passed after the Supreme Court overturned the federal constitutional right to abortion last June. The decision will also significantly hamper access in blue states that have sought to maintain broad access to the pills — both for their own residents and for the surge of patients traveling across state lines to terminate their pregnancies.
Mifepristone has been used for decades as part of a two-drug regimen to induce an abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy — in combination with the drug misoprostol. It now accounts for more than half of all abortions in the United States.
The Biden administration and abortion rights activists have sought to ease access to abortion medication by mail as an alternative to surgical abortion, which is easier for states to restrict as a practical matter.
Anti-abortion groups, aware that the drug is being used to circumvent state bans, sued to revoke the 23-year-old federal approval of the drug as well as the FDA’s more recent policies to expand its access. Last week, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Texas-based appointee of former President Donald Trump, suspended both the original approval and the expanded-access policies, setting up what is likely the most consequential legal battle over abortion since the high court’s 5-4 decision last June overturning Roe v. Wade after nearly half a century.
The Biden administration is expected to ask the Supreme Court to intervene immediately. It can ask the justices to grant an emergency order putting all aspects of Kacsmaryk’s ruling on hold while the appeals process continues.
Justice Department spokespeople, representatives for the drug’s main manufacturer, Danco Laboratories, and for the anti-abortion groups seeking to block access to the medication, did not immediately respond to requests for comment early Thursday.
Without the high court’s intervention, the 5th Circuit’s ruling limiting access to the drug will take effect at the end of this week. The appeals court panel consisted of Judges Andrew Oldham and Kurt Engelhardt, who are both Trump appointees, and Judge Catharina Haynes, an appointee of former President George W. Bush. Haynes indicated she would have kept Kacsmaryk’s entire ruling on hold until a subsequent panel had a chance to consider the merits of the case.
Oldham and Engelhardt said suspending the original approval of mifepristone would have untenable consequences, but in a ruling issued shortly before midnight on Wednesday, they defended their decision to allow the other portions of Kacsmaryk’s ruling to stand.
“This is an exceedingly unusual regime,” the judges wrote, referring to the FDA’s relaxation of restrictions around the drug. They said the agency “chose to cut out doctors from the prescription and administration of mifepristone.” And they disputed the agency’s contention that the drug is just as safe as ibuprofen.
The Justice Department defended the drug’s safety record earlier this week in court papers. “FDA made those changes after fifteen years of adverse event data that showed ‘known risks occurring rarely,’” the government’s lawyers wrote. “By that point, mifepristone’s ‘well-characterized safety profile’ was firmly established. Serious adverse events were ‘exceedingly rare,’ as demonstrated by eleven different studies and data from ‘well over 30,000 patients.’”
The appeals court opinion — like Kacsmaryk’s ruling last week — frequently deployed language more commonly associated with anti-abortion advocates, such as referring to the medication as “chemical abortion” and the follow-up procedure sometimes needed after a patient takes the pills in the first few weeks of pregnancy as “remov[ing] an unborn child.”
www.politico.com
A federal appeals court ruled late Wednesday that an abortion pill can remain on the market but only under strict conditions that prohibit its use beyond seven weeks of pregnancy and bar its distribution by mail.
In a 42-page order, a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to temporarily block the central aspect of a Texas-based federal judge’s ruling that suspended the FDA’s 2000 approval of the drug, mifepristone. But by a 2-1 vote, the panel permitted other aspects of that ruling to take effect that would block a seven-year effort by the FDA to widen access to the drug.
Among the policies temporarily blocked by the court’s order: the FDA’s decision to expand mifepristone’s availability until the 10th week of pregnancy; authorization for retail pharmacies to dispense the drug; eliminating the requirement for in-person office visits to obtain a mifepristone prescription and allowing physicians to prescribe the pills via telemedicine; allowing non-physicians to prescribe or administer the drug; and ending a requirement for prescribers to report “non-fatal adverse events” related to mifepristone.
Reining in the drug’s availability while keeping it on the market is likely to dramatically diminish its usefulness to patients seeking to terminate pregnancies in Republican-led states where severe restrictions on abortion kicked in or were passed after the Supreme Court overturned the federal constitutional right to abortion last June. The decision will also significantly hamper access in blue states that have sought to maintain broad access to the pills — both for their own residents and for the surge of patients traveling across state lines to terminate their pregnancies.
Mifepristone has been used for decades as part of a two-drug regimen to induce an abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy — in combination with the drug misoprostol. It now accounts for more than half of all abortions in the United States.
The Biden administration and abortion rights activists have sought to ease access to abortion medication by mail as an alternative to surgical abortion, which is easier for states to restrict as a practical matter.
Anti-abortion groups, aware that the drug is being used to circumvent state bans, sued to revoke the 23-year-old federal approval of the drug as well as the FDA’s more recent policies to expand its access. Last week, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Texas-based appointee of former President Donald Trump, suspended both the original approval and the expanded-access policies, setting up what is likely the most consequential legal battle over abortion since the high court’s 5-4 decision last June overturning Roe v. Wade after nearly half a century.
The Biden administration is expected to ask the Supreme Court to intervene immediately. It can ask the justices to grant an emergency order putting all aspects of Kacsmaryk’s ruling on hold while the appeals process continues.
Justice Department spokespeople, representatives for the drug’s main manufacturer, Danco Laboratories, and for the anti-abortion groups seeking to block access to the medication, did not immediately respond to requests for comment early Thursday.
Without the high court’s intervention, the 5th Circuit’s ruling limiting access to the drug will take effect at the end of this week. The appeals court panel consisted of Judges Andrew Oldham and Kurt Engelhardt, who are both Trump appointees, and Judge Catharina Haynes, an appointee of former President George W. Bush. Haynes indicated she would have kept Kacsmaryk’s entire ruling on hold until a subsequent panel had a chance to consider the merits of the case.
Oldham and Engelhardt said suspending the original approval of mifepristone would have untenable consequences, but in a ruling issued shortly before midnight on Wednesday, they defended their decision to allow the other portions of Kacsmaryk’s ruling to stand.
“This is an exceedingly unusual regime,” the judges wrote, referring to the FDA’s relaxation of restrictions around the drug. They said the agency “chose to cut out doctors from the prescription and administration of mifepristone.” And they disputed the agency’s contention that the drug is just as safe as ibuprofen.
The Justice Department defended the drug’s safety record earlier this week in court papers. “FDA made those changes after fifteen years of adverse event data that showed ‘known risks occurring rarely,’” the government’s lawyers wrote. “By that point, mifepristone’s ‘well-characterized safety profile’ was firmly established. Serious adverse events were ‘exceedingly rare,’ as demonstrated by eleven different studies and data from ‘well over 30,000 patients.’”
The appeals court opinion — like Kacsmaryk’s ruling last week — frequently deployed language more commonly associated with anti-abortion advocates, such as referring to the medication as “chemical abortion” and the follow-up procedure sometimes needed after a patient takes the pills in the first few weeks of pregnancy as “remov[ing] an unborn child.”
Appeals court keeps abortion pill on the market but sharply limits access
The court blocked the use of mifepristone beyond seven weeks of pregnancy and barred its distribution by mail.
www.politico.com
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
that’s only three weeks detectably pregnantAppeals court keeps abortion pill on the market but sharply limits access
A federal appeals court ruled late Wednesday that an abortion pill can remain on the market but only under strict conditions that prohibit its use beyond seven weeks of pregnancy and bar its distribution by mail.
In a 42-page order, a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to temporarily block the central aspect of a Texas-based federal judge’s ruling that suspended the FDA’s 2000 approval of the drug, mifepristone. But by a 2-1 vote, the panel permitted other aspects of that ruling to take effect that would block a seven-year effort by the FDA to widen access to the drug.
Among the policies temporarily blocked by the court’s order: the FDA’s decision to expand mifepristone’s availability until the 10th week of pregnancy; authorization for retail pharmacies to dispense the drug; eliminating the requirement for in-person office visits to obtain a mifepristone prescription and allowing physicians to prescribe the pills via telemedicine; allowing non-physicians to prescribe or administer the drug; and ending a requirement for prescribers to report “non-fatal adverse events” related to mifepristone.
Reining in the drug’s availability while keeping it on the market is likely to dramatically diminish its usefulness to patients seeking to terminate pregnancies in Republican-led states where severe restrictions on abortion kicked in or were passed after the Supreme Court overturned the federal constitutional right to abortion last June. The decision will also significantly hamper access in blue states that have sought to maintain broad access to the pills — both for their own residents and for the surge of patients traveling across state lines to terminate their pregnancies.
Mifepristone has been used for decades as part of a two-drug regimen to induce an abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy — in combination with the drug misoprostol. It now accounts for more than half of all abortions in the United States.
The Biden administration and abortion rights activists have sought to ease access to abortion medication by mail as an alternative to surgical abortion, which is easier for states to restrict as a practical matter.
Anti-abortion groups, aware that the drug is being used to circumvent state bans, sued to revoke the 23-year-old federal approval of the drug as well as the FDA’s more recent policies to expand its access. Last week, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Texas-based appointee of former President Donald Trump, suspended both the original approval and the expanded-access policies, setting up what is likely the most consequential legal battle over abortion since the high court’s 5-4 decision last June overturning Roe v. Wade after nearly half a century.
The Biden administration is expected to ask the Supreme Court to intervene immediately. It can ask the justices to grant an emergency order putting all aspects of Kacsmaryk’s ruling on hold while the appeals process continues.
Justice Department spokespeople, representatives for the drug’s main manufacturer, Danco Laboratories, and for the anti-abortion groups seeking to block access to the medication, did not immediately respond to requests for comment early Thursday.
Without the high court’s intervention, the 5th Circuit’s ruling limiting access to the drug will take effect at the end of this week. The appeals court panel consisted of Judges Andrew Oldham and Kurt Engelhardt, who are both Trump appointees, and Judge Catharina Haynes, an appointee of former President George W. Bush. Haynes indicated she would have kept Kacsmaryk’s entire ruling on hold until a subsequent panel had a chance to consider the merits of the case.
Oldham and Engelhardt said suspending the original approval of mifepristone would have untenable consequences, but in a ruling issued shortly before midnight on Wednesday, they defended their decision to allow the other portions of Kacsmaryk’s ruling to stand.
“This is an exceedingly unusual regime,” the judges wrote, referring to the FDA’s relaxation of restrictions around the drug. They said the agency “chose to cut out doctors from the prescription and administration of mifepristone.” And they disputed the agency’s contention that the drug is just as safe as ibuprofen.
The Justice Department defended the drug’s safety record earlier this week in court papers. “FDA made those changes after fifteen years of adverse event data that showed ‘known risks occurring rarely,’” the government’s lawyers wrote. “By that point, mifepristone’s ‘well-characterized safety profile’ was firmly established. Serious adverse events were ‘exceedingly rare,’ as demonstrated by eleven different studies and data from ‘well over 30,000 patients.’”
The appeals court opinion — like Kacsmaryk’s ruling last week — frequently deployed language more commonly associated with anti-abortion advocates, such as referring to the medication as “chemical abortion” and the follow-up procedure sometimes needed after a patient takes the pills in the first few weeks of pregnancy as “remov[ing] an unborn child.”
Appeals court keeps abortion pill on the market but sharply limits access
The court blocked the use of mifepristone beyond seven weeks of pregnancy and barred its distribution by mail.