Things that made you laugh today (Political Version)

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

There's no constitutional argument in restricting mifepristone for one.

1. State Interest in Protecting Potential Life: One constitutional argument that may be used to restrict mifepristone is based on the state's interest in protecting potential life. Some individuals and groups may argue that life begins at conception, and therefore, fetuses have a constitutional right to life under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or under state laws protecting the rights of the unborn. From this perspective, mifepristone, as a medication used to terminate pregnancies, could be seen as infringing on the rights of the fetus, and restricting its use could be justified to protect the potential life of the unborn.
2. State Interest in Promoting Maternal Health: Another constitutional argument that could be used to restrict mifepristone is based on the state's interest in promoting maternal health. Advocates for restrictions on mifepristone may argue that the use of this medication for medical abortion carries risks and complications, and that the state has a legitimate interest in regulating its use to protect the health and well-being of pregnant individuals. This argument could be based on the state's authority to regulate the practice of medicine and protect the health and safety of its citizens, as recognized under the police powers doctrine or other constitutional principles.
3. State Interest in Regulating Prescription Medications: A third constitutional argument that may be used to restrict mifepristone is based on the state's interest in regulating prescription medications. Some may argue that mifepristone is a prescription medication that should be subject to government regulation, including restrictions on its use, in order to ensure its safe and appropriate use. This argument could be based on the state's authority to regulate the pharmaceutical industry, protect public health, and prevent the misuse or abuse of prescription medications, as recognized under federal or state laws.

[Neveragain]

There's no constitutional argument in restricting mifepristone for one. Roe v Wade was predicated on the Constitutional argument. You'd know this if you bothered to read the source material. Do you you usually arguing from a place of ignorance on a topic, or is this one special for your people?

I'm glad there's no constitutional argument against ordering cocaine through the US postal service.

[Neveragain]

Seran Mengele: Deliver this baby killing pill for me.

Postal Worker: I don't think I want any part in delivering a baby killing pill.

Seran Mengele: You can't make that argument, Ultra MAGA fascist Nazi Hitler!

[Seran]

1. State Interest in Protecting Potential Life: One constitutional argument that may be used to restrict mifepristone is based on the state's interest in protecting potential life. Some individuals and groups may argue that life begins at conception, and therefore, fetuses have a constitutional right to life under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or under state laws protecting the rights of the unborn. From this perspective, mifepristone, as a medication used to terminate pregnancies, could be seen as infringing on the rights of the fetus, and restricting its use could be justified to protect the potential life of the unborn.
2. State Interest in Promoting Maternal Health: Another constitutional argument that could be used to restrict mifepristone is based on the state's interest in promoting maternal health. Advocates for restrictions on mifepristone may argue that the use of this medication for medical abortion carries risks and complications, and that the state has a legitimate interest in regulating its use to protect the health and well-being of pregnant individuals. This argument could be based on the state's authority to regulate the practice of medicine and protect the health and safety of its citizens, as recognized under the police powers doctrine or other constitutional principles.
3. State Interest in Regulating Prescription Medications: A third constitutional argument that may be used to restrict mifepristone is based on the state's interest in regulating prescription medications. Some may argue that mifepristone is a prescription medication that should be subject to government regulation, including restrictions on its use, in order to ensure its safe and appropriate use. This argument could be based on the state's authority to regulate the pharmaceutical industry, protect public health, and prevent the misuse or abuse of prescription medications, as recognized under federal or state laws.

Stating the obvious here, but all of that was weighed in the approval of mifepristone and then again when the Church group who initiated the current lawsuit appealed the approval initially. It safely ends a pregnancy that a woman does not want. It has side effects, like any other medication, and can only be prescribed by the order of a doctor. So what then does the overriding state interest entail to determine it's Christian morality supercedes the informed decision of the FDA to decide women are required to bring a pregnancy to term?

No state challenged the approval of mifepristone. You're inferring an argument that was not made. Moreover the lawsuit by the Church group alleges that a hypothetical woman might suffer depression or side effects in taking the medication as it's sole arguments for the injunction, there is no actual affected individual behind the suit. Since we know the FDA approved the medication, that doctors are required by law to discuss the side effects before prescribing, what then is the argument.

[Suppressed Poet]

Everything the left says and does is performative.

Off-topic but I always find it odd when someone makes Biden’s argument that you need F16s and nukes to fight against our government.

1) Tell that to our combat veterans who fought against illiterate insurgents with rusty AKs in Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, etc.
2) Is the US government going to air strike and nuke its own people in their own country?
3) As pointed out and Babylon Bee makes great humor from, according to the left an unarmed mob almost brought down our republic on January 6th. Imagine if the majority of the mob was armed and actually had a plan.

I don’t want a civil war as that would be horrible. We are so fortunate in this country to live in peace. I’ll tell you though, if they ever start rounding people up for transport to some interment camp (like some countries did during Covid)…I’m not getting in that cattle cart. There is a nefarious reason beyond the rhetoric “it’s the only way we can stop kids dying by mass shooting” that those in power want to disarm the public.

[Parkbandit]

Off-topic but I always find it odd when someone makes Biden’s argument that you need F16s and nukes to fight against our government.

1) Tell that to our combat veterans who fought against illiterate insurgents with rusty AKs in Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, etc.
2) Is the US government going to air strike and nuke its own people in their own country?
3) As pointed out and Babylon Bee makes great humor from, according to the left an unarmed mob almost brought down our republic on January 6th. Imagine if the majority of the mob was armed and actually had a plan.

I don’t want a civil war as that would be horrible. We are so fortunate in this country to live in peace. I’ll tell you though, if they ever start rounding people up for transport to some interment camp (like some countries did during Covid)…I’m not getting in that cattle cart. There is a nefarious reason beyond the rhetoric “it’s the only way we can stop kids dying by mass shooting” that those in power want to disarm the public.

That's what gets me.. have guns suddenly become deadlier in the past 3-4 decades? No, they've always been lethal. Has it gotten easier to get a weapon? Nope.. there are more restrictions now than when I was growing up.

So guns haven't changed much.. so it's not the gun that accounts for the uptick in mass shootings.

Has to be something else.. like something in society......

Weird.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Stating the obvious here, but all of that was weighed in the approval of mifepristone and then again when the Church group who initiated the current lawsuit appealed the approval initially. It safely ends a pregnancy that a woman does not want. It has side effects, like any other medication, and can only be prescribed by the order of a doctor. So what then does the overriding state interest entail to determine it's Christian morality supercedes the informed decision of the FDA to decide women are required to bring a pregnancy to term?

No state challenged the approval of mifepristone. You're inferring an argument that was not made. Moreover the lawsuit by the Church group alleges that a hypothetical woman might suffer depression or side effects in taking the medication as it's sole arguments for the injunction, there is no actual affected individual behind the suit. Since we know the FDA approved the medication, that doctors are required by law to discuss the side effects before prescribing, what then is the argument.

You state no constitutional argument. I gave you 3. Jump through more hoops, pedo.

[Seran]

You state no constitutional argument. I gave you 3. Jump through more hoops, pedo.

You stated three that weren't argued by the plaintiffs on the case, why would theoreticals be considered when they're not the subject of contested judgment?

[Methais]

Jump through more hoops, pedo.

<JUMPS THROUGH MORE HOOPS>

.

[Gelston]

You stated three that weren't argued by the plaintiffs on the case, why would theoreticals be considered when they're not the subject of contested judgment?

I refuse to believe someone is as stupid as you. No way you aren’t a troll.