fullspinzoo wrote:
But you can't name 5 which means you should #STFU. Can't even spell "believe". You are really pathetic and tell a lot of lies like graduating in three years.
***like graduating in three years.
>>>That was passing from 3rd grade
LogicallyRight wrote:
***Trump thinks is a major justification.
>>>It is
Uh-huh. Like his rape trial was just a scam and totally political.
😂
kemmer wrote:
Uh-huh. Like his rape trial was just a scam and totally political.
😂
Trump's "rape trial" was a civil trial not a criminal trial which the 9 jurors found him liable for monetary damages for sexual abuse instead of the original charge of rape because they obviously didn't believe her. How do you know that this wasn't political? She got awarded more money- $3 million for defamation than she did for the sexual abuse- $2 million which Trump and his lawyers will appeal the case.
kemmer wrote:
Uh-huh. Like his rape trial was just a scam and totally political.
😂
It WAS totally political!!..
kemmer wrote:
Uh-huh. Like his rape trial was just a scam and totally political.
😂
Trump was as attracted to E Jean as kemmer is. Kemmer wanted to dress her in something other than the queen of the khyber rifles look for the trial. Everyone knows that Trump hates that look.
E Jean is as repulsive as Bud Lite.
Mikeyavelli wrote:
E Jean is as repulsive as Bud Lite.
Well, as it turned out, she was Trump’s type. 😂
kemmer wrote:
Well, as it turned out, she was Trump’s type. 😂
Where's Tara Reade when you need her. 😟
LogicallyRight wrote:
It was.
Where's the Biden Tara Reade trial?
Mikeyavelli wrote:
Where's the Biden Tara Reade trial?
Talk to that Texas judge who tried to ban all abortion medications. He’ll do anything the MAGA crowd says.
kemmer wrote:
Talk to that Texas judge who tried to ban all abortion medications. He’ll do anything the MAGA crowd says.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/08/7-questions-from-the-texas-ruling-on-abortion-pills-00091101The most important implications of this ruling have to do with abortion. But the legal arguments centered on procedure and whether mifepristone received proper scrutiny from the FDA more than two decades ago.
The Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal group that brought the case on behalf of providers who oppose abortion, argued that the FDA went beyond its authority when it approved the medication. Their lawyers also argued that a 19th century anti-obscenity law, the Comstock Act, prohibits the mailing of any medication used for abortion.
What did the judge say?
Kacsmaryk ruled that both the initial approval of the pills in 2000 and a more recent decision to allow them to be prescribed via telemedicine were unlawful.
“The Court does not second-guess FDA’s decision-making lightly,” he wrote. “But here, FDA acquiesced on its legitimate safety concerns — in violation of its statutory duty — based on plainly unsound reasoning and studies that did not support its conclusions. There is also evidence indicating FDA faced significant political pressure to forego its proposed safety precautions to better advance the political objective of increased ‘access’ to chemical abortion — which was the ‘whole idea of mifepristone.’”
kemmer wrote:
Talk to that Texas judge who tried to ban all abortion medications. He’ll do anything the MAGA crowd says.
Always trying to help. Thanks.
Justice101 wrote:
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/08/7-questions-from-the-texas-ruling-on-abortion-pills-00091101
The most important implications of this ruling have to do with abortion. But the legal arguments centered on procedure and whether mifepristone received proper scrutiny from the FDA more than two decades ago.
The Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal group that brought the case on behalf of providers who oppose abortion, argued that the FDA went beyond its authority when it approved the medication. Their lawyers also argued that a 19th century anti-obscenity law, the Comstock Act, prohibits the mailing of any medication used for abortion.
What did the judge say?
Kacsmaryk ruled that both the initial approval of the pills in 2000 and a more recent decision to allow them to be prescribed via telemedicine were unlawful.
“The Court does not second-guess FDA’s decision-making lightly,” he wrote. “But here, FDA acquiesced on its legitimate safety concerns — in violation of its statutory duty — based on plainly unsound reasoning and studies that did not support its conclusions. There is also evidence indicating FDA faced significant political pressure to forego its proposed safety precautions to better advance the political objective of increased ‘access’ to chemical abortion — which was the ‘whole idea of mifepristone.’”
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/08/7-questio... (
show quote)
When ideology-driven judges can negate medical decisions of doctors/medical professionals, why even have an FDA?
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.