I've seen a flurry of Democratic governors assuring their residents that mifepristone will by God continue to be available in their states. I appreciate the sentiment and applaud their public support.
However, there's a wee gotcha here: mifepristone will continue to be available only if its manufacturers continue to ship it, and they will do this only if their legal position is crystal clear. But if the Kacsmaryk decision takes effect next week,¹ that puts manufacturers and distributors under a legal cloud. These kinds of companies don't want to get involved in potentially expensive culture war battles, so there's a good chance they would halt shipments of mifepristone out of an abundance of caution. Ditto for pharmacies around the country.
In other words, even blue states are at risk here. Because of this, an emergency stay from the Supreme Court is imperative.
¹That is, if it's not stayed by a higher court before its start date of next Friday.
I was told not to be cynical.
That's crummy. I'm glad you ignored the advice.
٩( ᐛ )و
(¬‿¬)
Google paid 99 dollars an hour on the internet. Everything I did was basic Οnline w0rk from comfort at hΟme for 5-7 hours per day that I g0t from this office I f0und over the web and they paid me 100 dollars each hour. For more details
visit this article... https://createmaxwealth.blogspot.com
I agree with Kevin’s assessment but it seems unlikely almost beyond belief that a higher court will stay the order or, ultimately, overturn it. 2024 is too distant in time to “clarify” the thinking of a Republican judge about further damaging the GOP brand (and Wisconsin has already happened) so I think it’s straight on for the nutters. This is going to continue until the Democrats hit back at undemocratic, Republicans by expanding the courts (including the Supreme Court) and take executive action to protect abortion rights.
Totally agree I just don't see any possible answer to these Trump/Federalist judges coming up with strange theories to nix stuff that's been around for 20 years.
The idea that our entire system of testing and approving pharmaceuticals has now been completely usurped by a batshit insane judge in Texas is utterly unhinged. I hope Big Pharma for once uses its lobbying juggernaut in DC to do something beneficial for once and force Congress to act on this. Now it's mifepristone, but next week it could be some Scientologist judge outlawing antidepressants or whatever. You can't run a country like this.
For conservatives it's always January 6.
They are not conservatives, they are radical Reactionaries.
Do not allow this enemy to have a respectable name.
You're too kind to the enablers.
Kindness has literally nothing to do with the subject.
Strategic communication, strategic labeling.
Reactionary has no positive odour whereas ex amongst you Lefties, conservative does.
Usage of at once the more accurate label and equally one that does not grant respectability.
Your opposition long ago understood such strategy.
+1
I don't disagree with you at all about labeling, in fact I think you're entirely right.
But I don't know what value conservatism has ever demonstrated aside from allowing the wealthiest to hoard money at ever increasing scales, and to keep it up without returning anything else to society beyond it's own pretty spectacle requires everywhere an existential threat that will envigorate the easily manipulated, and for those people it's just like crack.
Conservatives in general, it is my observation, are always antagonistic to the public good and always happy to allow the enabling of just those people you rightly call reactionaries.
As I said, aside with you Lefties....
Of course you lot do not see conservative as a favourable label. That is literally besides the point.
Outside Left circles, conservative is not seen poorly - this is utterly besides any argument you have about "demonstrating" anything at all. The subject is the sense of the labels, the effectiveness of their usage, not your Leftist understanding of conservatism as conservatism, an entirely different subject.
The subject was my comment you replied to and I simply developed the point in better detail.
That conservatism may not be seen poorly by many is their error, a significant problem that should be addressed.
How to address it without discussing it I do not know.
Left Intello maundering on about changing a century of incapacity in getting the rest of the world to see things through their eyes is fundamentally without any interest.
Specific battle in this area with specific messaging strategy that has no need of changing anyone's Left Intello perception of False Consciousness is another.
If you could mention which conservative policy doesn't have the appeal of causing injury to some group you might have a point, but there isn't any. If there isn't any, then what is the purpose of that?
Then promote that with unrestricted success for fifty years and what kind of people do you attract, you attract the reactionaries who really want to do harm. This seems a straightforward point.
Yes yes, Leftist intellectul sterile hobby horse riding... entirely not the subject.
In any case, rather evident you are unable to understand a differentiation between Your Truth (which you so dearly believe in) and political salesmanship in electoral politics.
@lounsbury, what a ridiculous rant!
I also know that "liberal" has been used as a dirty word by conservatives -- for political salesmanship, too -- at least since the 1980's. So please spare us the indignity of twisted attempts to defend the word 'conservative' There's nothing left to conserve.
Since I stated outright I agreed with your point about salesmanship but that my point was distinct from that, the point you were in reply to, I think it's plain I am not the party who with some deliberation does not see beyond his own hand mirror.
Rant, Zic?
There is no rant.
Nor "twisted attempts" to defend conservative you dim sod.
Rather there is the recognition that outside Leftist circles in the USA the word conservative is not in disrepute. Of course amongst you lot it is, but that really does not matter.
And there is a useful tool to use in his a word that has at once accurancy and leverage for approbium. Reactionary.
I care not one whit if the word Conservative is viewed positively or negatively by you lot, rather it is other audiences
I don't live in a leftist city.
I'm one of those rare unicorns, who are really about 50% of the nation: a rural liberal.
As for dim sods; it is time to get the manure spreader out and feed the fields. Thank for starting the job.
It's not necessary to be "left" to be progressive. Elon Musk is an example of a person who is very right wing while being not the least bit conservative. The opposite of "conservative" is "progressive", not "leftist".
That's really not true. They definitely have a different definition of some elements of "the public good", but genuine conservatives do have very high regard for it. They include such "liberal" values as transparency, respect for precedent, small polities so candidates can be known to the voters, and skepticism that the government can accomplish large works without corruption.
Those all seem pretty true to me.
Those are values they will aspire to, but what happens?
They vote for no one who will not join the MAGA mob and will forgive any conservative in government for anything at all claiming whatever it is is blown out of all proportion.
The only public good they respect is whatever most separates them from everyone else, and that done with as much harm as they can get away with because it cripples their enemies most of whom won't see it coming because they'll never acknowledge that's really what's happening.
This is right below the surface of every conversation you'll have with a conservative about any topical matter, you just have to look for it.
cld seems to be aliost case on issue.
Well the person is in questoin has of course his Left intello ideological glasses on, and rather clearly is unable to see without using them.
Obvioiusly there are quite some ranges of political colours and if one is not an ideological partisan, normally one can see such. The ideologues on Left and Right who each are unable to get away from their own lens (Left all Bolsheviks, Right all Moustache Twirling Oppressors [whichever cartoon versions each paints of the other])
The point of my comment was entirely aside of taking an ideological view of the content of the opposition (of which I am in no sympathy to the Left) but rather the pragmatic leveraging of labeling in communication on a point where one needs leverage and where there is clear potential voting advantage in "splitting" conservative from Reactionary.
The ideologue view of course is that one must educate the masses on the true evil nature....
Well, what is the true nature of evil?
But I have a different question for you,
Is it your view that conservatism is a natural state, like eye color?
The "true nature of evil" is a question for useless philosophising. And irrelevant.
And equally useless egg-head intellectualising, assigning intellctual abstractions a status of "natural states" or not.
I asked the question because with your statement
'Obvioiusly there are quite some ranges of political colours and if one is not an ideological partisan, normally one can see such.'
you try to reject precisely my attempt to understand the distinctions of exactly that by by characterizing such an attempt at all as partisan.
How can that point of view arise but from a discomfort in being seen or understood?
This is why I ask if you can say if a conservative point of view rises from reason, and would therefore be amenable to reason, or reflects a natural state of being that must be respected for itself, as hair color or skin color.
(and I don't think this is incompatible with the separate and equally important question of how to best divorce a population from the worst impulses of their most aggressive and thoughtless characters who presume to speak for them).
Earn Dollars In Your Free Time…>>https://salarycah55.blogspot.com/
Well said.
Reactionary is a little weak too, but I think Fascist works quite well.
My understanding is that prifemistone access would still be protected in the states that sued in eastern Washington.
But that’s not necessarily so because, as Kevin observed, access to any drug would depend on how much risk the manufacturers and distributors are willing to take. My best guess is “not very much” which suggests that they won’t provide the drug if there’s any risk of being prosecuted in a red state.
Washington state has (is?) stockpiled the pills, so they may still have it available. But you're right, if the manufacturer has any presence (or their suppliers has any presence) in "red" states, a ban anywhere could be a ban everywhere.
This may be the line in the sand that the Biden administration needs to draw. There is no reason to abide by an illegal national injunction. Biden can make that clear. Listen to Ron Wyden.
There's every reason, if you're a business that wants to operate nationally.
And additionally if one is a business that has reasonable fear of being sued into submission or oblivion.
As a general matter, for all the human harm risk in near-term this radical reactionary action is nearly certain to sustain the kind of blow-back and counter-reaction that helped Democrats in Wisconsin.
It is rather likely a massive own-goal for the Reactionaries.
Bob Somerby -- your troll is out of control over at your blog comments. Please delete the repeated tostada meat recipes that are clogging discussion. We would contact you via your own blog but you don't provide any way to do that.
The Kacsmaryk decision is very strange. Set aside the result, the decision itself is elliptical, obscurantist, and full of passages you read three times to determine what's he's trying to say. E.g.
- - - - - - - - -
The requirements for third-party standing are met here because: (1) the patients have “endure[d] many intense side effects and suffer[ed] significant complications requiring medical attention” and “suffer distress and regret”;10 (2) the patients have a “close relation” to the physician members of the Plaintiff medical associations; and (3) “some hindrance” exists to the patients’ ability to protect their interests.
&
Finally, women who have already obtained an abortion may be more hindered than women who challenge restrictions on abortion. Women who have aborted a child — especially through chemical abortion drugs that necessitate the woman seeing her aborted child once it passes — often experience shame, regret, anxiety, depression, drug abuse, and suicidal thoughts because of the abortion.
- - - - - - - - -
In other words,
Third party plaintiffs have standing because women who have had abortions might experience too much shame to bring suit against the government.
--unrelated but not unsurprising: decision cites Robert P George a couple of times.
The judicial decision is clearly an ideologues text, one that is radical reactionary...
but who pray tell is Robert P George?
Right-wing philosophy professor at Princeton. He once opined that the state has a legitimate interest in outlawing masturbation.
Masturbation???
Good god.
The unrighteous red right repulsives have way too much control. Vote folks. Dump these mephitic monsters.
Good old law-abiding Texan Republicans, where the governor just instructed the Board of Pardons and Paroles to recommend a pardon immediately for a man just convicted of murder. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/us-army-sergeant-convicted-murder-protesters-shooting-death-texas-rcna78782
California is big enough they could probably buy a supply from overseas.
NOT IN OUR STATE
Because we have a BADASS Governor who stockpiled several years’ supply of this shit and a BADASS Attorney General who sued the fuck out of the dumbass Taliban freaks that might try to shut this shit down.
PEOPLE—PLEASE, PLEASE elect BADASS politicians. Just. Do. It.
When you look into the abyss, the abyss stares back.
Earn Dollars In Your Free Time…>>https://salarycah55.blogspot.com/