Vance Labels Harris as a Major Threat to Religious Liberty

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

Here you go. Reading these nutjobs's ideas makes you terrified to think what will happen if Harris gets elected. She'll have to placate these nuts.

 

https://www.thenation.com/article/society/kamala-harris-public-health-agenda/

As for the nutjob's ideas, you think the public health infrastructure of the USA is in good shape?

[candide]

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

One of the first acts of Joe Biden was to make face masks mandatory, look it up.

 

Trump never mandated any lockdown, the stay at home orders were made at state, city and county level. Only a handful of states did it.

 

However, if Harris would get in, she would be far more extreme with masks and lockdowns than Trump. She is already being pressured by Covid nuts who claim Biden did too lilttle and Harris has to do more.

Biden mandated wearing masks in transports etc... that's true (that's why I mentioned only lockdowns in my post). Like in nearly all countries . What an extreme policy! 😳

 

Lockdowns occured mainly under Trump so your argument about Biden/Harris is unsubstantiated.

 

You have no basis for speculating that Harris would be more extreme on this matter. It's just your MAGA imagination.

 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by candide

[stoner]

39 minutes ago, billd766 said:

Like his sidekick Trump, he is a confirmed liar.

 

Between them, they represent the best that the gop has to offer to become the president and VP of the USA.

 

How sad for the gop and the USA, if this is the best that the gop can offer.

 

This election America gets to chose between eating a blue or red turd.

 

Eat it up America. You deserve every bite. 

Edited 2 hours ago by stoner

[Lacessit]

3 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

As opposed to Kamala Harris claiming Trump will prohibit abortion and implement Project 2025, you mean?

 

Harris seems to do a good job of preying on the fears of women and progressives, that is for sure.

I mean this.......

 

 

[Cameroni]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

The reason the Supreme Court rejected the effort was that the plaintiffs didn't have standing. It never ruled on whether the FDA had overstepped its bounds. You should have actually read the article:

 

"The justices decided the plaintiffs, a group of anti-abortion doctors and activists, did not have a legal right to sue.

But they left the door open to other attempts to limit the availability of the drug."

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2qq1wqw3w2o

 

The decision was not clear or comprehensive. In fact, the FDA under the Trump administration could roll back the permissions it gave under the Biden administration.

 

As for Comstock, it may not be Trump who would decide the outcome of a court case, but he could definitely decide to start enforcing it and see what happens.

 

A national ban does seem unlikely now. But in 2 years who knows?

 

Like I said, if a comprehensive case were to go before the Supreme Court, their lack of inclination to grant standing here would indicate that they will not support restricting abortion pill availability by mail.

 

And I certainly don't see Trump pushing for that. He supports IVF. It's not a key issue for him.

 

To think the FDA would roll back its own approval is extremely unlikely.

 

I don't think Trump can decide to start enforcing Comstock, it would be enforced in the courts, but that would never happen, it's a red herring.

 

And who would push for this ban? You saw an anti-abortion group try to do so in the Supreme Court and they failed.

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Like I said, if a comprehensive case were to go before the Supreme Court, their lack of inclination to grant standing here would indicate that they will not support restricting abortion pill availability by mail.

 

And I certainly don't see Trump pushing for that. He supports IVF. It's not a key issue for him.

 

To think the FDA would roll back its own approval is extremely unlikely.

 

I don't think Trump can decide to start enforcing Comstock, it would be enforced in the courts, but that would never happen, it's a red herring.

 

And who would push for this ban? You saw an anti-abortion group try to do so in the Supreme Court and they failed.

What do you mean, like you said. That's not what you said. Stop making things up. What you said was this:

"Even where abortion is illegal women can procure these killer pills via mail and have abortions anyway. Given the above Supreme Court decision is it clear that if a comprehensive case were to go before the Supreme court on restricting mail order pills for abortion they would not support it."

No, it wasn't their "lack of inclination to grant standing". The people who brought the case clearly had no standing.  The case only got as far as it did because of the loons at the Fifth Circuit Court. st the BBC article noted, the court left it open for a case to be brought again. 

In fact...

"However, Kavanaugh also wrote that “it is not clear that no one else would have standing to challenge the FDA’s relaxed regulation of mifepristone.”...
During oral arguments, the conservative justices even laid out a potential legal argument for a new plaintiff to use—the Comstock Act of 1873. That law outlaws the mailing of “any drug or medicine or any article whatever for causing unlawful abortion,” but the government hasn’t enforced it, considering it vastly outdated.

https://archive.ph/Q3Hul#selection-1343.0-1363.182

 

And you don't even address that fact that the decision to make mifepristone widely available was made by the FDA. Nothing stands in the way of the FDA undoing it or limiting it. 

 

[metisdead]

A post with a video from an unapproved social media source has been removed.

[Cameroni]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What do you mean, like you said. That's not what you said. Stop making things up. What you said was this:

"Even where abortion is illegal women can procure these killer pills via mail and have abortions anyway. Given the above Supreme Court decision is it clear that if a comprehensive case were to go before the Supreme court on restricting mail order pills for abortion they would not support it."

No, it wasn't their "lack of inclination to grant standing". The people who brought the case clearly had no standing.  The case only got as far as it did because of the loons at the Fifth Circuit Court. st the BBC article noted, the court left it open for a case to be brought again. 

In fact...

"However, Kavanaugh also wrote that “it is not clear that no one else would have standing to challenge the FDA’s relaxed regulation of mifepristone.”...
During oral arguments, the conservative justices even laid out a potential legal argument for a new plaintiff to use—the Comstock Act of 1873. That law outlaws the mailing of “any drug or medicine or any article whatever for causing unlawful abortion,” but the government hasn’t enforced it, considering it vastly outdated.

https://archive.ph/Q3Hul#selection-1343.0-1363.182

 

And you don't even address that fact that the decision to make mifepristone widely available was made by the FDA. Nothing stands in the way of the FDA undoing it or limiting it. 

 

 

Thanks so you quoted that I did say it:

 

"if a comprehensive case were to go before the Supreme court on restricting mail order pills for abortion they would not support it"

 

There is no way Comstock will be enforced, there are already massive arguments against it applying to abortion pills anyway, no court would apply it to abortion pills.

 

Why would the FDA embarass itself by going against its own decision, these are drug regulation people, they are not ideologues.

[placeholder]

Just now, Cameroni said:

 

Thanks so you quoted that I did say it:

 

"if a comprehensive case were to go before the Supreme court on restricting mail order pills for abortion they would not support it"

 

There is no way Comstock will be enforced, there are already massive arguments against it applying to abortion pills anyway, no court would apply it to abortion pills.

 

Why would the FDA embarasitself by going against its own decision, these are drug regulation people, they are not ideologues.

You claimed that the courts denial was due to the fact "their lack of inclination to grant standing." What don't you understand about the fact that the author of the opinion specifically said “it is not clear that no one else would have standing to challenge the FDA’s relaxed regulation of mifepristone.”...

 

The court's conservatives suggest Comstock might be a valid approach. Are you claiming that the Trump administration would refuse to obey a Supreme Court decision?

 

As for the FDA being embarrassed...remember when Trump appointed a coal industry lobbyist to head the EPA? Why would Trump not appoint some right wing ideologue, like, say, Joseph Ladapo, the loon who is currently the Surgeon General for the State of Florida? 

[Cameroni]

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You claimed that the courts denial was due to the fact "their lack of inclination to grant standing." What don't you understand about the fact that the author of the opinion specifically said “it is not clear that no one else would have standing to challenge the FDA’s relaxed regulation of mifepristone.”...

 

The court's conservatives suggest Comstock might be a valid approach. Are you claiming that the Trump administration would refuse to obey a Supreme Court decision?

 

As for the FDA being embarrassed...remember when Trump appointed a coal industry lobbyist to head the EPA? Why would Trump not appoint some right wing ideologue, like, say, Joseph Ladapo, the loon who is currently the Surgeon General for the State of Florida? 

 

No, I understand that. However, if the courts had been inclined to weigh in on the abortion pill by mail issue they could have done so. Their refusal would indicate no great appetite for this. Especially after they were pilloried for the striking down of Roe vs Wade.

 

Where do you get this stuff from, I claim that Trump's administration would refuse to obey a Supreme Court decision? What?

 

Alito did not suggest Comstock is a valid approach, the plaintiffs had raised it so he explored the issue with all parties, that's not him saying Comstock is a valid approach.

 

Why would Trump appoint an ideologue to the FDA? He doesn't even care about abortion. It's all pointless anyway:

 

"The Comstock Act’s implications have been overblown by the pro-abortion side,” said Severino, who previously served in the Trump administration as a top official at the Department of Health and Human Services.

 

Severino described to CNN a scenario in which misoprostol – the other drug used for medication abortion – would still be accessible to women seeking abortion in states where abortion is legal, since misoprostol also has non-abortion uses."

 

If one pill becomes illegal, women in a state where abortion is illegal will use another drug, that also happens to have wide usage for other things.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/29/politics/comstock-act-alito-thomas-abortion/index.html