If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   Federal Judge tells North Dakota that since its initals are ND and not FDA it has no business passing a law banning doctors from perscribing drugs that cause abortion to their patients   (rawstory.com) divider line 136
    More: Obvious, FDA, North Dakota, federal judges, abortions, Center for Reproductive Rights, patients, physicians  
•       •       •

4265 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Apr 2013 at 2:48 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



136 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-19 03:53:59 PM
This would be why the GOP won't confirm any judges any more.
 
2013-04-19 03:55:57 PM

Petey4335: namatad: next you would be ok with states defining their own units of weights and measures. right?
different electricity standards? water and air quality??

[www.smainverted.com image 649x486]


You realize "NEC" stands for "National Electric Code", right?
 
2013-04-19 03:56:09 PM

eynonmcwanker: sorry

*Transfats*


The NY supreme court hasn't ruled on them... yet.

lennavan: Yeah, because state legislators are totally in the practice of banning safe, life saving medications.


I could've died without pot on a number of occasions.  Or at least been seriously bummed.
 
2013-04-19 03:57:00 PM

Rabbitgod: CaptSacto: lennavan: Federal Judge tells South Dakota that since its initals are SD and not FDA it has no business passing a law banning doctors from perscribing drugs that cause abortion to their they're there patients

FTFY Subby

/pet peeve

Dammit you guys.
Get it right, would ya?

We are going to collect their luggage.
We are going to take it over there.
They're almost here.
They're going to collect their luggage over there.



WHHHhhhhoooooooOOSSSSHHHHHHHHH!!!
New to FARK?
 
2013-04-19 03:58:52 PM

Charlie Freak: Can't tell if subby using SD as North Dakota's initials is an epic troll or not.


I almost want the moderators to not correct inaccurate headlines just so posts like this don't stop being relevant, even if the thread might get 'jacked into pissing and moaning about  Subby
 
2013-04-19 03:59:22 PM

lennavan: ManateeGag: hasty ambush: So a state is free to regulate, with in its own borders,  the sale of and even ban the sale of things like alcohol, tobacco and even marijuana (if you believe in the 10th Amendment) but not pharmaceuticals?

so, if there was a life saving medication that you needed, but your state said it was illegal to use, you'd be AOK with your state banning that medication and let yourself die?

Yeah, because state legislators are totally in the practice of banning safe, life saving medications.



They are currently in the practice of banning safe, potentially life-saving medical procedures, so why is that a stretch?
 
2013-04-19 03:59:22 PM

lennavan: ManateeGag: hasty ambush: So a state is free to regulate, with in its own borders,  the sale of and even ban the sale of things like alcohol, tobacco and even marijuana (if you believe in the 10th Amendment) but not pharmaceuticals?

so, if there was a life saving medication that you needed, but your state said it was illegal to use, you'd be AOK with your state banning that medication and let yourself die?

Yeah, because state legislators are totally in the practice of banning safe, life saving medications.


You mean like the morning after pill?  How many poor teenage moms whose lives would have been saved if not for the ability to get a way to undo their mistake?
 
2013-04-19 03:59:46 PM

qorkfiend: Petey4335: namatad: next you would be ok with states defining their own units of weights and measures. right?
different electricity standards? water and air quality??

[www.smainverted.com image 649x486]

You realize "NEC" stands for "National Electric Code", right?


You realize his graphic shows which states decided to accept and which did not, right?

That National Electric Code, not so "national."
 
2013-04-19 04:02:34 PM

Lord_Baull: They are currently in the practice of banning safe, potentially life-saving medical procedures, so why is that a stretch?


While I get what you're getting at, those lawmakers usually carve out a life of the mother exception.  Either way, I can't imagine you or coeyagi think derpy laws about abortion can honestly be generalized to other medications/procedures.

coeyagi: Yeah, because state legislators are totally in the practice of banning safe, life saving medications.
You mean like the morning after pill?


I can't think of a single person on earth who considers the morning after pill "life saving."  Not even you.  Awkward.
 
2013-04-19 04:02:41 PM

coeyagi: lennavan: ManateeGag: hasty ambush: So a state is free to regulate, with in its own borders,  the sale of and even ban the sale of things like alcohol, tobacco and even marijuana (if you believe in the 10th Amendment) but not pharmaceuticals?

so, if there was a life saving medication that you needed, but your state said it was illegal to use, you'd be AOK with your state banning that medication and let yourself die?

Yeah, because state legislators are totally in the practice of banning safe, life saving medications.

You mean like the morning after pill?  How many poor teenage moms women whose lives would have been saved if not for the ability to get a way to undo their mistake?



FTF truthful inclusiveness.
 
2013-04-19 04:04:24 PM

Rabbitgod: CaptSacto: lennavan: Federal Judge tells South Dakota that since its initals are SD and not FDA it has no business passing a law banning doctors from perscribing drugs that cause abortion to their they're there patients

FTFY Subby

/pet peeve

Dammit you guys.
Get it right, would ya?

We are going to collect their luggage.
We are going to take it over there.
They're almost here.
They're going to collect their luggage over there.


Didn't get the joke at all, huh?
 
2013-04-19 04:05:01 PM

lennavan: Lord_Baull: Either way, I can't imagine you or coeyagi think derpy laws about abortion can honestly be generalized to other medications/procedures..



You can't imagine how abortion can be generalized to another medical procedure??
 
2013-04-19 04:07:50 PM

lennavan: Lord_Baull: They are currently in the practice of banning safe, potentially life-saving medical procedures, so why is that a stretch?

While I get what you're getting at, those lawmakers usually carve out a life of the mother exception.  Either way, I can't imagine you or coeyagi think derpy laws about abortion can honestly be generalized to other medications/procedures.

coeyagi: Yeah, because state legislators are totally in the practice of banning safe, life saving medications.
You mean like the morning after pill?

I can't think of a single person on earth who considers the morning after pill "life saving."  Not even you.  Awkward.


No, not really, just illustrating the point that the same assholes who whine about the poor and welfare won't do a f*cking them to help them in many cases. But don't worry, the slippery slope they're on, I am sure they'll get the Bible out to ban something life saving.
 
2013-04-19 04:08:51 PM

lennavan: Lord_Baull: They are currently in the practice of banning safe, potentially life-saving medical procedures, so why is that a stretch?

While I get what you're getting at, those lawmakers usually carve out a life of the mother exception.  Either way, I can't imagine you or coeyagi think derpy laws about abortion can honestly be generalized to other medications/procedures.

coeyagi: Yeah, because state legislators are totally in the practice of banning safe, life saving medications.
You mean like the morning after pill?

I can't think of a single person on earth who considers the morning after pill "life saving."  Not even you.  Awkward.


is the next step to outlaw coathangers?
 
2013-04-19 04:09:10 PM
it doesn't look like they banned a specific drug, it looks like they banned doctors from prescribing first trimester abortion drugs
 
2013-04-19 04:09:14 PM

Magorn: namatad: Magorn: You really don't want to look for the state of the Law in 1919 as defintive about state's rights federal ones or the extent of Congress' commerce clause power   that was the Lochner-era when a corrupt Supreme Court was bending over backwards to invent Constitutional reasons to invalidate nearly every reform proposed by the Progessive movement   Want to set minimum wage laws? sorry. it interferes with a fundmental right of private parties to agree to a contract we just found in the 14th Amendment.  Want to ban Child labor?  Sorry Kids too have an inlienable right to bargain for their services.   Ban the products of child labor in interstate commerce?  oh...errr. well, even if the products were made in one state, transported through several others, and then sold in yet another, that's not really "interstate commerce" since each discrete action (making, transporting, selling) occured wholly with the boundaries of one state.  (so presumbly interstate commerce was only when a factory happened to be located in such a way as its physical location put it on the border of two staes or something absurd like that)


Also the clause you cited above says that any law Congress makes IS supreme over any state law,  the in pursuance thereof  clause is meaningless because the Constitution itself limits Congress' power, so any law it makes not in line with the Constitution is facially invalid and no law at all.   However that question is one the Supreme Court gets exclusive jurisdiction over, not the states

WHY THE FARK was this shiat not taught in school?
THIS is interesting! More time on this stuff and less time on memorizing what day lincoln was shot.

If you get any of this at all in school you get "FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court", and "the switch in time that saved the Nine"   What you rarely if ever get (I didn't till I was studying the commerce clause in law school)  Is the background on WHY FDR was so pissed off, and the fact that he sorta had a right to be ...


FDR did succeed in packing the courts - eventually.  Or close enough anyway.  Wickard was decided by only one non-FDR jurist.  Prior to Wickard the government never thought it had any authority to act on matters that didn't cross state lines.  FDR sorta had a right to be mad about not being able to "pack the ccourts", as in add members at will?  I don't see how.  I'm pro-abortion.  I don't see any way that Bush, for example, could ever sorta be right about seeking to add members to the court until he got the decisions he wanted.
 
2013-04-19 04:09:37 PM
Why no HERO tag?
 
2013-04-19 04:13:53 PM

skullkrusher: xxdangerbobxx: So really, it's tough shiat, Francis. Take your repressive religious ideals back to your bunker because the rest of us, honestly, farking hate you and your sky god.

where did the sky god touch you? You can tell us


In the god-hole.
 
2013-04-19 04:15:08 PM

eynonmcwanker: namatad: Saiga410: states can ban something the FDA says is permissable

really? can you cite a recent example? sounds improbable

Tansfats?


Tanstaafl?
 
2013-04-19 04:16:30 PM

Big_Fat_Liar: I don't see any way that Bush, for example, could ever sorta be right about seeking to add members to the court until he got the decisions he wanted.


There is nothing in the constitution that states the number of justices.  It is perfectly permissable to expand the number of jurists... though I am not sure how you would go about it.  Probably an act of contress would be needed.
 
2013-04-19 04:16:33 PM

lennavan: I can't think of a single person on earth who considers the morning after pill "life saving." Not even you. Awkward.


save the fetus from having a life. Life saving.
 
2013-04-19 04:18:57 PM
By Federal Judge's logic, it is illegal for all the states to pass marijuana legalization too.
 
2013-04-19 04:19:28 PM

MyRandomName: By Federal Judge's logic, it is illegal for all the states to pass marijuana legalization too.



Not even close.
 
2013-04-19 04:20:58 PM

lennavan: Lord_Baull: They are currently in the practice of banning safe, potentially life-saving medical procedures, so why is that a stretch?

While I get what you're getting at, those lawmakers usually carve out a life of the mother exception.  Either way, I can't imagine you or coeyagi think derpy laws about abortion can honestly be generalized to other medications/procedures.


Brownbackistan will probably eliminate the "life of the mother" exception in the next year or so. Brownback just signed another anti-abortion bill, the third in the past three years IIRC.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-usa-abortion-k an sasbre93i108-20130419,0,2493645.story

/so embarrassed for my state
 
2013-04-19 04:21:43 PM

Karac: It also says that if a doctor prescribes an abortion inducing drug, that the drug can only be taken in the physical presence of the prescribing physician - meaning that a woman would have to go to a clinic, get a prescription, go to a pharmacy to get the drug, and then go back to the clinic and find the doc in order to legally swallow the pill.
In short, there's plenty that a judge could find objectionable without violating the 10th amendment.


I'd imagine that the clinic physician would just dispense the medication on site to avoid the situation you described.
 
2013-04-19 04:22:07 PM

Nadie_AZ: God damn. Most of our states wouldn't exist if it weren't for the Federal Government. The Dakotas would still be indian territory if it weren't for the Federal Government and its troops. I don't understand why these idiots don't get this.


Umm - nope. Settlers established communities in eastern and central Dakota territory before there was ever conflict with the American Indians there. Fort Pierre, Yankton, Sioux Falls,  Centralia/Fargo, Grand Forks, etc were established before the Indian Wars in that region or without any conflict or assistance from the federal government.

The Great Sioux Nation was always west of the Missouri, other tribes like the Mandan, Sisseton, Yankton, didn't really have a problem with white settlement.
 
2013-04-19 04:23:50 PM

DirkValentine: skullkrusher: xxdangerbobxx: So really, it's tough shiat, Francis. Take your repressive religious ideals back to your bunker because the rest of us, honestly, farking hate you and your sky god.

where did the sky god touch you? You can tell us

In the god-hole.


It's a god-SHAPED hole. God. Get it right.
 
2013-04-19 04:25:21 PM

namatad: If every state had different laws on say, ingredient labels, which drugs were legal and which were felonies, which magazines were legal, etc.
well, interstate commerce would be a complete and total clusterfark.

next you would be ok with states defining their own units of weights and measures. right?
different electricity standards? water and air quality??



First let me introduce you to a little something called the Constitution:

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

This s power reserved for the the Feds by the Constitution

Then the is that thing called reality. Many states already adopt their own standards for things like air quality, labor laws, drug laws, marriage, drivers license, hunting fishing, boats, fire resistance standards and labeling and package labeling etc, etc, etc.. California is an excellent example of this. Why are cars sold in California required to meet different emission standards than normal states?

I am not saying some national standards among these things would not be good but rather than just assume the power for itself beyond the intent of the commerce clause(for our own good) the Federal government should obtain the consent of the governed, through the amendment process.

:
 
2013-04-19 04:30:24 PM

skullkrusher: xxdangerbobxx: So really, it's tough shiat, Francis. Take your repressive religious ideals back to your bunker because the rest of us, honestly, farking hate you and your sky god.

where did the sky god touch you? You can tell us


hilarious
 
2013-04-19 04:32:59 PM

hasty ambush: Then the is that thing called reality. Many states already adopt their own standards for things like air quality, labor laws, drug laws, marriage, drivers license, hunting fishing, boats, fire resistance standards and labeling and package labeling etc, etc, etc.. California is an excellent example of this. Why are cars sold in California required to meet different emission standards than normal states?


Do we need to have a discussion of what a concurrent power is?
 
2013-04-19 04:33:36 PM

Lord_Baull: lennavan: Lord_Baull: Either way, I can't imagine you or coeyagi think derpy laws about abortion can honestly be generalized to other medications/procedures..

You can't imagine how abortion can be generalized to another medical procedure??


No, I said I can't imagine how it can honestly be generalized.  No one sees abortion being regulated and worries about heart surgery being next.  Except internet argument douchebags of course.

skullkrusher: save the fetus from having a life. Life saving.


Oh you're bad.  I thought of replying "banning it saves the fetus' life" but that was no where near as awesome as yours.
 
2013-04-19 04:36:51 PM

coeyagi: lennavan: Lord_Baull: They are currently in the practice of banning safe, potentially life-saving medical procedures, so why is that a stretch?

While I get what you're getting at, those lawmakers usually carve out a life of the mother exception.  Either way, I can't imagine you or coeyagi think derpy laws about abortion can honestly be generalized to other medications/procedures.

coeyagi: Yeah, because state legislators are totally in the practice of banning safe, life saving medications.
You mean like the morning after pill?

I can't think of a single person on earth who considers the morning after pill "life saving."  Not even you.  Awkward.

No, not really, just illustrating the point that the same assholes who whine about the poor and welfare won't do a f*cking them to help them in many cases. But don't worry, the slippery slope they're on, I am sure they'll get the Bible out to ban something life saving.


Sure.  It is okay to agree that there are assholes who want to ban the morning after pill while whining about the poor and welfare while not helping them and also agree that worrying about legislators banning life saving medications is stupid.  Deal?
 
2013-04-19 04:40:11 PM

lennavan: coeyagi: lennavan: Lord_Baull: They are currently in the practice of banning safe, potentially life-saving medical procedures, so why is that a stretch?

While I get what you're getting at, those lawmakers usually carve out a life of the mother exception.  Either way, I can't imagine you or coeyagi think derpy laws about abortion can honestly be generalized to other medications/procedures.

coeyagi: Yeah, because state legislators are totally in the practice of banning safe, life saving medications.
You mean like the morning after pill?

I can't think of a single person on earth who considers the morning after pill "life saving."  Not even you.  Awkward.

No, not really, just illustrating the point that the same assholes who whine about the poor and welfare won't do a f*cking them to help them in many cases. But don't worry, the slippery slope they're on, I am sure they'll get the Bible out to ban something life saving.

Sure.  It is okay to agree that there are assholes who want to ban the morning after pill while whining about the poor and welfare while not helping them and also agree that worrying about legislators banning life saving medications is stupid.  Deal?


What about the vaxxers?
 
2013-04-19 04:43:09 PM

namatad: WHY THE FARK was this shiat not taught in school?
THIS is interesting! More time on this stuff and less time on memorizing what day lincoln was shot.


Lincoln was shot??? When did that happen?
 
2013-04-19 04:46:07 PM

namatad: Magorn: You really don't want to look for the state of the Law in 1919 as defintive about state's rights federal ones or the extent of Congress' commerce clause power   that was the Lochner-era when a corrupt Supreme Court was bending over backwards to invent Constitutional reasons to invalidate nearly every reform proposed by the Progessive movement   Want to set minimum wage laws? sorry. it interferes with a fundmental right of private parties to agree to a contract we just found in the 14th Amendment.  Want to ban Child labor?  Sorry Kids too have an inlienable right to bargain for their services.   Ban the products of child labor in interstate commerce?  oh...errr. well, even if the products were made in one state, transported through several others, and then sold in yet another, that's not really "interstate commerce" since each discrete action (making, transporting, selling) occured wholly with the boundaries of one state.  (so presumbly interstate commerce was only when a factory happened to be located in such a way as its physical location put it on the border of two staes or something absurd like that)


Also the clause you cited above says that any law Congress makes IS supreme over any state law,  the in pursuance thereof  clause is meaningless because the Constitution itself limits Congress' power, so any law it makes not in line with the Constitution is facially invalid and no law at all.   However that question is one the Supreme Court gets exclusive jurisdiction over, not the states

WHY THE FARK was this shiat not taught in school?
THIS is interesting! More time on this stuff and less time on memorizing what day lincoln was shot.


This is an example of why I love Fark. :)
 
2013-04-19 04:49:20 PM
lennavan:

qorkfiend: Petey4335: namatad: next you would be ok with states defining their own units of weights and measures. right?
different electricity standards? water and air quality??

[www.smainverted.com image 649x486]

You realize "NEC" stands for "National Electric Code", right?

You realize his graphic shows which states decided to accept and which did not, right?

That National Electric Code, not so "national."


NEC is a standard for electrical *construction* codes. It is not a standard for electricity. It's also put out by an industry group, (National Fire Protection Association) not a government agency. States and local jurisdictions find it useful as a baseline for safe construction codes and so some of them adopt it as their standard.

/ has a copy of the 2011 NEC on my kitchen table, for some strange reason.
 
2013-04-19 04:52:27 PM

Rabbitgod: CaptSacto: lennavan: Federal Judge tells South Dakota that since its initals are SD and not FDA it has no business passing a law banning doctors from perscribing drugs that cause abortion to their they're there tharpatients

FTFY Subby

/pet peeve

Dammit you guys.
Get it right, would ya?

We are going to collect their tharluggage.
We are going to take it over there thar.
They're Tharalmost here.
They're Thar

 going to collect their tharluggage over there thar.

Fixed that for you, thar's always corect.
 
2013-04-19 04:52:50 PM

hasty ambush: namatad: If every state had different laws on say, ingredient labels, which drugs were legal and which were felonies, which magazines were legal, etc.
well, interstate commerce would be a complete and total clusterfark.

next you would be ok with states defining their own units of weights and measures. right?
different electricity standards? water and air quality??


First let me introduce you to a little something called the Constitution:

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

This s power reserved for the the Feds by the Constitution

Then the is that thing called reality. Many states already adopt their own standards for things like air quality, labor laws, drug laws, marriage, drivers license, hunting fishing, boats, fire resistance standards and labeling and package labeling etc, etc, etc.. California is an excellent example of this. Why are cars sold in California required to meet different emission standards than normal states?

I am not saying some national standards among these things would not be good but rather than just assume the power for itself beyond the intent of the commerce clause(for our own good) the Federal government should obtain the consent of the governed, through the amendment process.


Sigh
yes, I knew about weights and measures. You know how you knew that I knew? I used "weights and measures" and not some other phrase.
I left out the LOL.

YES, states enact higher standards for water or air, but I am pretty certain that the EPA would have something to say with a state adopting a lower standard.

Alas, by "electrical standard", I was thinking more like 110/120 volt AC versus 220/240 or DC or 173 volt. I wasnt thinking wiring standards (dont get me started on plumbing... lol). And it makes sense that standards change over time. But that NEC isnt legally binding and is adopted or not by states, rather than write their own.

FDA and states banning drugs which are approved by the FDA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindane#United_States
This falls in line with banning something to meet a higher standard or get ahead of the FDA withdrawing approval of a "dangerous" drug.

No one is arguing that the abortion drug is dangerous. They are trying to ban the drug in order to block people from using a safe drug to prevent the implantation of an embryo. (yes, I know, nothing is 100% safe, but that is not the same as something being dangerous.)


/yes I am deranged, I post on fark.

/Interesting question of the states' rights vs federalists. why hasnt scotus struck down all pot laws and state constitutional amendments?
/you would think that the feds could have gotten those cases in front of the court already. LOL
/I have bets out that the court will strike down DOMA and all state laws/constitutions which ban gay marriage. so there is that for my derangement.
 
2013-04-19 04:58:20 PM

namatad: fark states' rights


It seems that this guy got one of the final words regarding "states rights"
www.sonofthesouth.net
 
2013-04-19 05:05:35 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: hasty ambush: Magorn: hasty ambush: So a state is free to regulate, with in its own borders,  the sale of and even ban the sale of things like alcohol, tobacco and even marijuana (if you believe in the 10th Amendment) but not pharmaceuticals?

Yep.  It's called "federal premption"   If the Federal government explicitly or implicity makes it clear that they intend to be the sole regulator in a particular area of commerce, then, Constitutionally, the are the only ones allowed to make laws regarding that thing.  If however, they intend that states can add additional regulations to whatever the Fed does, then the state is free to.  The Fed has made it clear that the FDA  shall be the sole dcision mker on the safety and efficacy and legality of drugs, so no "me too" by the states is allowed.

 BTW: The power of states to regulate alcohol is given to them by the 21st amendment explicitly.

You notice how it took a constitutional amendment to do that?.  It should require more than the Feds merely saying we are or want to they should have to get permission from the rest of us to assume such power.  Feds should be limited to commerce between states not what goes on solely within a states.  THE Feds should not be the ones deciding the limits of their power.

The Supremacy clause states that :

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

The clause does not say that the laws of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land. It says that laws made in pursuance of the Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land.  In 1919 it was understood that the Constitution gave the feds no power to ban alcohol. That's why they needed an Amendment to the Constituti ...



Treason is those who have sworn to up hold and defend the Constitution and then ignore it because its convenient.

" South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505, 511 n.5 (1988). Thus, "the Tenth Amendment confirms that the power of the Federal Government is subject to limits that may, in a given instance, reserve power to the States." New York v. U.S., 505 U.S. 144, 157 (1992)

The 10th Amendment is alive and like the rest fo the the bill of rights not totally dead, just a few examples

Supreme COurt declares portions of Brady Bill as unconstitutional -violate 10th Amendment


Supreme Court Allows 10th Amendment Challenge to Chemical Weapons Conviction


United States v. Lopez 514 U.S. 549 (1995), a federal law mandating a "gun-free zone" on and around public school campuses was struck down because, the Supreme Court ruled, there was no clause in the Constitution authorizing it.

And their are plenty of other Federal laws states are free to ignore but for the bludgeon of Federal funding for example the National drinking age of 21 only exists because if states did not raise their state drinking age to 21 the would lose some Federal funds. Same with seat belt laws and the old 55mph speed limit. The Federal government lacks real authority to impose these things on the states but it uses the threat of withholding federal funds to get the states to comply.

National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984-(23 U.S.C. § 158) The Secretary shall withhold 10 per centum of the amount required to be apportioned to any State under each of sections 104 (b)(1), 104 (b)(3), and 104 (b)(4) of this title on the first day of each fiscal year after the second fiscal year beginning after September 30, 1985, in which the purchase or public possession in such State of any alcoholic beverage by a person who is less than twenty-one years of age is lawful.
 
2013-04-19 05:13:20 PM

CaptSacto: Rabbitgod: CaptSacto: lennavan: Federal Judge tells South Dakota that since its initals are SD and not FDA it has no business passing a law banning doctors from perscribing drugs that cause abortion to their they're there patients

FTFY Subby

/pet peeve

Dammit you guys.
Get it right, would ya?

We are going to collect their luggage.
We are going to take it over there.
They're almost here.
They're going to collect their luggage over there.

Didn't get the joke at all, huh?


No, no I did not, I wasn't braining well after my busy morning.
 
2013-04-19 05:26:32 PM

lennavan: Lord_Baull: They are currently in the practice of banning safe, potentially life-saving medical procedures, so why is that a stretch?

While I get what you're getting at, those lawmakers usually carve out a life of the mother exception.  Either way, I can't imagine you or coeyagi think derpy laws about abortion can honestly be generalized to other medications/procedures.

coeyagi: Yeah, because state legislators are totally in the practice of banning safe, life saving medications.
You mean like the morning after pill?

I can't think of a single person on earth who considers the morning after pill "life saving."  Not even you.  Awkward.


Actually, there are women out there whose immune systems are screwed up to the point that conceiving a child would trigger an immune response so severe that it could lead to the death of the mother.  There are lots of diseases that could lead to this as well.

So, yeah.  The morning after pill could easily be seen as life-saving.
 
2013-04-19 05:29:03 PM

timujin: FTFA: Judge permanently blocks North Dakota ban on medication for abortions.

South Dakota, subby?


aww, they changed the headline, now who looks like a dummy?
 
2013-04-19 05:31:53 PM

Petey4335: namatad: next you would be ok with states defining their own units of weights and measures. right?
different electricity standards? water and air quality??


Yeah, but the NEC is Written by the NFPA.... It would make sense that different states have different concerns regarding fire and fire protection. It is the same reason CA uses Title 24 and other places rely on ASHRAE 90.1
 
2013-04-19 05:35:27 PM

TheGogmagog: Rabbitgod: CaptSacto: lennavan: Federal Judge tells South Dakota that since cents its initals are SD and not FDA it has no business passing a law banning doctors from perscribing drugs that cause abortion to their they're there tharpatients

FTFY Subby

/pet peeve

Dammit you guys.
Get it right, would ya?

We are going to collect their tharluggage.
We are going to take it over there thar.
They're Tharalmost here.
They're Thar going to collect their tharluggage over there thar.

Fixed that for you, thar's always corect.

 
2013-04-19 05:42:08 PM
I think people like hasty ambush don't jerk off to porn, but instead fantasize about their favorite passages from the constitution.

"ohhh 10th amendment, ohh yeah yeah, states rights, give me freedom mr Jefferson, ohhh yeah state government, authoritarianism at the staaaaatteeee levellllllll ohhhhhhhbhb"
 
2013-04-19 05:42:10 PM

Nadie_AZ: God damn. Most of our states wouldn't exist if it weren't for the Federal Government. The Dakotas would still be indian territory if it weren't for the Federal Government and its troops. I don't understand why these idiots don't get this.


Typically proponents of a strong federal government don't cite successfully carried out genocides as evidence, but I do appreciate the forthrightness.
 
2013-04-19 05:46:10 PM

lennavan: Lord_Baull: They are currently in the practice of banning safe, potentially life-saving medical procedures, so why is that a stretch?

While I get what you're getting at, those lawmakers usually carve out a life of the mother exception.  Either way, I can't imagine you or coeyagi think derpy laws about abortion can honestly be generalized to other medications/procedures.

coeyagi: Yeah, because state legislators are totally in the practice of banning safe, life saving medications.
You mean like the morning after pill?

I can't think of a single person on earth who considers the morning after pill "life saving."  Not even you.  Awkward.



Have you looked at mortality rates of women giving birth? It has been growing for the past few years and is especially high among poor women. So yes, the morning after is a life saving pill.
 
2013-04-19 05:53:05 PM

lennavan: CaptSacto: lennavan: Federal Judge tells South Dakota that since its it's initals are SD and not FDA it has no business passing a law banning doctors from perscribing drugs that cause abortion to their they're there patients

FTFY Subby

/pet peeve

Dammit you guys.
Get it right, would ya?

Found another one, crazy how many mistakes got through on this headline.


Well at least the headline spelled "perscribing" correctly.
 
2013-04-19 05:56:08 PM

lennavan: Lord_Baull: lennavan: Lord_Baull: Either way, I can't imagine you or coeyagi think derpy laws about abortion can honestly be generalized to other medications/procedures..

You can't imagine how abortion can be generalized to another medical procedure??

No, I said I can't imagine how it can honestly be generalized.  No one sees abortion being regulated and worries about heart surgery being next.  Except internet argument douchebags of course.

skullkrusher: save the fetus from having a life. Life saving.

Oh you're bad.  I thought of replying "banning it saves the fetus' life" but that was no where near as awesome as yours.



I can see them going from banning abortions to banning birth control, they already tried. From there maybe the guardasil vaccine for HPV/cervical cancer, Bachmann showed that she didn't want it distributed and I'm sure there are others that agree with her.
 
Displayed 50 of 136 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report