SD wants to endrun Roe v Wade by legalizing murder of docs

[The Tribes Of Longton]

Can I ask why the research designation is being used? Mifepristone's a well-established drug and it's somewhat confusing.

Nobel Hobos, I can't comment on the US preference but the UK's main drug of choice for emergency contraception is called levonorgestrel. It's basically a higher dose of one of the drugs often used as an oral contraceptive.

[Bottle]

Can I ask why the research designation is being used? Mifepristone's a well-established drug and it's somewhat confusing.

In the USA, people tend to know the name RU-486 more often. Probably because that's the drug name that was used during all the legalization/FDA approval hype wherein the anti-sex brigade tried to ensure that American women would not have access to this particular form of safe, medical abortion.

[Nobel Hobos]

OK. I thought "morning after pill" was just the colloquial description of RU-486 (mifeprestone) but it sounds like there are others.

Common misconception. The "morning after pill" is NOT RU-486. Different medications.

The morning after pill (Plan B) works by using a hormone that prevents the ovaries from releasing an egg. Obviously, if a woman is already pregnant then this isn't going to be much help.

RU-486 can also suppress ovulation, but there are better options for doing that (such as Plan B), so as far as I know it is not widely used for contraception even though I suppose technically it COULD be used that way. What RU-486 (mifepristone) is used to induce abortion, and is usually administered in concert with a dose of misoprostol to induce uterine contractions.

Crystal clear now, thanks.

RU-486? Yes, I think I am. Either that, or a Pentium 1 with its cache disabled. Distinct lack of quickness to my biological computing device just now.

[The Tribes Of Longton]

Can I ask why the research designation is being used? Mifepristone's a well-established drug and it's somewhat confusing.

In the USA, people tend to know the name RU-486 more often. Probably because that's the drug name that was used during all the legalization/FDA approval hype wherein the anti-sex brigade tried to ensure that American women would not have access to this particular form of safe, medical abortion.

Fear-mongering using scary-sounding scientific names to encourage revulsion in the populace; gotcha.

[Bottle]

In the USA, people tend to know the name RU-486 more often. Probably because that's the drug name that was used during all the legalization/FDA approval hype wherein the anti-sex brigade tried to ensure that American women would not have access to this particular form of safe, medical abortion.

Fear-mongering using scary-sounding scientific names to encourage revulsion in the populace; gotcha.

Gotta admit, RU-486 does totally sound like a killer robot that gets loose and tries to kill all humans.

[Gauthier]

If this passes as-is, technically it could be considered state sponsored terrorism.

[The Tribes Of Longton]

Fear-mongering using scary-sounding scientific names to encourage revulsion in the populace; gotcha.

Gotta admit, RU-486 does totally sound like a killer robot that gets loose and tries to kill all humans.

Is there a pharma with the research designation ED? I'd be very interested in one of their research projects.

[Ifreann]

Fear-mongering using scary-sounding scientific names to encourage revulsion in the populace; gotcha.

Gotta admit, RU-486 does totally sound like a killer robot that gets loose and tries to kill all humans.

I wonder what RU-187 was.......

[Geniasis]

Gotta admit, RU-486 does totally sound like a killer robot that gets loose and tries to kill all humans.

I wonder what RU-187 was.......

An older prototype that could only process visual data in a 480p resolution and lacked the iconic kung-fu grip of later models.

It also utilized a crude form of abortion by pushing pregnant women downstairs. While questionable enough, the AI was inexplicably both a Nazi as well as drawn to the concept of negative eugenics and after a few thousand unwilling abortions were performed, the product was recalled by the manufacturer.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

I wonder what RU-187 was.......

An older prototype that could only process visual data in a 480p resolution and lacked the iconic kung-fu grip of later models.

It also utilized a crude form of abortion by pushing pregnant women downstairs. While questionable enough, the AI was inexplicably both a Nazi as well as drawn to the concept of negative eugenics and after a few thousand unwilling abortions were performed, the product was recalled by the manufacturer.

Damn thing took ages to boot up, too.

[Gauthier]

An older prototype that could only process visual data in a 480p resolution and lacked the iconic kung-fu grip of later models.

It also utilized a crude form of abortion by pushing pregnant women downstairs. While questionable enough, the AI was inexplicably both a Nazi as well as drawn to the concept of negative eugenics and after a few thousand unwilling abortions were performed, the product was recalled by the manufacturer.

Damn thing took ages to boot up, too.

What you get for using Windows.

[Wiztopia]

I didn't know 1,029 out of 300 million is a large number.

A thousand is a decent sample, it's what most political pollsters use and they're fairly accurate. The method of selecting a sample is far more likely to be the problem.

It is not accurate because it does not represent the majority. In order for it to be semi accurate they would need to poll at least 50 million people.

[DaWoad]

A thousand is a decent sample, it's what most political pollsters use and they're fairly accurate. The method of selecting a sample is far more likely to be the problem.

It is not accurate because it does not represent the majority. In order for it to be semi accurate they would need to poll at least 50 million people.

that's not how statistics work.

[Rolamec]

*Sigh* Yes, because I am very sure that is what the act would allow. Talk about a liberal bias. Honestly guys, you're getting as crazy as Fox already is.

[DaWoad]

*Sigh* Yes, because I am very sure that is what the act would allow. Talk about a liberal bias. Honestly guys, you're getting as crazy as Fox already is.

loook at the wording, comment on how we're wrong.

[Wiztopia]

It is not accurate because it does not represent the majority. In order for it to be semi accurate they would need to poll at least 50 million people.

that's not how statistics work.

1000 people does not make it accurate. Saying that more people are pro-life because 1000 people were polled is ridiculous.

[Rolamec]

*Sigh* Yes, because I am very sure that is what the act would allow. Talk about a liberal bias. Honestly guys, you're getting as crazy as Fox already is.

loook at the wording, comment on how we're wrong.

I did, and it's amazing how twisted its interpretation has become. The attempt of the bill is to say that if one provides an abortion, he is murdering a life. That debate is a separate one entirely. But the notion that if this law is passed and signed, if an abortion doctor is murdered, the idea that he or she, the killer, would somehow not be charged with murder is ridiculous. No court will look at this law and interpret it that way.

[The Cat-Tribe]

loook at the wording, comment on how we're wrong.

I did, and it's amazing how twisted its interpretation has become. The attempt of the bill is to say that if one provides an abortion, he is murdering a life. That debate is a separate one entirely. But the notion that if this law is passed and signed, if an abortion doctor is murdered, the idea that he or she, the killer, would somehow not be charged with murder is ridiculous. No court will look at this law and interpret it that way.

Especially given the bolded statement, how could any court interpret this statute except as providing an affirmative defense if an "appropriate" (per the statute) person killed a doctor to prevent an abortion? What other interpretation renders the statute meaningful? (Remember it is a cardinal rule of statutory interpretation that no provision is to be interpreted as meaningless, if it is possible to avoid that.)

[DaWoad]

loook at the wording, comment on how we're wrong.

I did, and it's amazing how twisted its interpretation has become. The attempt of the bill is to say that if one provides an abortion, he is murdering a life. That debate is a separate one entirely. But the notion that if this law is passed and signed, if an abortion doctor is murdered, the idea that he or she, the killer, would somehow not be charged with murder is ridiculous. No court will look at this law and interpret it that way.

SO you're saying that although it could be interpreted as this, it won't be? I'm sorry but that;s not entirely reassuring.

[The Cat-Tribe]

A thousand is a decent sample, it's what most political pollsters use and they're fairly accurate. The method of selecting a sample is far more likely to be the problem.

It is not accurate because it does not represent the majority. In order for it to be semi accurate they would need to poll at least 50 million people.

*sigh*

I've made clear which "side" of this discussion I'm on and you are making us look bad.

Assuming the sample was randomly selected, representative, etc. (as professional polls like Gallup generally are), the sample size can be predictive of the population as whole within certain statistical limits. If you have some reason to believe there is an actual flaw in this survey that makes it statistically invalid, point it out. Otherwise, your just waiving your hands and looking silly.

[Rolamec]

I did, and it's amazing how twisted its interpretation has become. The attempt of the bill is to say that if one provides an abortion, he is murdering a life. That debate is a separate one entirely. But the notion that if this law is passed and signed, if an abortion doctor is murdered, the idea that he or she, the killer, would somehow not be charged with murder is ridiculous. No court will look at this law and interpret it that way.

Especially given the bolded statement, how could any court interpret this statute except as providing an affirmative defense if an "appropriate" (per the statute) person killed a doctor to prevent an abortion? What other interpretation renders the statute meaningful? (Remember it is a cardinal rule of statutory interpretation that no provision is to be interpreted as meaningless, if it is possible to avoid that.)

I'd be more concerned with the court charging the abortion provider with murder rather than the murderer of an abortion provider being Scot-free.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Especially given the bolded statement, how could any court interpret this statute except as providing an affirmative defense if an "appropriate" (per the statute) person killed a doctor to prevent an abortion? What other interpretation renders the statute meaningful? (Remember it is a cardinal rule of statutory interpretation that no provision is to be interpreted as meaningless, if it is possible to avoid that.)

I'd be more concerned with the court charging the abortion provider with murder rather than the murderer of an abortion provider being Scot-free.

And I'm concerned with whether you are (1) not reading the right statute or (2) simply not understanding it. It can't mean what you suggest and almost certainly means what I've suggested (whether that was the intent or not).

[Wiztopia]

It is not accurate because it does not represent the majority. In order for it to be semi accurate they would need to poll at least 50 million people.

*sigh*

I've made clear which "side" of this discussion I'm on and you are making us look bad.

Assuming the sample was randomly selected, representative, etc. (as professional polls like Gallup generally are), the sample size can be predictive of the population as whole within certain statistical limits. If you have some reason to believe there is an actual flaw in this survey that makes it statistically invalid, point it out. Otherwise, your just waiving your hands and looking silly.

1000 people out of 300 million CANNOT be used to claim that the majority believe something. That is less than 1% of the population.

[Sdaeriji]

*sigh*

I've made clear which "side" of this discussion I'm on and you are making us look bad.

Assuming the sample was randomly selected, representative, etc. (as professional polls like Gallup generally are), the sample size can be predictive of the population as whole within certain statistical limits. If you have some reason to believe there is an actual flaw in this survey that makes it statistically invalid, point it out. Otherwise, your just waiving your hands and looking silly.

1000 people out of 300 million CANNOT be used to claim that the majority believe something. That is less than 1% of the population.

Holy Christ, go read something about statistics.

[Wiztopia]

1000 people out of 300 million CANNOT be used to claim that the majority believe something. That is less than 1% of the population.

Holy Christ, go read something about statistics.

So you honestly think that a very small number of people can determine how a very large number of people think?