Federal judge: The morning-after pill should be available without prescription — regardless of age

posted at 2:41 pm on April 5, 2013 by Allahpundit

You don’t want your 13-year-old running around town at midnight looking for a pharmacist on duty just to get hold of some Plan B, do you?

Believe it or not, this guy is … a Reagan appointee.

Describing the restriction as “a strong showing of bad faith and improper political influence” Judge Edward Korman of the District Court of Eastern New York directed the Food and Drug Administration to lift it within 30 days.

“The decisions of the Secretary with respect to Plan B One-Step…were arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable,” Judge Korman wrote, directing the FDA to “Make levonorgestrel-based emergency contraceptives available without a prescription and without point-of-sale or age restrictions within thirty days.”

Health and Human Secretary Kathleen Sebelius rejected in 2011 a request to allow teenage girls and women to buy Plan B over-the-counter in drugstores and pharmacies. In doing so, she overruled the FDA, which was set to rule that the morning-after pill be made available to all women, with no prescription necessary.

It’s “arbitrary” for the Secretary of HHS to distinguish between adult women and minors, who are under the legal supervision of adults and who, needless to say, are at a different stage of physical and psychological development? It is in the context of administrative law, says the judge. A key bit from his opinion:

This case is not about the potential misuse of Plan B by 11-year-olds. These emergency contraceptives would be among the safest drugs sold over-the-counter, the number of 11-year-olds using these drugs is likely to be miniscule, the FDA permits drugs that it has found to be unsafe for the pediatric population to be sold over-the-counter subject only to labeling restrictions, and its point-of-sale restriction on this safe drug is likewise inconsistent with its policy and the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as it has been construed…

I pause to add these brief words before I begin the discussion of the legal issues. This case has proven to be particularly controversial because it involves access to emergency contraception for adolescents who should not be engaging in conduct that necessitates the use of such drugs and because of the scientifically unsupported speculation that the drug could interfere with implantation of fertilized eggs. Nevertheless, the issue in this case involves the interpretation of a general statutory and regulatory scheme relating to the approval of drugs for over-the-counter sale. The standards are the same for aspirin and for contraceptives. While the FDA properly recognizes that cognitive and behavioral differences undermine “the ability of adolescents to make reasoned decisions about engaging in sexual intercourse,” the standard for determining whether contraceptives or any other drug should be available over-the-counter turns solely on the ability of the consumer to understand how to use the particular drug “safely and effectively.” Ex. A-4 to Pls.’ 2007 Mot. for Summ. J. at T-31097, Case No. 05-cv-366, Doc. No. 235-5. I decide this case based only on my understanding of the applicable standard.

The FDA thinks OTC availability for minors is safe-ish and Sebelius isn’t offering any hard evidence that it isn’t, so that’s that. Not even the secretary of HHS is allowed to limit access to drugs for purely moral/political reasons, even with the president’s endorsement. (And do note, before the left gets going on those prudish wingnuts who fret about young teens accessing Plan B on demand, Obama supported Sebelius’s decision to deny the drug to 16-and-unders.) I’m at the mercy of administrative-law litigators as to whether the legal standard applied here is correct or likely to be reversed on appeal, but presumably Congress could impose the prescription requirement for minors as a matter of federal statute. After all, they have lots of experience with drug distinctions that are more arbitrary than this. Would there be any political will to do so, though? Democrats don’t want this debate because defending a 13-year-old’s right to the morning-after pill without a prescription is … suboptimal politics, which of course is why Sebelius and Obama tried to restrict it. The GOP probably doesn’t want this debate either because it’ll instantly become fodder for liberal slippery-slope shrieking about theocracy and how conservatives want to ban all forms of contraception, even for adults, blah blah blah. Opponents’ best bet is winning on appeal, if not in the Second Circuit then in the Supreme Court. But as to the odds of that happening, I honestly can’t say. Any admin-law experts want to weigh in?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

This conservative concern has nothing to do with parental rights and everything to do with abortion. They don’t want the RU 486 pill sold at all. And they certainly don’t want it sold over the counter. The “minor” aspect is a red herring. As far as they are concerned, no woman, of ANY age, should be allowed to have RU486.

But she should be able to have an AR-15. Pill bad. Gun good.

keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 3:25 PM

If every coitus resulted in pregnancy, you might even have something. But good try anyway.

nobar on April 5, 2013 at 3:30 PM

I’m not dark nor corrupted. I’m informed about the threats in our society. Sadly, many are not.

tyketto on April 5, 2013 at 3:27 PM

My response was to thphilli on April 5, 2013 at 3:04 PM. Unless you are his sock puppet I’m not sure why you addressed me.

HotAirian on April 5, 2013 at 3:31 PM

Yeah, but it acts like it kills a baby.
BobMbx on April 5, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Oh I suppose condoms do, too.

Marcus on April 5, 2013 at 3:31 PM

Their siamese twins–connected at the brain.

melle1228 on April 5, 2013 at 3:28 PM

Well, I hope the physician with the most experience in the world separating such twins – Dr Ben Carson – leaves them that way. They wouldn’t want a “racist-bigoted-misogynistic-homophobic-Islamophobic-xenophobic-sister-and-cousin-marrying-squirrel-eating-tooth-brushing-snake-handling-dirt-eating-gun-rack-pick-up-driving-Bible-thumping-totalitarian-teabagging-Christian-theocratic Neanderthal” helping them anyway.

/

Resist We Much on April 5, 2013 at 3:33 PM

keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 3:25 PM

Yes, gun good. Abortion/murder is bad.

I don’t necessarily have an issue with Plan B for adults as it MOSTLY prevents fertilization from happening in the first place. The gray area here is if the egg fertilizes but is prevented from attaching. I have to give this more thought personally, but to say this is all about abortion is BS. You libs are pathetic.

tyketto on April 5, 2013 at 3:33 PM

These emergency contraceptives would be among the safest drugs sold over-the-counter…

Well, except for the early stage humans it kills.

Dexter_Alarius on April 5, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Well, I hope the physician with the most experience in the world separating such twins – Dr Ben Carson – leaves them that way. They wouldn’t want a “racist-bigoted-misogynistic-homophobic-Islamophobic-xenophobic-sister-and-cousin-marrying-squirrel-eating-tooth-brushing-snake-handling-dirt-eating-gun-rack-pick-up-driving-Bible-thumping-totalitarian-teabagging-Christian-theocratic Neanderthal” helping them anyway.

/

Resist We Much on April 5, 2013 at 3:33 PM

And we wouldn’t want that.. He would be too close to an Islamist. :)

melle1228 on April 5, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Can’t say I’m an expert about the side-effects of these pills, but if it helps protect our absolute right to abortion then go for it!

happytobehere on April 5, 2013 at 3:34 PM

My response was to thphilli on April 5, 2013 at 3:04 PM. Unless you are his sock puppet I’m not sure why you addressed me.

HotAirian on April 5, 2013 at 3:31 PM

I noticed that too. Curiouser and curiouser.

Bishop on April 5, 2013 at 3:34 PM

When Sandy Hook happened, and all those kids were killed, all you read on Hotair was how gun control was going to benefit from it. Nothing about how guns need to be taken out of the hands of the public. That was what conservatives were all upset about – that gun control would benefit. If a Sandy Hook happened everyday, they would be fine with that, as long as gun control did not benefit from it.

But, killing an embryo? It’s an outrage!

keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 3:35 PM

This conservative concern has nothing to do with parental rights and everything to do with abortion. They don’t want the RU 486 pill sold at all. And they certainly don’t want it sold over the counter. The “minor” aspect is a red herring. As far as they are concerned, no woman, of ANY age, should be allowed to have RU486.

But she should be able to have an AR-15. Pill bad. Gun good.

keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 3:25 PM

Have you even thought about what you’re saying? You don’t think parents should be informed when statutory rape has taken place?

Doomberg on April 5, 2013 at 3:35 PM

Hey trolls, try to defend this.

22044 on April 5, 2013 at 3:00 PM

They can’t. All they got is mockery of Christians. And we couldn’t care less what they think of us.

Besides, one of them is too busy defending Kermit Gosnell in another thread.

He doesn’t sound convinced either.

CurtZHP on April 5, 2013 at 3:36 PM

His ruling is correct.

Here lets try some creative rephrasing…

“The HHS has no authority to ban the sale of guns which are proven safe regardless of te moral outcomes.”

The FDA said it was OK, Obamacare said it was OK. President Obama signed that law so we could did out what was in it. That meant that 9 year olds could buy Plan B. There was much outcry about that and Obama said “oops I didn’t know that was in my law!” Waved his hands and said “HHS make this go away” and she did…

EXCEPT she doesn’t have the authority to ignore THE LAW as this judge found because, and get this, WORDS MEAN THINGS.

Welcome to Obamacare… And good ruling.

Skywise on April 5, 2013 at 3:36 PM

If a Sandy Hook happened everyday, they would be fine with that, as long as gun control did not benefit from it.

ROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFFFFFLLLLLLLLL

Is this for real or just a really slimebally attempt to hook the unwary, because….it’s pretty slimebally.

Bishop on April 5, 2013 at 3:36 PM

It seems everything is society is pushing for the slutification of every girl. We’re already seeing the consequences with a collapsing marriage rate and high divorce rate. We’re probably only a few decades away when the traditional family is not longer the sole social norm.

IR-MN on April 5, 2013 at 3:37 PM

Cold medicine for kids? BANNED

A drug that kills 50% of those exposed to it…ok!

18-1 on April 5, 2013 at 2:46 PM

I can’t even buy cold medicine without the pharmacist questioning me and filling out pages of paper work.

Under this ruling’s logic, aren’t alcohol laws arbitrary? Also, why doesn’t this apply to all over-the-counter drugs?

midgeorgian on April 5, 2013 at 3:37 PM

That’s fine. It’s somewhat better than live birth abortions and in 5-10 years there will be ads running on television for 1-866-Bad-Drug because of the kids who had suicidal thoughts, got cancer, bled out or died after taking this product without supervision.

Large swaths of several generations are being killed off and very few people are alarmed over that fact because salt is far more dangerous to society.

vityas on April 5, 2013 at 3:37 PM

No joke. Christians will soon realize they have more in common with islamists than they do with ordinary Americans. In the end, they will learn to hate their own government more than they hate the muslims. In the end, it’s going to be those horrible secular, gay-loving liberal infidels vs. The fundamentalists.

keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 3:20 PM

Yeah, Christians and Muslims have so much in common. Well, except for that whole jihad thing. And the dhimmi thing. And the sharia law thing. Because you know it’s a fundamental Christian belief that a 13-year old girl who is not yet married is a prostitute.

No, the end-state is more likely to be the horrible gay-loving liberal infidels letting everyone else protect them while they hang back and hold peace rallies and chant “No blood for oil.”

There Goes The Neighborhood on April 5, 2013 at 3:38 PM

They can’t. All they got is mockery of Christians. And we couldn’t care less what they think of us.

Besides, one of them is too busy defending Kermit Gosnell in another thread.

He doesn’t sound convinced either.

CurtZHP on April 5, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Yes sir!

22044 on April 5, 2013 at 3:39 PM

When Sandy Hook happened, and all those kids were killed, all you read on Hotair was how gun control was going to benefit from it. Nothing about how guns need to be taken out of the hands of the public. That was what conservatives were all upset about – that gun control would benefit. If a Sandy Hook happened everyday, they would be fine with that, as long as gun control did not benefit from it.

But, killing an embryo? It’s an outrage!

keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 3:35 PM

,

Because none of the gun control measures they are talking about would have prevented Sandy Hook. If you want to talk practicality, then you talk about making it easier to commit someone in Ct, but we haven’t heard one peep about that.

And furthermore, Plan B is the lesser of evils when it comes to abortion. Of course, because it is available NOW OTC to 17 and over, I am not quite sure why we have as many of the abortions that we do now other than the fact that woman are ignorant and irresponsible. And if you look at the numbers, most abortions are 17 and over.. That being said, this is about PARENTAL RIGHTS- you ignoramous. I have the right to monitor my CHILD’S HEALTHCARE. I have the RIGHT TO KNOW IF MY CHILD IS PREGNANT OR IF SHE IS RAPED OR BEEN MOLESTED. I HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW IF SHE IS GETTING AN ABORTION OR HAS SIDE EFFECTS FROM THAT ABORTION SO THAT I CAN GET HER MEDICAL ATTENTION..

melle1228 on April 5, 2013 at 3:39 PM

No, the end-state is more likely to be the horrible gay-loving liberal infidels letting everyone else protect them while they hang back and hold peace rallies and chant “No blood for oil.”

There Goes The Neighborhood on April 5, 2013 at 3:38 PM

If that occurs then the lefties are in for a big surprise, because I’ll be..uh..washing my hair that day so sorry but I’m busy; defend yourself.

Bishop on April 5, 2013 at 3:42 PM

And thanks to the influence of the anti-abortion wing, the GOP can’t get enough women voters today to win an election in the worst economy since the Great Depression. We have two-term of Obama thanks to these yokels. That Julia ad knew exactly what it was doing. You all mocked it, but who got the last laugh on election night?

Abortion is not going away. Get over it. Forget about it as a political issue. Here is a suggestion: If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one. The day the government forces you to have an abortion you don’t want, then you will be on the right side of history.

keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 3:43 PM

AP,

The basis for the Judge’s action is here:

In INS v. Yang, 519 U.S. 26 (1996), the Supreme Court held: “Though the agency’s decision is unfettered at the outset, if it announces and follows—by rule or by settled course of adjudication—a general policy by which its exercise of discretion will be governed, an irrational departure from that policy (as opposed to an avowed alteration of it) could constitute action that must be overturned as ‘arbitrary, capricious, [or] an abuse of discretion’ within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act.” Id. at 32;

Basically, although the FDA can do whatever it wants, if the FDA announces and follows a policy, then an irrational departure from that policy can be overturned by judicial review.

The judge then argues:

Perhaps the most significant departure from agency practice was the intervention of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. She overruled the FDA in an area which Congress entrusted primarily to the FDA, 21 U.S.C. § 393(d)(2), and which fell within the scope of the authority that the Secretary expressly delegated to the Commissioner.

This means that, since the HHS Secretary delegated this authority to the FDA, HHS departed from policy by stepping in for this case. However, remember that Supreme Court quote which says the departure must be IRRATIONAL, and not a purposeful change in policy. How does the Court deal with that aspect? By saying:

In my 2009 opinion, I traced the evidence demonstrating that the conduct of the FDA was influenced by the Bush White House … The motivation for the Secretary’s action was obviously political.

The bit about the Bush White House certainly makes this judge sound politically influenced, albeit in the opposite direction, making him something of a hypocrite. Not content to leave it at that, the Judge decides to go on a lengthy attack of the HHS’s explanation for her decision:

I proceed to deconstruct her explanation sentence by sentence.

The Judge proceeds to attack HHS’s reasoning and generally disagree with her. However, the standard is not whether HHS is right, it is whether her action was an “irrational departure” from established policy. Around this point I saw that this was a VERY LONG decision (long opinions are usually bad decisions) and I skim through to page 34 where the Judge finally talks about jurisdiction:

The Plan B One-Step sponsor has not taken an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which would have jurisdiction to review it. See 21 U.S.C. § 355(h). The only decision subject to review here is the denial of the Citizen Petition; I do not have any authority to review the denial of the Plan B One Step SNDA for the purpose of granting relief.

So he admits that he lacks jurisdiction, right? The only party with standing, the drug company, chose not to take the matter to the one court which had jurisdiction to review it. However, this judge is not going to let that stop him:

Nevertheless, as observed earlier, the two were clearly linked together for two reasons.

So the judge concludes that:

The decision that the agency was forced to make, contrary to its own policies and judgment, is not entitled to any deference. Indeed, it is hardly clear that the Secretary had the power to issue the order, and if she did have that authority, her decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable.

Of course that is page 40 out of 59 but there is no point to reading further since he gave his ultimate conclusion there. The judge actually had no right to review the decision itself, but instead argued that because he had the ability to review a citizen petition (I’m not sure he does there either) and that the two are “linked” he figured that he could do whatever he wanted. His standard of review required that he give HHS a lot of deference, and only overturn HHS if the decision was arbitrary or capricious, but since he wanted to overturn it, he just said that it was. He took his own opinion that the decision was politically motivated, and decided that that meant that it was arbitrary or capricious.

After reading (most of) the judge’s opinion, I think it is garbage. This is a judge who was biased, disagreed with what the HHS decided, and decided to do what he wanted, then engaged in backward reasoning to dress up his biased conclusion the best way he could with a 59 page opinion. In several places, the judge engages in logical leaps lacking substantial evidence to support them, or lacking clear authority (states and case law) to support his legal conclusions, even on basic matters like whether he has jurisdiction.

kaltes on April 5, 2013 at 3:45 PM

Don’t agree with murder then don’t murder anyone, but don’t be tellin’ me that I can’t murder whomever I please. I have RIGHTS, mothaflocka!

Bishop on April 5, 2013 at 3:46 PM

And thanks to the influence of the anti-abortion wing, the GOP can’t get enough women voters today to win an election in the worst economy since the Great Depression. We have two-term of Obama thanks to these yokels. That Julia ad knew exactly what it was doing. You all mocked it, but who got the last laugh on election night?

Abortion is not going away. Get over it. Forget about it as a political issue. Here is a suggestion: If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one. The day the government forces you to have an abortion you don’t want, then you will be on the right side of history.

keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 3:43 PM

BEHOLD THE REAL REASON THE GOP LOSES!

Here we have a clear cut case of parental rights being trod upon and we have someone who CLAIMS to vote for our side sayig that ‘those damn socons shouldn’t trample on a woman’s right to choose’ except we aren’t talking about women. We are talking about CHILDREN. We lose because dumba$$ like KTC repeat leftist talking points ignorantly..

melle1228 on April 5, 2013 at 3:47 PM

I’m about as pro-life as it gets but this isn’t even about abortion to me. This is about the fact they want to allow a child to purchase synthetic hormones without parental consent. That is not okay. My daughter is not allowed to go to Walmart and buy spray adhesives or paint for a school project, or vote, or pierce her ears, or buy a damned lottery ticket, she can be expelled for having Advil in her car on school property…but she can get Plan B! So screwed up!

maables on April 5, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Because none of the gun control measures they are talking about would have prevented Sandy Hook.

If real gun control had been implemented, Sandy Hook could not have happened. Those guns got into his hands because his mother purchased them. All legal and nice like. Had she not been able to do so, because gun shops didn’t exist,(whoa, there’s a thought) she, not being a criminal, wouldn’t have had them for her crazy son to play with.

The only guns conservatives really need are the front-loading muskets. Then they can do those civil war recreations.

keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 3:48 PM

Don’t agree with murder then don’t murder anyone, but don’t be tellin’ me that I can’t murder whomever I please. I have RIGHTS, mothaflocka!

Bishop on April 5, 2013 at 3:46 PM

Yeppers, don’t like slavery, don’t own a slave..

Don’t like theft, don’t commit one..

and on and on and on and on.

melle1228 on April 5, 2013 at 3:48 PM

But she should be able to have an AR-15. Pill bad. Gun good.
 
keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 3:25 PM

 

Here is a suggestion: If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one…
 
keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 3:43 PM

 
Not even twenty minutes apart.

rogerb on April 5, 2013 at 3:49 PM

If real gun control had been implemented, Sandy Hook could not have happened. Those guns got into his hands because his mother purchased them. All legal and nice like. Had she not been able to do so, because gun shops didn’t exist,(whoa, there’s a thought) she, not being a criminal, wouldn’t have had them for her crazy son to play with.

The only guns conservatives really need are the front-loading muskets. Then they can do those civil war recreations.

keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 3:48 PM

You aren’t talking about gun control.. You are talking about gun abolishment. And to do that you have to pass another amendment. I have no desire to argue with someone who does not understand the fundamentals of the Constitution and does not care to. Ignorance is bliss apparently in your case.

melle1228 on April 5, 2013 at 3:50 PM

kaltes on April 5, 2013 at 3:45 PM

Yep never thought I would be on the side of the Obama administration.

melle1228 on April 5, 2013 at 3:51 PM

So he admits that he lacks jurisdiction, right?

No, he lacks jurisdiction in providing relief to those bringing forth the case. He can’t assign damages. He can, however, rule that the HHS violated the rule of law. And did.

Skywise on April 5, 2013 at 3:52 PM

Line by line:

And thanks to the influence of the anti-abortion wing, the GOP can’t get enough women voters today to win an election in the worst economy since the Great Depression.

Wait a minute: Romney was not a Socon. So how did that happen?

We have two-term of Obama thanks to these yokels.

And the 4million who stayed home (of which I assume you are)

That Julia ad knew exactly what it was doing. You all mocked it, but who got the last laugh on election night?

Two lines, but: It scared the shit out of the college grads who voted for Romney

Abortion is not going away. Get over it. Forget about it as a political issue.

Three lines: Conservatives are only reactionary when progressives set the terms of the debate. And yes it won’t go away, but one day you’ll realize why we were right (I’m willing to be bet you’ve had a few of them).

Here is a suggestion: If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one. The day the government forces you to have an abortion you don’t want, then you will be on the right side of history.

The day the government forces you to abortion buy insurance you don’t want, then you will be on the right side of history.

The day the government forces religious organizations to act against their own conscious, then you will be on the right side of history.

Sound familiar?

nobar on April 5, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Don’t agree with murder then don’t murder anyone, but don’t be tellin’ me that I can’t murder whomever I please. I have RIGHTS, mothaflocka!

Analogy fail.

No, you can’t murder whomever you please. But you can terminate an embryo in your uterus. You can’t terminate someone else’s embryo.

See, the difference?

You are more entertaining as a troll, than as something who tries to engage in a debate. You aren’t good at debating. Humor is your strong point.

keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 3:54 PM

Here is a suggestion: If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one…
 
keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 3:43 PM

 

The only guns conservatives really need are the front-loading muskets. Then they can do those civil war recreations.
 
keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 3:48 PM

 
If you don’t like guns, don’t have one.
 
You don’t need that.

rogerb on April 5, 2013 at 3:54 PM

But she should be able to have an AR-15. Pill bad. Gun good.

keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 3:25 PM

Who said that a minor should have an AR-15? It IS illegal for a 17 year-old to purchase an AR-15.

18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1)

(b) It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver -

(1) any firearm or ammunition to any individual who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than eighteen years of age, and, if the firearm, or ammunition is other than a shotgun or rifle, or ammunition for a shotgun or rifle, to any individual who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than twenty-one years of age;

Now, run along and put some ice on that, fool.

Resist We Much on April 5, 2013 at 3:54 PM

The day the government forces you to have an abortion you don’t want, then you will be on the right side of history.

keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 3:43 PM

And that will never happen, right? Except in Cuba. Oh, and in China too.

Wait till the government becomes the single payer, and then has unfettered control of not only your insurance premium, but they’re gonna reach, with both hands, into the uterii (is that a word?) of women to cull out the less-than-perfect individuals that society has a right to. Why force the cost of imperfect beings onto the workers?

BobMbx on April 5, 2013 at 3:55 PM

melle1228 on April 5, 2013 at 3:47 PM

I used to think she was a chain-yanker, and that I can respect, until the abortion topics came along and she went off the rails; deranged, maniacal, bitter, and just plain mean.

I think something happened in the past, some event which has her experiencing the early stages of a Lizzie Borden type syndrome.

Bishop on April 5, 2013 at 3:55 PM

And yet full adults have to register like they are buying NFA guns to buy pills to unclog their sinuses.

Schadenfreude on April 5, 2013 at 3:55 PM

kaltes on April 5, 2013 at 3:45 PM

Yep never thought I would be on the side of the Obama administration.

melle1228 on April 5, 2013 at 3:51 PM

I suppose meddling in the workings of the free market for “moral” reasons is one of those issues that has political crossover appeal.

Armin Tamzarian on April 5, 2013 at 3:56 PM

Don’t agree with murder then don’t murder anyone, but don’t be tellin’ me that I can’t murder whomever I please. I have RIGHTS, mothaflocka!

Bishop on April 5, 2013 at 3:46 PM

See this HotAir faithful…

…this individual is called a Wordsmith.

Live it, Learn it, Love it.

ToddPA on April 5, 2013 at 3:57 PM

abortion.sodomy.abortion.sodomy.abortion.sodomy.abortion.sodomy.abortion.sodomy.abortion.sodomy.abortion.sodomy.abortion.sodomy.abortion.sodomy.abortion.sodomy.abortion.sodomy.abortion.sodomy.abortion.sodomy.abortion.sodomy.abortion.sodomy.abortion.sodomy.abortion.sodomy.abortion.sodomy.abortion.sodomy.abortion.sodomy.

tom daschle concerned on April 5, 2013 at 3:57 PM

And thanks to the influence of the anti-abortion wing, the GOP can’t get enough women voters …

keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 3:43 PM

I’m not sure what “wing” you are taking about, as the Republican Party is OFFICIALLY opposed to abortion.

From the Official Republican Party Platform …

“We, however, affirm the dignity of women by protecting the sanctity of human life. Numerous studies have shown that abortion endangers the health and well-being of women, and we stand firmly against it.”

Pork-Chop on April 5, 2013 at 3:57 PM

You aren’t talking about gun control.. You are talking about gun abolishment.

Precisely. Gun control is a joke. It, as you pointed out, would not have stopped Sandy Hook. 100% correct. The only thing that can, is to abolish guns from the civilian population – with the exception of muskets. You know, so that those militias can be ready to deal with the British.

Let the next Lanza try his stunt with a musket, or a knife. He won’t even try.

keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 3:58 PM

These emergency contraceptives would be among the safest drugs sold over-the-counter

Really?

http://www.drugs.com/plan-b.html

Before using this medication, tell your doctor if you are allergic to any drugs, or if you have diabetes. You may not be able to use Plan B, or you may need special tests during treatment.

Get emergency medical help if you have any of these signs of an allergic reaction to Plan B: hives; difficulty breathing; swelling of your face, lips, tongue, or throat.

Call your doctor at once if you have severe pain in your lower stomach or side. This could be a sign of a tubal pregnancy (a pregnancy that implants in the fallopian tube instead of the uterus). A tubal pregnancy is a medical emergency.

Less serious Plan B side effects may include:

nausea, diarrhea, or stomach pain;

dizziness, tired feeling;

breast pain or tenderness;

changes in your menstrual periods; or

headache.

This is not a complete list of side effects and others may occur. Call your doctor for medical advice about side effects. You may report side effects to FDA at 1-800-FDA-1088.

Before using this medication, tell your doctor if you are using any of the following drugs:

rifampin (Rifadin, Rifater, Rifamate, Rimactane);

a barbiturate such as amobarbital (Amytal), butabarbital (Butisol), mephobarbital (Mebaral), secobarbital (Seconal), or phenobarbital (Luminal, Solfoton); or

seizure medicines such as phenytoin (Dilantin), or carbamazepine (Tegretol).

This list is not complete and there may be other drugs that can affect Plan B. Tell your doctor about all the prescription and over-the-counter medications you use.

Safest OTC drug out there… after you consult your doctor for allergic reaction questions, ignore the side effects, and know all the drug interaction issues (some not known/listed yet).

How is that safer than my cough drops again?

gekkobear on April 5, 2013 at 3:58 PM

This is so disgusting. Planned Parenthood already protects child abusers by doing their abortions for them without reporting dear old dad. Now daddy can go right to the pharmacy after every play date and buy his little buddy some candy. Much easier for the rapist. Good call judge.

JustTruth101 on April 5, 2013 at 3:59 PM

keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 3:54 PM

If abortion = murder, then changing “abortion” to “murder” in what I wrote makes perfect sense. Well…makes sense to someone who doesn’t believe that an infant lying in its cradle isn’t actually a human being.

You did write this did you not?

BTW, our humanity does not come to us even at birth. It is just only the beginning phase of what will become a human being at far later date.

keep the change on February 1, 2011 at 10:02 PM

Why yes, yes you did. Here endeth the lesson.

Bishop on April 5, 2013 at 4:01 PM

I suppose meddling in the workings of the free market for “moral” reasons is one of those issues that has political crossover appeal.

Armin Tamzarian on April 5, 2013 at 3:56 PM

No, see due process rights and parental interference. Not “moral “reasons at all.

melle1228 on April 5, 2013 at 4:01 PM

Looks like someone else hasn’t quite gotten through the grieving process.

And he doesn’t sound convinced either.

CurtZHP on April 5, 2013 at 4:01 PM

From Jill Stanek:

One round of emergency contraceptives contains four to 12 times the dosage of a birth control pill.

The long-term effects of emergency contraception on the bodies of girls and women are as yet unknown.

At present we do know the Pill is composed of synthetic female steroids that are environmentally toxic, increase the risk of breast cancer, alter phermones, kill libido, and cause depression, anxiety, and mood disturbances.

And we know easy access to emergency contraception is used by men to exploit women. By extension it is easy to surmise men might use it to exploit girls they are sexually abusing.

INC on April 5, 2013 at 4:02 PM

I used to think she was a chain-yanker, and that I can respect, until the abortion topics came along and she went off the rails; deranged, maniacal, bitter, and just plain mean.

I think something happened in the past, some event which has her experiencing the early stages of a Lizzie Borden type syndrome.

Bishop on April 5, 2013 at 3:55 PM

I think she is a leftist tyring to come off as someone who “votes” rights. I mean seriously what Republican is for gun abolishment? That is a radically leftist proposition. And the whole socons anti-abortion rightie talk and the fact that she doesn’t understand that the whole Repub platform is anti-abortion. Think she is a lefty out to troll.

melle1228 on April 5, 2013 at 4:03 PM

The day the government forces you to have an abortion you don’t want, then you will be on the right side of history.

keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 3:43 PM

You know, up until 1984, people were still being involuntarily sterilised in the US.

Precisely. Gun control is a joke. It, as you pointed out, would not have stopped Sandy Hook. 100% correct. The only thing that can, is to abolish guns from the civilian population – with the exception of muskets. You know, so that those militias can be ready to deal with the British.

Let the next Lanza try his stunt with a musket, or a knife. He won’t even try.

keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 3:58 PM

THEN, REPEAL THE SECOND AMENDMENT…also, don’t ever bytch and complain again about warrantless wiretaps and such ‘cuz, like, ya know, when the Founding Fathers wrote the Fourth Amendment, they were only talking about ‘papers.’

I could go through all of the history of English common law on the ‘right to bear arms,’ the history of the Second Amendment, the writings of the Founding Fathers, more than 200 years of caselaw, but I’ll just encourage you to read this instead:

A Daily Kooks Writer Argues: Why Liberals Should Love The Second Amendment??? You Betcha!

Resist We Much on April 5, 2013 at 4:05 PM

No, see due process rights and parental interference. Not “moral “reasons at all.

melle1228 on April 5, 2013 at 4:01 PM

Fascinating. Do parents have a “due process” right to not have stores sell junk food to their kids too? Is it “parental interference” when 7-11 sells a minor a corn dog and soda? What if that minor’s parents want him to only eat healthy food instead? Why isn’t the government stepping in and protecting the “due process” rights of parents to micromanage every last aspect of their children’s lives?

Armin Tamzarian on April 5, 2013 at 4:06 PM

I think something happened in the past, some event which has her experiencing the early stages of a Lizzie Borden type syndrome.

Bishop on April 5, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Given her traffic pattern, it’s a safe bet what that something was.

As I said earlier….

Looks like someone else hasn’t quite gotten through the grieving process.

CurtZHP on April 5, 2013 at 4:01 PM

CurtZHP on April 5, 2013 at 4:07 PM

If abortion = murder, then changing “abortion” to “murder” in what I wrote makes perfect sense.

That is a pretty big IF. You can’t argue a point by using a non-accepted reference. You can only reference laws. Our laws don’t consider abortion murder. So your analogy fails. Otherwise, I could argue that meat is murder.

So we get back to the only accepted conservative opinion on these issues: If you don’t like Big Gulps, don’t have one.

keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 4:07 PM

Let the next Lanza try his stunt with a musket, or a knife. He won’t even try.

keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 3:58 PM

I feel sorry for you sometimes, trapped as you are with the tools you were given. But you’re right, such a thing could never happen:

Pingnan – A man carrying an axe went on a rampage at a daycare center in southwest China. The man killed three children and injured several others.

According to the Globe and Mail (via the official Xinhua News Agency) the man killed three children and injured 13 others today after he entered a daycare center carrying an axe.

Bishop on April 5, 2013 at 4:07 PM

Let the next Lanza try his stunt with a musket, or a knife. He won’t even try.

keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 3:58 PM

Riiiight, ‘cuz it’s not like there hasn’t been an epidemic of knife attacks at schools in China or anything.

We banned guns (there are still a shitload of them) and violent crime exploded, especially knife crime.

Listen, I already took one for the ‘gun-control team.’ Never again.

You can all go f*ck yourselves.

Resist We Much on April 5, 2013 at 4:07 PM

The day the government forces you to have an abortion you don’t want, then you will be on the right side of history.

keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 3:43 PM

As I read in an article on another topic, there is no right or wrong side of history, but there is only a right or wrong side of truth.

Abortion kills a human being.

Parental oversight is being overridden here in a very dangerous way.

Plan B is a huge hormone overload that will go into the developing body of a young woman, and many will probably use it as if it is aspirin. This won’t end well.

INC on April 5, 2013 at 4:08 PM

That is a pretty big IF. You can’t argue a point by using a non-accepted reference. You can only reference laws. Our laws don’t consider abortion murder. So your analogy fails. Otherwise, I could argue that meat is murder.

So we get back to the only accepted conservative opinion on these issues: If you don’t like Big Gulps, don’t have one.

keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 4:07 PM

Ohhhh….laws. Because laws don’t change, ever, apparently. I mean why try to stop abortion if it’s the law, sort of like trying to keep people from owning guns which is also allowed by la…..ohhhh, there goes your logic again, right down the crapper.

Bishop on April 5, 2013 at 4:11 PM

…with the exception of muskets. You know, so that those militias can be ready to deal with the British.
 
keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 3:58 PM

 
Willingly displaying that level of knowledge as it relates to history, current events, and government perspective is mind boggling.
 
Hint: You’re not doing that great of a job of dispelling the low-info Obama voter joke that has, for some unknown reason, gained traction. I’m sure it’s all coincidental, though.
 
Obama 2013!

rogerb on April 5, 2013 at 4:11 PM

Let the next Lanza try his stunt with a musket, or a knife. He won’t even try.

keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 3:58 PM

Riiiight, ‘cuz it’s not like there hasn’t been an epidemic of knife attacks at schools in China or anything.

We banned guns (there are still a shitload of them) and violent crime exploded, especially knife crime.

Listen, I already took one for the ‘gun-control team.’ Never again.

You can all go f*ck yourselves.

Resist We Much on April 5, 2013 at 4:07 PM

It’s like these people actually believe that outlawing something makes it automagically disappear. No guns allowed? Poof! There are now no guns to be had!

Fine. Pass a law that says civilians are only allowed to own muskets. When some criminal, who by definition does not obey the law, shows up with a Henry level action rifle and takes out a dozen people, then what? Outlaw baseball bats?

CurtZHP on April 5, 2013 at 4:12 PM

THEN, REPEAL THE SECOND AMENDMENT

That would be nice. Except politicians are too afraid of the gun lobby. Even most of the democrats won’t make a move on the Second Amendment. And what’s worse, if it was repealed, the gun nuts would go crazy and would shoot any cop that tried to confiscate their guns. We already know they threatened to do that very thing. Cop killers is what they will became if pushed.

No, the Second will never be repealed. But it doesn’t have to. Legislation, over several generations, can achieve the same effect. Start with ammo.

keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 4:13 PM

CurtZHP on April 5, 2013 at 4:07 PM

Grieving about what, though? I mean saying that a live infant isn’t even a human being is insanity talking.

Bishop on April 5, 2013 at 4:13 PM

Fascinating. Do parents have a “due process” right to not have stores sell junk food to their kids too? Is it “parental interference” when 7-11 sells a minor a corn dog and soda? What if that minor’s parents want him to only eat healthy food instead? Why isn’t the government stepping in and protecting the “due process” rights of parents to micromanage every last aspect of their children’s lives?

Armin Tamzarian on April 5, 2013 at 4:06 PM

Yes because that is the same thing. Someone selling junk food to a kid or a pill that can make a kid bleed out.//

The fact that you even try to equate is ridiculous, but then you were defending Gosnell.

melle1228 on April 5, 2013 at 4:14 PM

You are more entertaining as a troll, than as something who tries to engage in a debate. You aren’t good at debating. Humor is your strong point.

keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 3:54 PM

Says the genius who also typed this…

Here is a suggestion: If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one…

keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 3:43 PM

Which can be easily turned to say… If you don’t like mass murder of kindergartners, don’t commit mass murder of kindergartners.

Why do we have any laws at all? If you don’t like cheating, stealing, murder, or arson, don’t do those things. Who are YOU to tell me what I can or can’t do.

Debating fail.

Lily on April 5, 2013 at 4:15 PM

Grieving about what, though? I mean saying that a live infant isn’t even a human being is insanity talking.

Bishop on April 5, 2013 at 4:13 PM

Think about it. Something happened once to make this person this angry at the slightest mention of this barbaric procedure.

CurtZHP on April 5, 2013 at 4:16 PM

That would be nice. Except politicians are too afraid of the gun lobby. Even most of the democrats won’t make a move on the Second Amendment. And what’s worse, if it was repealed, the gun nuts would go crazy and would shoot any cop that tried to confiscate their guns. We already know they threatened to do that very thing. Cop killers is what they will became if pushed.

No, the Second will never be repealed. But it doesn’t have to. Legislation, over several generations, can achieve the same effect. Start with ammo.

keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 4:13 PM

Yes, because all 2nd amendment supporters are “gun nuts.”

melle1228 on April 5, 2013 at 4:16 PM

What some of you fail to understand is that minors do not possess full constitutional rights. The 17 year-old at the basis of this lawsuit cannot buy a car, enter into a contract, get married without parental consent, undergo almost all surgical procedures and anaesthesia, vote, purchase a gun, buy cigarettes, purchase alcohol, legally obtain most prescription drugs, etc.

You make a similar mistake when you scream about Bradley Manning’s ‘First Amendment rights.’ He’s not a civilian. You don’t have full constitutional rights in the military and are subject to the UCMJ.

Resist We Much on April 5, 2013 at 4:17 PM

Because laws don’t change

You can’t make an argument equating abortion to murder, if abortion isn’t murder. Otherwise, I can argue meat is murder, and therefore you shouldn’t have the right to eat meat. And I take a page out of your book, and remind you that laws change, therefore perhaps meat will be murder some day.

What else do you have, Bishop? You are so much more entertaining when you aren’t trying to be serious. Court jester is your role, here, not court attorney.

keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 4:17 PM

Yes, because all 2nd amendment supporters are “gun nuts.”

No, in fact, I suspect that only a minority of them are gun nuts. But that minority is still a huge number of people. And they promise bloodshed.

keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 4:19 PM

Think about it. Something happened once to make this person this angry at the slightest mention of this barbaric procedure.

CurtZHP on April 5, 2013 at 4:16 PM

Stockholm Syndrome, or maybe she herself survived as an infant the attack of an abortion “doctor”. Curious, might be a book in there or a made for tv movie.

Bishop on April 5, 2013 at 4:19 PM

Stockholm Syndrome, or maybe she herself survived as an infant the attack of an abortion “doctor”. Curious, might be a book in there or a made for tv movie.

Bishop on April 5, 2013 at 4:19 PM

Whatever it is is clearly borne out of a guilty conscience.

CurtZHP on April 5, 2013 at 4:21 PM

Stockholm Syndrome, or maybe she herself survived as an infant the attack of an abortion “doctor”. Curious, might be a book in there or a made for tv movie.

Bishop on April 5, 2013 at 4:19 PM

I blame Gregor Mendel.

Lily on April 5, 2013 at 4:21 PM

Yes because that is the same thing. Someone selling junk food to a kid or a pill that can make a kid bleed out.//

The fact that you even try to equate is ridiculous, but then you were defending Gosnell.

melle1228 on April 5, 2013 at 4:14 PM

They don’t have to be the same exact thing. If parents have a “due process” right to not have stores sell the morning-after pill to their minor children on the grounds that it could be harmful then they also have a “due process” right to not have stores sell other things to their minor children that could adversely affect their health.

Armin Tamzarian on April 5, 2013 at 4:23 PM

So 13 year olds can be raped and the perp won’t have to worry about her getting pregnant and being found out. Allowing the sexual exploitation of underage children is beyond negligence; it is criminal.

fight like a girl on April 5, 2013 at 4:24 PM

keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 4:17 PM

Perhaps meat will be murder someday if the laws change, emphasis on the word “change”. Seems odd you would make such a statement and then say that abortion should be ignored because it’s protected by law, then immediately after opine that the 2nd Amendment can be defeated by a tide of little laws which effectively nullify it.

I know you’re trying and I appreciate the effort, really I do, but I can only carry you for so long and frankly it’s tiresome.

Bishop on April 5, 2013 at 4:24 PM

how does this impact me?

nonpartisan on April 5, 2013 at 3:11 PM

Who cares about you?

Solaratov on April 5, 2013 at 4:24 PM

What is the effect of the morning-after pill on a pregnant woman at T+ one week? One month? Three months?

slickwillie2001 on April 5, 2013 at 4:25 PM

Is there is a drug that requires parental consent to buy? People keep bringing up parental consent like this is a field trip. I honestly can’t think of any drug that’s sold whether it be OTC or prescription that requires parental consent to buy.

segasagez on April 5, 2013 at 4:25 PM

So 13 year olds can be raped and the perp won’t have to worry about her getting pregnant and being found out. Allowing the sexual exploitation of underage children is beyond negligence; it is criminal.

fight like a girl on April 5, 2013 at 4:24 PM

The perp couldn’t just buy emergency contraception himself and forcibly administer it to his victim? Since he’s already raped her and all.

Armin Tamzarian on April 5, 2013 at 4:26 PM

You can’t make an argument equating abortion to murder, if abortion isn’t murder. Otherwise, I can argue meat is murder, and therefore you shouldn’t have the right to eat meat. And I take a page out of your book, and remind you that laws change, therefore perhaps meat will be murder some day.

What else do you have, Bishop? You are so much more entertaining when you aren’t trying to be serious. Court jester is your role, here, not court attorney.

keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 4:17 PM

Yup, Laws do change, and on other occasions new ones
are made up….maybe one day a Law will be passed that
dictates Dumb azzes have their fingers cut of so they can no
longer type Stupid Sh*t on Political Websites..

..but you’re safe for now….

ToddPA on April 5, 2013 at 4:26 PM

They don’t have to be the same exact thing. If parents have a “due process” right to not have stores sell the morning-after pill to their minor children on the grounds that it could be harmful then they also have a “due process” right to not have stores sell other things to their minor children that could adversely affect their health.

Armin Tamzarian on April 5, 2013 at 4:23 PM

You mean like alcohol, cigarettes, sudafed and cough syrup, just to name a few?

fight like a girl on April 5, 2013 at 4:27 PM

That would be nice.

So, you like higher homicide and crime rates, eh?

Chart of the Day: United States Homicide Rate 1885-2012

Except politicians are too afraid of the gun lobby.

The ‘gun lobby’ is the American people.

Even most of the democrats won’t make a move on the Second Amendment.

Many will because they want to be able to pick and choose those rights for which they are willing to fight.

And what’s worse, if it was repealed, the gun nuts would go crazy and would shoot any cop that tried to confiscate their guns.

Well, I’d say they would be justified. Of course, it’s never going to be repealed because you need the proposed amendment to pass both houses of Congress by a 2/3rds vote and then be ratified by 38 states. Maybe, you should think about the next time you start dumping on ‘Flyover Country.’

We already know they threatened to do that very thing. Cop killers is what they will became if pushed.

The cops enforce local and state law. The Feds cannot commandeer state and local officials and employees. Billy Jeff learned that the hard way when he tried to use state sheriffs to implement the Brady Act. The case was Printz v United States. Look it up.

No, the Second will never be repealed. But it doesn’t have to. Legislation, over several generations, can achieve the same effect. Start with ammo.

Er, no. You cannot ban or place onerous burdens on guns or ammunition. Go read Heller and McDonald. You also cannot do through taxation, regulation and rulemaking that which you are prohibited from doing by legislation.

For example, one of the laws in DC allowed people to keep shotguns in their homes provided they were disassembled. The Court held that such a law was a de facto ban because it so onerously burdened the right to bear arms as to make the right meaningless.

Resist We Much on April 5, 2013 at 4:27 PM

What is the effect of the morning-after pill on a pregnant woman at T+ one week? One month? Three months?

slickwillie2001 on April 5, 2013 at 4:25 PM

Nothing. The morning-after pill prevents ovulation. A pregnant woman is no longer ovulating.

Armin Tamzarian on April 5, 2013 at 4:28 PM

They don’t have to be the same exact thing. If parents have a “due process” right to not have stores sell the morning-after pill to their minor children on the grounds that it could be harmful then they also have a “due process” right to not have stores sell other things to their minor children that could adversely affect their health.

Armin Tamzarian on April 5, 2013 at 4:23 PM

You mean like alcohol, cigarettes, sudafed and cough syrup, just to name a few?

fight like a girl on April 5, 2013 at 4:27 PM

Or tylenol, or any other over the counter medicine that generally they don’t sell to kids without parents.. Ugh..

melle1228 on April 5, 2013 at 4:28 PM

Is there is a drug that requires parental consent to buy? People keep bringing up parental consent like this is a field trip. I honestly can’t think of any drug that’s sold whether it be OTC or prescription that requires parental consent to buy.

segasagez on April 5, 2013 at 4:25 PM

Cold medicines, most classes of prescription meds, especially pain medication and sedatives, etc.

Since it is so popular, a good example would be ritalin. A minor cannot buy ritalin. Only someone 18 or over is able to purchase it. If you go to a pharmacy, this is a drug where you will be asked to present photo identification.

Resist We Much on April 5, 2013 at 4:30 PM

I mean why try to stop abortion if it’s the law, sort of like trying to keep people from owning guns which is also allowed by la…..ohhhh, there goes your logic again, right down the crapper.

Bishop on April 5, 2013 at 4:11 PM

Bish, you must always preface this sort of statement with the “duly enacted” phrase. Observe:

I mean why try to stop abortion if it’s a duly enacted law, sort of like trying to keep people from owning guns which is also allowed by la…..ohhhh, there goes your logic again, right down the crapper.

This way, you’ve pre-empted any further argument about the law itself, and you can accuse your opponent of just being a whiner.

BobMbx on April 5, 2013 at 4:30 PM

when immediately after opine that the 2nd Amendment can be defeated by a tide of little laws which effectively nullify it.

Why is that odd? I never said laws don’t change. I said you can’t make a moral analogy using a non-existent law as a reference point as if that law already existed.

As far as guns go, I was pointing out that the Second Amendment doesn’t have to be abolished. Laws work better.

keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 4:31 PM

Or tylenol, or any other over the counter medicine that generally they don’t sell to kids without parents.. Ugh..

melle1228 on April 5, 2013 at 4:28 PM

There’s a difference between stores voluntarily not selling certain things to kids as a courtesy to their parents and stores being ordered (by the FDA, no less, and not even Congress) not to sell certain other things because something something “due process” something something “parental rights”.

Armin Tamzarian on April 5, 2013 at 4:31 PM

If conservatives had their way, assault weapons would be sold at 7/11 to anyone with a Blockbuster Video membership card, but all birth control would be banned by federal government. Then they would dance with joy in their strange, survivalist, yokel utopia while waiting for Jesus to return to kill their enemies.

keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 3:12 PM

You’re quite proud of your bigotry and stupidity, aren’t you?

And you assclowns don’t give one fat damn about children killed by guns – other than to use their coffins as a podium to try to wreck the Constitution.
If you cared about children, you wouldn’t have killed over 52,000,000 of them by abortion. And you wouldn’t be lobbying for the “right” to kill them if they happen to be born alive after an abortion attempt.

Children mean nothing to leftists. They’re just tools and pawns in your attempt to destroy America.

Solaratov on April 5, 2013 at 4:32 PM

Fine. Pass a law that says civilians are only allowed to own muskets. When some criminal, who by definition does not obey the law, shows up with a Henry level action rifle and takes out a dozen people, then what? Outlaw baseball bats?

CurtZHP on April 5, 2013 at 4:12 PM

Assault elephants.

So far, you don’t need a license to own one. And for the elephant control libtards, you don’t have to worry. There won’t be a concealed carry permit.

BobMbx on April 5, 2013 at 4:34 PM

ToddPA on April 5, 2013 at 4:26 PM

I really think there should be a minimum age requirement and a literacy test before someone can post on a political site. Half the time I think I am arguing with children. And equating an unborn human being with meat? Dear God, have mercy on us.

fight like a girl on April 5, 2013 at 4:34 PM

when immediately after opine that the 2nd Amendment can be defeated by a tide of little laws which effectively nullify it.

They tried that in DC and Chicago…and LOST.

Resist We Much on April 5, 2013 at 4:35 PM

Describing the restriction as “a strong showing of bad faith and improper political influence” Judge Edward Korman of the District Court of Eastern New York directed the Food and Drug Administration to lift it within 30 days.

If that’s a criterion for invalidating a law, the Left may yet rue Judge Korman’s decision. Can we turn him loose on New York City’s gun control laws, for instance? Or the Philadelphia New Black Panthers decision?

PersonFromPorlock on April 5, 2013 at 4:35 PM

You’re quite proud of your bigotry and stupidity, aren’t you?

And you assclowns don’t give one fat damn about children killed by guns – other than to use their coffins as a podium to try to wreck the Constitution.
If you cared about children, you wouldn’t have killed over 52,000,000 of them by abortion. And you wouldn’t be lobbying for the “right” to kill them if they happen to be born alive after an abortion attempt.

Children mean nothing to leftists. They’re just tools and pawns in your attempt to destroy America.

Solaratov on April 5, 2013 at 4:32 PM

BRAVO!!! You hit the nail on the head.

fight like a girl on April 5, 2013 at 4:37 PM

Is there is a drug that requires parental consent to buy? People keep bringing up parental consent like this is a field trip. I honestly can’t think of any drug that’s sold whether it be OTC or prescription that requires parental consent to buy.

segasagez on April 5, 2013 at 4:25 PM

Usually depends on state law. And like I cited in Washington, non-emergency care consent is under a “mature doctrine” where they have to be assured that the child consenting understands the treatment that he/she is consenting to. Which likely means that a pharmacist is not going to give over pills unless a parent is present. Those liberals states only make exceptions for abortions and those are no consent for ANY AGE.

There’s a difference between stores voluntarily not selling certain things to kids as a courtesy to their parents and stores being ordered (by the FDA, no less, and not even Congress) not to sell certain other things because something something “due process” something something “parental rights”.

Armin Tamzarian on April 5, 2013 at 4:31 PM

See above..

melle1228 on April 5, 2013 at 4:37 PM

really think there should be a minimum age requirement and a literacy test before someone can post on a political site. Half the time I think I am arguing with children. And equating an unborn human being with meat? Dear God, have mercy on us.

fight like a girl on April 5, 2013 at 4:34 PM

howdy girl,

you caught that too? Yeah, it’s pretty pathetic.

Have a great weekend,

Take care.

ToddPA on April 5, 2013 at 4:38 PM

I suppose meddling in the workings of the free market for “moral” reasons is one of those issues that has political crossover appeal.

Armin Tamzarian on April 5, 2013 at 3:56 PM

Who said this is about ‘morality’?

Resist We Much on April 5, 2013 at 4:39 PM

Usually depends on state law. And like I cited in Washington, non-emergency care consent is under a “mature doctrine” where they have to be assured that the child consenting understands the treatment that he/she is consenting to. Which likely means that a pharmacist is not going to give over pills unless a parent is present. Those liberals states only make exceptions for abortions and those are no consent for ANY AGE.

And this ruling has absolutely no effect on those, or any, state laws. It applies only to the FDA ban.

Armin Tamzarian on April 5, 2013 at 4:40 PM

The reason liberals love abortion so much is quite primal. It removes competition for the free stuff.

BobMbx on April 5, 2013 at 4:41 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4