5 ms·
FDA says abortion pills can be sent by mail
- kemayo 5y agoSeems reasonable to me. It's an approved medicine for home use, so you should be able to get it in any way you can get other such medicines.
- AutumnCurtain 5y agoIt might seem simple, but Christians wield immense power in America and will not hesitate to attempt to make their beliefs legislation. Opposition to this isn't coming from a logical argument about legality, it's about hindering abortion access at all costs.
- trhway 5y agoUber broke the dictature of the local medalion laws, AirBnb broke the dictature of the local zoning and hotel laws,... I think there is a similarly or even larger business opportunity at technology based breaking of the dictature of those conservative/Christian/etc. forces at local and state levels.
- notreallyserio 5y agoIn this case it'd be a much smaller subversion than AirBnb/Uber's as we've had fully legal medicine deliverable by mail for a long time.
- LordDragonfang 5y agoApples to oranges. Functionally no one builds their identity politics around being "pro-taxi-medallions" or "pro-zoning". In contrast, one of the major players in American politics made a concerted effort to fabricate a wedge issue (to mask their actual policies having become socially unpalatable), and spent decades pushing that narrative to cement it into identity politics. [1] https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133/ https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-ri... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/15/opinion/abortion-evangelicals-conservatives.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/15/opinion/abortion-evangeli... [3] https://www.npr.org/2019/06/20/734303135/throughline-traces-evangelicals-history-on-the-abortion-issue https://www.npr.org/2019/06/20/734303135/throughline-traces-...
- jtbayly 5y agoYes, murder should be ended at all costs.
- Bud 5y agoSorry, you might want to look up what "murder" means. The real definition in use in our society, that is, not the one you wish were true.
- jtbayly 5y agoIf each society defines what murder is, China can sell body parts from Uyghurs and you've got nothing to say about it if you're outside China. And if you're inside China, the same is true: "you might want to look up what "murder" means. The real definition in use in our society, that is, not the one you wish were true."
- toomuchtodo 5y ago> But a new study published last week in The New England Journal of Medicine, which reviewed data from more than 84,000 abortions, found no increase in complications after Canada made mifepristone available by a doctor's prescription in 2017. Canada made it available in 2017 with a prescription with no increase in complications. This policy update is long overdue considering the challenges of obtaining healthcare in the US. https://www.npr.org/2021/12/15/1064598531/the-fda-could-permanently-lift-some-restrictions-on-abortion-pills https://www.npr.org/2021/12/15/1064598531/the-fda-could-perm... https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa2109779 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa2109779
- cheschire 5y agoIs a state legally allowed to search and seize private post if something is against state law that isn’t against federal law? Or is that one reason the postal service is federal?
- ksherlock 5y agoIt's federal because the Constitution says so (see Section 8; Powers of Congress). Items sent via USPS can be seized with a warrant. Items sent by other carriers do not need a warrant, just a suspicion.
- KiranRao0 5y agoDoes this apply to other non-federal carriers (UPS/Fedex)?
- olliej 5y agoThe warrant requirement only applies to USPS. UPS, etc only need suspicion to provide parcels to law enforcement
- CoastalCoder 5y agoI'm curious though if states in which purchase/use is illegal (by state law) can successfully have the sellers extradited for trial and/or seize their in-state assets.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Bud 5y agoExcept the Constitution doesn't say so. Not anymore. Not with the current 6 right-wing votes on SCOTUS. From here on out, the Constitution says whatever Judicial Watch and the Federalist Society say that it says.
- kabdib 5y ago
- anonymouswacker 5y agoThis definitely will not be misused by abusive men.
- dang 5y agoPlease don't post unsubstantive comments on divisive topics. That's against the site guidelines because it leads to flamewars. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- seattle_spring 5y agoSo your perspective is that this drug should remain unavailable "for the safety of the women"? Oh jeezy Petes...
- dang 5y agoPlease don't take HN threads further into flamewar. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- decremental 5y agoI understand what you're trying to accomplish. This topic is heated. To me, you'd have to be a ghoul to celebrate this. How can one come at this with an opposing view without it being considered flamebait? (Not saying the GP wasn't being inflammatory.)
- melony 5y agoCan this be extended to arbitrary pharmaceutical drugs that are approved on the federal level?
- olliej 5y agoAny logic a state uses to circumvent a constitutional right can be used to circumvent literally any other law, because if the logic can circumvent the actual constitution then by definition it can circumvent every other law.
- kevin_thibedeau 5y ago$10,000 to snitch on the mail man in states that claim to value the principles of American liberty. Easy money.
- dang 5y agoPlease don't take HN threads into flamewar. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- motohagiography 5y ago> ... relaxing the federal regulations could have some effect in maintaining access in the face of a Supreme Court ruling that guts abortion rights. If conservative-led states are allowed to fully prohibit abortion, it is likely that abortion seekers -- particularly in the South and Midwest -- will have to drive hundreds of miles to reach their nearest clinics. It's a policy hack to circumvent state legislatures that may restrict it, which is probably the more interesting part of the issue. I understand it tactically, but it seems like an inflection point on the integrity of the union. It's a weak move that signals a lack of popular assent, and suggests federalism is on its back foot even without its critics in power. The issue is the lynchpin of individual feminine autonomy and the question of whether a society is contstructed to serve men and women as equals, or the society provides people exceptions and relief from every other harsh element and conseqeunce of nature except this one - and then what the demarcation point of this society and its laws happens to be. It is a very pragmatic and necessary natural freedom, but it's a very thorny right to enforce with anything less than a "shall make no law" constitutional amendment about bodily integrity, and it seems almost easier to argue about moralities and legalisms around abortion than to reconcile the enforcement of it as a right with the powers, legitimacy, and the reach of a the state. I think articulating a constitutional amendment that makes a rule about the government instead of women is probably the best way to resolve it.