FlowVoid @ FlowVoid @midwest.social

Posts

0

Comments

466

Joined

2 yr. ago

Yes, this is very likely driven by fear of a malpractice lawsuit. Medications that can harm a fetus are supposed to be a last resort for those who can get pregnant. So if there are other potential medications for this woman, she will likely find it difficult to get a prescription for this one regardless of the doctor's religious beliefs.

This sort of thing has been common practice since long before Dobbs. And it is usually motivated by the doctor's fear of getting sued over birth defects, especially if there is an alternative prescription that is not known to be associated with birth defects. And there almost always is an alternative.

Imagine a coffee shop ad with a beautiful example of latte art, but when you get your latte you are horrified to find just plain foam. Unless the ad specifically mentioned latte art, I doubt you'd have grounds for a lawsuit.

As for your example, I'm finding it hard to imagine buying a car before getting inside it. A few dealers offer a pre-order option, but you can always back out of the sale once you see the car.

What definitions are in universal use?

No definition is in universal use.

meant to say gender when he said sex

He meant to say exactly what he said, and it was incorrect. He was not using your definition of sex. He was using it in the same sense as "I had a sex change operation".

Or "Now I want to change the sex on my birth certificate". Do you also chime in to inform people it's wrong to do that?

That just makes the therapy cost more per patient.

If a therapy costs too much, insurance will no longer pay for it.

And when insurance decides not to pay for a therapy that is only used by a handful of people, there are often only a handful of complaints.

Very few drugs are largely government funded. The government funds basic research, but it won't fund clinical trials. Pharma companies are almost entirely responsible for clinical trials, and they are way, way more expensive than basic research.

Most of what you perceive as "taste" is just using your sense of smell on food within the mouth, where it is very close to smell receptors.

To isolate taste informally, pinch your nose, stick your tongue out, and put food directly on the tongue when it's outside your mouth. You'll find that by itself your tongue can't distinguish many flavors, that's why everything tastes terrible when you have Covid or a bad cold.

No, the paper says it shares a receptor with sour, not that it tastes like sour.

Just as "orange" and "purple" have receptors in common but are not perceived as the same.

Umami is the fifth flavor. This paper is about the sixth, which doesn't seem to have a name other than "ammonium chloride".

Ok, but followers of Judaism and Islam do not believe in a "personal relationship" with God. In those religions only the prophets got instructions directly from God, everyone else has to read their respective holy books.

We are all born as social animals predisposed to superstition. Religion is practically inevitable.

Your definitions of sex and gender are not in universal use, and they are not the definitions used by Sunak. So his statement was not "correct", because what it meant was not correct.

it's something you mostly see among the poor.

It is, until it isn't.

And when it isn't, we should all cheer.

What a weird take. Nobody is punishing people who smoke.

This isn't really about a fine. Musk is being sued by other another company. They claim that Musk saved $200m on his Twitter purchase by failing to disclose in time. In other words he bought some shares that would have cost him more if he had disclosed.

Of course his savings was someone else's loss of potential profit, and they are suing Musk to get that profit back.

This isn't a criminal trial, so intent doesn't matter so much. The purpose of the trial will be to determine whether the plaintiffs lost money, and if so how much he owes them.

This is a civil lawsuit. The only question is how much money he owes the plaintiffs.

He bought the shares for his private account, not on behalf of his companies. There was no reason for accountants at his companies to get involved, they probably don't even have access to his private account.

Worse how?

The Speaker is ultimately a mouthpiece for the party. Speakers do not advance a personal agenda, they do what the "majority of the majority" wants them to do. The new Speaker will be no different in that regard.

However, a Speaker is also the point of contact for the opposing party. A Republican Speaker can disagree with Democrats about literally everything, but they shouldn't lie to Democrats, renege on deals, etc. If nobody can trust you, then you are worthless as an intermediary. So McCarthy was among the worst possible people for the job.

Most Republicans don't want a shutdown, they know it's political suicide. McCarthy made a deal with Democrats to avoid a shutdown because most Republicans (privately) pressured him to do so.

Most Republicans don't want a shutdown in November, either. They are the majority party so they have the power to choose a speaker who will avert one. So Democrats don't necessarily need a plan, the process may remain completely outside their control.

If Republicans end up needing Democratic votes to elect a Republican Speaker, then they will need to offer something to Democrats, because by itself electing a Republican Speaker is not in the interest of Democrats.

All of the above is already crystal-clear to both parties. The ball is in the GOP majority's court, they get to choose the next move: work together with the Freedom Caucus or work together with Democrats.