Do you know if that means that the FDA could just backup and do the approval process again and conclude that it does not need to follow the pathway of a dangerous drug? If it aligned with other drugs that way, then legal arguments might be moot?
Honestly, this story doesn’t need to be covered as an opinion piece. The facts that we know at this point are damning enough. There are plenty of articles that cover it better: https://www.npr.org/2023/08/14/1193676139/newspaper-marion-county-kansas-police-raid-first-amendment
The paper didn’t initially publish anything. They were following-up on tips and doing some very basic journalism. They opted not to publish some inflammatory stuff because they were worried they were being used in a domestic dispute. The paper only published a story to defend themselves after they were accused of a bunch of stuff by the restaurant owner. Then the raid happened.
I hope everyone involved in authorizing/executing the raid gets absolutely brutalized by the legal system. They shouldn’t hold the positions they have because they’re clearly not qualified and the paper deserves significant compensation. The founder of the paper died the day after the raid; she was 98 and it’s very likely that the trauma of being raided by the police contributed to her death.
They claim to be anti-abortion. In reality, many of their policies lead to increasing abortions: defunding education, defunding birth control, etc.
I think the initial divergence in our thinking is how we define a person’s fair share. The U.S. has this pervasive myth that individual perseverance leads to achievement. That is, if you work hard enough then you can get rich and that’s the result of your own efforts. I’m not trying to discount the hard work that many people put into their success, but the reality is that they are benefiting from so many different things that they have no direct control over. The family you’re born into, the physical location where you’re born, your race/ethnicity, etc. These are all more significant contributors to success than individual effort.
A prosperous society supports all its citizenry in some way, but some people need a lot more support than others, and it’s through no fault of their own. People who are individually more prosperous should expect to contribute a proportionally greater amount to support society because they’ve already reaped the benefits of that society themselves.
If the wealthy put in a significantly larger amount while working they will be entitled to a proportionally larger about of withdrawal later.
Why?
The wealthy put in more money towards taxes that go to other things which everyone benefits from equally. The wealthy don’t get better roads just because they pay a higher tax rate. Why should they have uncapped benefits from social security? Retired folks being able to live off social security is a benefit to all of society, it’s not meant to keep people at a high income with no other inputs. The wealthy can benefit from social security just like everyone else, and payouts should be capped, but they’re currently benefiting from society at a greater rate pre-retirement so that should be reflected in their contributions today. If they want to be wealthy in retirement, then they have the means to invest and supplement their future social security earnings.
Edit: I just realized some of my statements conflicted a little. My point is just that tax contributions are not expected to deliver a 1:1 benefit to the contributor for the service that is collecting tax. You don’t put in $1 towards roads and get $1 back of road use, or $2 towards schools and get $2 of education back. We all contribute for the betterment and support of society at large. The wealthy can afford to contribute proportionally more. They are getting the benefits of their taxes back in greater proportion than the rest of us by way of their wealth, they do not make that money purely off individual effort. Supporting retirees ensures they are not a drain on society’s resources and it’s important that the wealthy contribute enough to make this possible.
I live in a blue state I love and my immediate family lives in a red state. I’ve seriously considered moving to be closer to them even though it would be a bit of a downgrade, geographically. However, I’m not going to move somewhere that my wife won’t be able to make her own decisions about medical care. We’re not sure whether we’re going to have kids yet, but there is no way we’d do it in that red state. And even if we decide not to go the kid route, things don’t always happen as predicted and I want her to be able to get all necessary medical care without having to drive to a different state.
I’d be okay with being blue in a sea of red, but not at the expense of my family’s health and safety.
She’s apparently made it her life’s work to abuse the vulnerability of both bio and foster parents by leveraging her “knowledge” in a way that favors kids being permanently separated from their bio family. There are certainly circumstances that warrant that kind of separation, but she and that lawyer’s office seem to be leading a campaign of child separation. That’s pure evil.