Someday it would be nice to see judicial decisions on women's healthcare be supported by science instead of a Constitution written by mostly men.
this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2023
129 points (98.5% liked)
News
23305 readers
3644 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Allowing unproven medical procedures on the basis of religious freedom is truly a wacky preposition.
Agreed then it should at least be labeled as faith item, not medical.
What exactly are you suggesting? Sorry, if I missed your point
It should say right on the top of the box.
FAITH ITEM - NOT MEDICINE
or something like that.
"These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. Not intended to treat or diagnose any illness, medical condition, etc."
But more like this: 
That it isn't medicine. It was pretty clear.
Are you suggesting that a massive dose of progesterone should not be considered medication? Because that’s what this article is about.
He's suggesting that "medicine" has effects backed by some reasonable amount of scientific study. Telling people to ingest random substances that don't have that is essentially witchcraft, not medicine.
But if you want to label progesterone as “faith items”, don’t they become even less controlled? If they are labeled as a medical item (or whatever makes sense to keep nut jobs from ‘prescribing’ it) wouldn’t they fall under more observation and inspection and control? The whole reason I’m asking these questions is because it seems like you all want to give religious nut jobs the ability to dose people with hormones as part of a religious ritual. Is that what you all are saying? I did say at the beginning that I might be misunderstanding.
I see your point, but I'm pretty sure there's a legal way to both prohibit doctors from prescribing it and from witch-doctor nutjobs from "prescribing" it.
Do you know what progesterone does?
Yeah, it’s a hormone. Which is why I imagine any synthesis of it would be controlled like a medication and not declared as a faith item. But maybe I misunderstand
It shouldn't be able to be marketed as medicine, because medicine is held to a higher standard. Kind of like how supplements and naturopathic stuff can't claim to be medicine.
Well, I assume progesterone has some valid medical uses as a drug…. This ain’t that, though, and they’re should create a law that says “medically unproven treatements are bad and can get you canned”…
…. (Oh wait. They have that, don’t they?)
Yeah, imagine if it was any other religion. Hell I’m not dumb enough to throw money at fighting for proven medical procedures that my religion blesses
If biology for humans were such that both participants had an unpredictable, uncontrollable, 50/50 chance to carry the baby, abortion access for all and would be a non-issue.
Alternatively, if Jerry Falwell never existed, it still wouldn't be nearly as contentious an issue.
Humans in any meaningful numbers never fail to find a group of their own to single out, marginalize, and persecute out of schadenfreude.
You're supposing the judge obeyed the Constitution here. He did not; freedom of religion is not freedom to defraud, and the people selling this drug are committing fraud.
*mostly white men who would be rather confused by the whole thing.
Partly because abortions were common if not particularly talked about.
One wonders, how many people have asked for this treatment? I’m guessing it’s not super common, and quite possibly the lawsuit is wishful thinking.
The first time someone has an adverse reaction, it's over. The medical community is protected by the fact that things are heavily tested and regulated. If you have a complication related to a treatment, it will be a known risk. When you give someone snake oil and they die from it, you're done.
I was asking how frequently people want to reverse abortions in the first place, not how safe it was.
(Which, it’d safety would be impossible to test ethically. “Well we’re going to give you the first part of an abortion pill and then try to reverse it… your baby should be fine” )
Gotcha. It Is a strange thing to want.
I assume the few legitimate reversals are derived more from family/friends finding out and being shamed for not wanting a baby. If that ever happens at all.
24-48 hours isn’t a lot of time for things to suddenly get better, but I suppose it is possible. That said, this wouldn’t be the first time lawsuits have been brought because people”might” be affected
Once this reversal thing is a thing the next phase is to demand counseling appoinments be held in between pills.
And before.
Yeah.
LOL your religious liberty is to use quack medicine now?