Chris Christie says 2024 primary will feature Trump, Tom Cotton, Hawley & Ted Cruz, & will force voters to choose between 'party of me or party of us'

No.

I repeat, what is the difference between the mountains of other healthcare regulations and outright bans/requirements for states to follow on other procedures. Restating your assertion whilst ignoring the question does not bolster your point. It only makes it look as though your assertion was not based on anything.

So, state why abortion cannot be banned/required at the federal level but a host of other medical procedures falls under their regulatory power.
Really? List the procedures that are banned under federal law. You can't because it is a state function.

I just moved from KY to TN. My medical procedure that I have done now at Vanderbilt University Hospital in Nashville is light years different than the same same procedure I had at Baptist Hardin Hospital in KY.

My medical insurance will pay for a liver transplant at the University of Kentucky, but won't at Vanderbilt. Why is that? Sure there is a federal law regulating that?

Wrong answer. I am dealing in reality whereas you are living in your fantasy world.
 
Really? List the procedures that are banned under federal law. You can't because it is a state function.

I just moved from KY to TN. My medical procedure that I have done now at Vanderbilt University Hospital in Nashville is light years different than the same same procedure I had at Baptist Hardin Hospital in KY.

My medical insurance will pay for a liver transplant at the University of Kentucky, but won't at Vanderbilt. Why is that? Sure there is a federal law regulating that?

Wrong answer. I am dealing in reality whereas you are living in your fantasy world.

One such very recent example. The FDA has declared that several stem cell procedures are dangerous and therefore illegal and subject to their regulation as they use, as ALL procedures do, specific drugs. The FDA and the CDC are the avenues that the feds can both mandate and deny specific procedures.

AFAIK, it is also federal law that emergency rooms offer certain types of care to anyone that enters the ER and if they do not they are subject to both legal ramifications and civil ones.

I will give you that these are not direct control but they are control all the same. There is noting that is stopping the FDA from declaring that abortifacients are either outright banned and those drugs no long allowed to be administered OR that they are required to be made available to people in specific situations.
 

One such very recent example. The FDA has declared that several stem cell procedures are dangerous and therefore illegal and subject to their regulation as they use, as ALL procedures do, specific drugs. The FDA and the CDC are the avenues that the feds can both mandate and deny specific procedures.

AFAIK, it is also federal law that emergency rooms offer certain types of care to anyone that enters the ER and if they do not they are subject to both legal ramifications and civil ones.

I will give you that these are not direct control but they are control all the same. There is noting that is stopping the FDA from declaring that abortifacients are either outright banned and those drugs no long allowed to be administered OR that they are required to be made available to people in specific situations.
Fail.

None of those are medical procedures. Stem cells are a treatment. Emergency room care is not outlawing treatments. As you said, they are not direct controls, so you already knew you failed. The recent SCOTUS decision makes abortion a state's right to govern. Passing any federal law outlawing abortion is in direct conflict with that ruling overturning Roe. v. Wade. You would need a new SCOTUS decision making a federal mandate possible.
 
Fail.

None of those are medical procedures. Stem cells are a treatment. Emergency room care is not outlawing treatments. As you said, they are not direct controls, so you already knew you failed. The recent SCOTUS decision makes abortion a state's right to govern. Passing any federal law outlawing abortion is in direct conflict with that ruling overturning Roe. v. Wade. You would need a new SCOTUS decision making a federal mandate possible.
Are those procedures legal or not?

No, they are not. Should the FDA outlaw abortifacients, how would that be different?
 
So they did not outlaw the use of those drugs?

So those drugs are legal to use in those procedures then.

Is that what you are saying?
Congress outlaws drugs, not the FDA. Dingle-fritz!

The FDA can do nothing not authorized by Congress. The EPA has a LONG history of doing just that and having their pee-pee smacked by the courts.
 
Christie also left himself off the list, even though he ran in 2016 and has recently made the rounds with other GOP leaders trying to wrest back control of the party from Trump.



Would this be the same Chris Christie who closed the beaches but availed himself of the fun for himself and his family?
 
Congress outlaws drugs, not the FDA. Dingle-fritz!

The FDA can do nothing not authorized by Congress. The EPA has a LONG history of doing just that and having their pee-pee smacked by the courts.
And yet, I just showed you how the FDA did exactly that.

Congress gave the regulatory power over the the alphabet soup feds a LONG time ago.

You can whine about nomenclature or how things are supposed to work but functionally it is simply not the case. I am talking about the real world. You are trying to refer to some sort of simplified ideal. In the real world, the FDA has enormous regulatory leeway in what it does and what the specifics are in its regulation. And that regulation amounts to the exact same thing as congress making something illegal.


The current court MIGHT reign this in. I remain skeptical that they will though.

So, dingle-fritz, are you really denying this regulatory power lies within those agencies?
 
And yet, I just showed you how the FDA did exactly that.

Congress gave the regulatory power over the the alphabet soup feds a LONG time ago.

You can whine about nomenclature or how things are supposed to work but functionally it is simply not the case. I am talking about the real world. You are trying to refer to some sort of simplified ideal. In the real world, the FDA has enormous regulatory leeway in what it does and what the specifics are in its regulation. And that regulation amounts to the exact same thing as congress making something illegal.


The current court MIGHT reign this in. I remain skeptical that they will though.

So, dingle-fritz, are you really denying this regulatory power lies within those agencies?

Show me the law that that says the FDA can do this other than Congress. Good luck!

The FDA cannot just decide tomorrow to legalize marijuana just because they think it is the right thing to do.
 

Forum List

Back
Top