(Newsweek) California Law Allows Doctors To Send Abortion Pills Anonymously

[Chomsky]

That's a bit late.

"What's" a bit late?

 

[Chomsky]

Ok, arrest me for possessing of blood pressure medication in the first degree.

Look, I'm not saying this happens to everyone. But no one can predict the results of a traffic stop - if unidentified pills are discovered.

Why risk it?

And I certainly wouldn't cross any international borders doing such.

 

[dcsports]

Yeah, it literally is. Followed by a prescribed medication that is sent to the patient.

More broken, circular, logic.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

More broken, circular, logic.

Yes, your logic is broken. Thanks for noticing.

California is doing what they have to do to protect the prescribed and the patient.

If you don't like it, take it up with red-state scumbags who are actually causing the issues that made this a necessity.

 

[dcsports]

You are trying to fabricate non-existent risk differences.

You are disconnected from the reality of modern medicine and committed to promoting unethical and unnecessary restrictions on health care for women.

roflol. It's very real risks. And clearly, it's you and some others that are disconnected from 'the reality of modern medicine' - and condoning this unnecessary and unethical law in california.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

roflol. It's very real risks. And clearly, it's you and some others that are disconnected from 'the reality of modern medicine' - and condoning this unnecessary and unethical law in california.

You're making shit up.

Just stop.

The red-state rhetoric is not needed.

 

[dcsports]

Yeah, they are practicing medicine in the state in which they are licensed.
[deflection removed]

Again, no. It's where the patient is. That's established medical practice.

 

[dcsports]

The risk is not increased. It's exactly the same..

Incorrect, as I've explained.

It is appropriately labelled. It's logged. That information is in a place where red state ratbags cannot get it.

And now you are highlighting the risk. The issue isn't that the 'red state' can't get to it. It's that the people providing care when someone has an issue can't get to it.

 

[dcsports]

This simply isn't true. Being sent a medication in the early stages of pregnancy is not risky and it's not invasive.

I didn't say it was 'invasive'. It is risky to remove safeguards - like medication labelling that tells who prescribed a medication and to whom.

Not PRO-ABORTION. [deflection removed]

You are certainly advocating strongly for it.

 

[dcsports]

I agree. You bring-up valid points, Thanks for your critical thinking, on this.

Thanks for the reasoned discussion. The hyperventilation on this thread is quite sad.

 

[dcsports]

Doctors will know what the medication is for. The patient will know why they are taking it. - If there is an issue, they can go to an ER or urgent care.

Clearly, you don't understand what the labeling is for. What if the patient can't tell the doctor? Or is afraid to? Or if it wasn't prescribed to them? Or they can't remember the name?

No, there is not. This medicine is not known to be addictive nor is it a controlled substance. This is an excuse.

It's a very real concern. No one said it was a controlled substance. There is absolutely a high chance that someone gets the medication and sells it or 'gives it to a friend' for whom it wasn't prescribed. Or that they lie in the tele visit in order to get the medication.

 

[Chomsky]

Thanks for the reasoned discussion. The hyperventilation on this thread is quite sad.

No thanks needed (but appreciated).

 

[dcsports]

Yes, [deflection removed]

You're making [deflection removed]

You are struggling. Why don't we discuss the issue, and stop this name calling and deflection?

 

[ColdHardTruth]

I didn't say it was 'invasive'. It is risky to remove safeguards - like medication labelling that tells who prescribed a medication and to whom.

Nonsense.

You are certainly advocating strongly for it.

I am advocating for free choice without religious interference.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

You are struggling. Why don't we discuss the issue, and stop this name calling and deflection?

Your attempts are weak.

Just stop. Also... editing another person's post to make it appear they said something they did not is against the rules.

You should stop.

 

[Spock]

So if the police come upon an individual with loose controlled substances, can it be assumed they might not have suspicions as to the circumstance of the drugs?

Granted, it's less likely with an abortion drug. But would the cops no it's an abortion drug? And who knows? In reaction to California's actions here, a Red State may train it's police to identify the pills and interdict them - if there's no prescription.

Abortion drugs are not controlled substances. Don't fall for the misrepresentation. Your namesake would be disappointed.

 

[Spock]

roflol. It's very real risks. And clearly, it's you and some others that are disconnected from 'the reality of modern medicine' - and condoning this unnecessary and unethical law in california.

Your level of ignorance of the subject, your entrenched mistaken belief in your own infallibility and your underlying RW prejudice makes further discussion futile

 

[ModernDiogenes]

How would the coppers know who the legal recipient is?

They wouldn’t, unless they sat on it to see who came to claim it.

 

[dcsports]

Nonsense.

'uh uh!' is noted.

I am advocating for free choice without religious interference.

And yet, that's not what you are advocating.

Your attempts [deflection removed]

Not interested in deflection and name calling. Let me know if you want to discuss the actual issue.

 

[dcsports]

Your [deflection removed]

And yet, you keep demonstrating a lack of understanding of the topic. Your replies are 'you are wrong' and insults without offering anything valid as an actual response.

As stated before - Not interested in deflection and name calling. Let me know if you want to discuss the actual issue.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

'uh uh!' is noted.

And yet, that's not what you are advocating.

Yes, it is. You are advocating for women to be the property of their fathers or husbands. That is not acceptable.

Not interested in deflection and name calling. Let me know if you want to discuss the actual issue.

Your surrender is accepted.

 

[Demon]

Look, I'm not saying this happens to everyone. But no one can predict the results of a traffic stop - if unidentified pills are discovered.

Why risk it?

And I certainly wouldn't cross any international borders doing such.

Why risk it? Why did women risk coat hangers?

 

[Demon]

It will likely all be moot anyway. Brainworm has the FDA reviewing the safety of mifepristone, based on a study by the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

Kennedy Says FDA Reviewing Safety of Abortion Pill Mifepristone - Drugs.com MedNews

MONDAY, Sept. 29, 2025 The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is reviewing the safety of mifepristone, a drug used in medication abortions for 25 years, am

www.drugs.com

Here's the bias rating of the Ethics and Public Policy Center:

Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) - Bias and Credibility

RIGHT BIAS These media sources are moderate to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may

mediabiasfactcheck.com

 

[Chomsky]

Why risk it? Why did women risk coat hangers?

You realize the other poster and I are discussing blood-pressure medication, right?

 

[Chomsky]

They wouldn’t, unless they sat on it to see who came to claim it.

My reference to which you replied were to law enforcement encounters.