Comments by "Theodore Shulman" (@ColonelFredPuntridge) on "Forbes Breaking News" channel.

  1. Polio was a fact of life too.
    86
  2. Suppose you transplanted a beating heart, with a supply of nutrients to keep it beating, into a corpse. Then the corpse would have an audible heartbeat, until the supply of nutrients ran out. During that time, would the corpse with the beating heart inside it be alive? What if you transplanted the beating-heart-plus-nutrients into a manikin? Would the manikin be alive, until the nutrient-supply ran out and the heart stopped beating?
    21
  3. He's a fake, you know.
    11
  4. Do you know why the law against blocking clinic entrances and against trying to intimidate abortion patients and abortion workers at clinics was passed?
    8
  5. Were the Democrats really “trashing their incumbent?” Or were they raising legitimate concerns about their incumbents health ?
    8
  6. There are plenty of people alive today who haven't been inside their mother's body against her will. I, for instance, was welcome inside my mother's body, from conception until birth.
    7
  7. Because the murderer caused the fetus to die against the will of the womb-owner.
    7
  8. Personally, I think that someone who doesn't know anything about epidemiology or virology but thinks he knows enough to say whether or not another person who does know about these subjects is lying about an outbreak is a lil thing I like to call "stupid".
    6
  9. Who cares when life begins? If the life is inside my body, being sheltered and sustained by my organs, then I will decide how long it gets to stay there. Its life may have begun, but so long as it is inside my body, I will decide when its life ends. And I'm not gonna worry about what you think about my decision.
    6
  10. No, dear. Clarence Thomas is an Affirmative Action hire.
    5
  11. People trying to pay their bills don’t much care about the law of gravity, either, but the law of gravity goes on being correct even so.
    5
  12.  @notyourtypicalcomment2399  When a life is taken, and that life is inside your body at the time, then YOU get to decide whether or not taking that life was a crime. Inside your body there is no right to life for anyone except you, except if (when) you say there is one. Inside another person's body, the right to life is conditional on that person's will. Inside my body, you wouldn't have a right to life unless I said you had one, and if I did, I'd have a right to switch your right to life on or off like a bathroom light. "Now you have one!" "But now, you don't!" "And now, you do again!" "And now, it's gone!" Wheeeee! You see? Inside my body, I decide who has rights, and which rights they have, and when, and why, and how long. Because the inside of my body is the inside of my body. So I decide who gets to stay there. And other people's opinions don't matter. Including yours.
    5
  13. The money you send to the tax-man is not your money. It is the government's money. If it were your money, then you wouldn't have to send it to the tax-man. There is no such thing as money or property rights without laws to say what they are and a government to enforce the laws. Without a government, the words "mine" and "yours" would have no meaning.
    5
  14.  @drsomeone1  It doesn't matter anyway. What a fetus is, doesn't matter. What matters is where it is, and there is no scientific or factual debate about where it is. It is inside the patient's body - there's no debate about that - and therefore subject to her jurisdiction and decisions, not to yours.
    5
  15.  @WatchingyouWatchingme-p5s  Perhaps because the knowledge could lead to cures for addiction, chronic pain, and wilful ignorance?
    4
  16. Whirled peas
    4
  17.  @beno.9958  Inside my body, yes I do.
    4
  18.  @beno.9958  Why don't we force people to donate blood, tissues, and organs for transplant? Who gave you the right to condemn to death a patient who needs a transplant from your body, by refusing to donate? Write the answer here: _____________ Now copy your answer here: ______________ also gave me the right to get an abortion. Either you are entitled to decide which lives to sustain and shelter inside your body, or you're not.
    4
  19.  @beno.9958  I decide whom to sustain and shelter inside my body, and when, and how long. If you can't live without being sheltered and sustained inside my body, then you only get to live as long as I'm willing to allow access.
    4
  20.  @beno.9958  The problem with that bit of advice is that the patients who need abortions are already pregnant. What we need is a time-machine, so we can send someone - a gynecologist or a chaperone - back in time to prevent the conceptions. Get to work on this! Invent one!
    4
  21. ​ @francescapoteet5481  Don't focus so much on what the patient should or should not do. Focus more on what you should and should not do. You should not meddle inside the patient's body where your meddling is not welcome, and you should respect the boundaries on your authority. No matter how much you disapprove of what the patient is doing inside her body, inside her body is off-limits for you; you have no legitimate authority to intervene there. Mind your own business and know your place. Be grateful that if you get pregnant no one will try to force you to get an abortion if you don't want one. There are plenty of people in the world who cannot take the privilege of deciding whether or not to get an abortion for granted. The government which can force you to keep your pregnancy can also force you to abort your pregnancy.
    4
  22. Ukraine has great mineral wealth
    4
  23. What you have read is wrong. If the injection isn't successful, the doctors try another injection, again and again until one IS successful.
    4
  24. Re: “you can’t change the keys” I agree that you can’t introduce fully new keys like “this time the VP choice matters”. But as I understand it, the keys are based on the idea that voters will vote a referendum on The incumbent. Doesn’t it make some difference then that in this particular election both candidates are in a sense incumbents? Have we ever had a race between a sitting incumbent and a recently ex-president?
    4
  25.  @huntersdealer  Right you are! It's a Chinese bio-weapon, and the reason why the Chinese unleashed it when they did is very obvious to anyone who was up-to-date on the trends in classical music. There's an opera-- Puccini's last opera-- which is very challenging and not performed all that often, except by the really top-level companies, because it's so difficult for the singers. Puccini never finished it, but other lesser composers have composed endings. It's called TURANDOT and it is set in ancient Peking, or rather, in Puccini's fantasy of what ancient Peking was like. Now,TURANDOT was experiencing renewed popularity early in 2020; it was a big fad in the opera world. The Met was scheduled to do it in April, and several other opera companies like San Francisco Opera and Chicago Lyric Opera were gonna do it, and even the "little-grand-opera" companies like Regina Opera in Brooklyn and West Bay Opera in Palo Alto -- companies which cast young, still-unknown singers to give them a start on their careers, and which perform in small venues for audiences of fewer than 150 people, were getting ready to do it. It was also trendy in Europe. (These trends come and go.) This opera TURANDOT is very offensive to Chinese nationalists, because it depicts the Chinese people as superstitious, bloodthirsty barbarians ruled by a sadistic tyrant. But because of COVID-19, the companies had to cancel their performances. This was obviously what the Chinese government was hoping to accomplish by unleashing the virus at that particular time-- to prevent TURNADOT from being performed in Europe and USA. That is cui bono in this case.
    4
  26.  @freechair4890  Then let it be removed from the womb where it is not welcome, and go develop its own organs somewhere else, if it can.
    4
  27. If the rest of the world comes to think that we're about to default on our debts, we will be living the same way the Brits are living, in less than six months.
    3
  28. "It's called 'acting', dear boy." - Laurence Olivier
    3
  29. ​ @ronaldosalazar1994  Really? What company's stock did he illegally buy or sell, based on what inside information?
    3
  30.  @notyourtypicalcomment2399  The spouse is not located inside the husband's body. So the two situations are not analogous at all. RE: "Well, the mother can wait 9 months...." The 9 months are not the main problem. The main problem is what happens at the end of the 9 months. But even if it weren't, sure, the patient can wait 9 months, if she is willing to but if she's not, then you have no business trying to force them on her. Oh, and murder is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. No one here is talking about murder.
    3
  31.  @beno.9958  RE: "What problem occurs at the end of nine months?" Childbirth (doioioioi!). You shouldn't murder anyone, but you don't have to share the inside of your body with another person longer than you choose, either.
    3
  32.  @notyourtypicalcomment2399  A woman can also get an abortion in a moment of strength. And having respect for someone is very different from sustaining and sheltering him by allowing him access to the inside of your body. "I respect you, but I'm not going to give you access to the inside of my body longer than eight weeks; after that you'll have to do without" is a perfectly valid position to take.
    3
  33.  @notyourtypicalcomment2399  So long as the innocent child is inside a patient's body, the patient can do anything she likes to it.
    3
  34.  @notyourtypicalcomment2399  Because the event you are trying to interfere with is happening inside another person's body, and she has not invited you to interfere there. Here's an illustrative example (note: htis is not a metaphor or a simile or anything like that; just an illustrative example): suppose you were going to have your appendix taken out, and I thought (for some reason) that removing your appendix would be murder - a special, unusual kind of murder, but still, murder. (That sounds weird and delusional, but there are plenty of weird, delusional people in the world.) Like, suppose I thought that the individual cells of your appendix were human lives (they actually are, in a sense: they are alive and they are human) and that by removing them from your body your surgeon would be murdering them. And suppose I purchased some state legislators with big bribes/donations to their campaigns, and got them to pass bans against doing appendectomies. How would you respond? One possible way: you might try to convince me that I was wrong, that individual human cells of the appendix are not human beings. But the point is you shouldn't have to worry about what I would think, at all, because the appendectomy would be done inside your body. You should be able to say "even if removing my appendix really were a form of murder, even so, what I do or get done inside my body is none of your business, so go away!" You should be able to take for granted that inside your body the only opinion which should matter is your opinion, and that no one else be allowed to interfere with what you decide to do or get done inside your body, no matter what they think about it. And that is what we demand for the abortion patients: the right to make their own decisions about their own insides, without having to worry about what you or any other medically-illiterate loop-a-dupe has to say about the question.
    3
  35. Enduring full-term labor and delivery is harmful to health, not just to convenience.
    3
  36. Minding your own business is the answer.
    3
  37. Nuts. Most prison gangs survive because they work with the guards. It’s much easier for guards to keep order in a prison when the leaders of the gang are on board with them. So you get this kind of transaction where the guards don’t interfere with the gangs, and in return the gangs keep the inmates in line.
    3
  38.  @JackHaveman52  In some cases, the patient's has some underlying condition which makes natural delivery, and c-section (which is a major surgery) too dangerous to the patient's life. Congestive heart failure, for instance. Then you need to remove the contents of the head in order to make it easier to remove, and reduce her risk of dying. This isn't very common, but neither are third-trimester abortions.
    3
  39. And the answer is: who cares? If it's inside my body, then I'm gonna get rid of it when I want to, no matter when human life starts. And I'm not gonna worry about what you think.
    3
  40. Posturing as a tenacious bulldog.
    3
  41.  @annmalleybooks  Far and away the most effective way to prevent people from getting abortions later in pregnancy is to make it easy for them to get abortions earlier in pregnancy. Since Dobbs was decided and Roe overturned, clinics in free states which happen to be near anti-abortion states are seeing big jumps in the number of second-trimester abortions, because patients in the neighboring anti-abortion states are finding it difficult to schedule their abortions for times still in the first trimester.
    3
  42.  @drsomeone1  Exactly. Doing an abortion on a patient who requests one is a form of righteous, justifiable homicide, not murder, because the person killed is inside the body of another person, and unwelcome there.
    3
  43. Tax Leonard Leo and Harlan Crow!
    3
  44.  @annmalleybooks  Because battered women, and abused children, are not located inside another person's body. So it's ok to intervene. If a woman were being battered inside my body (somehow) and you wanted to intervene, then you would need my permission, approval, and authorization.
    3
  45. I'm glad that the building I inhabit Won't be invaded by Ashli Babbitt.
    2
  46. New York does more and better scientific technology development than any other state except California and Massachusetts.
    2
  47.  @jackmeoff9299  So far the public high school in NYC which I went to has produced: * Four Nobel Laureates (three in the sciences, one in Economics) * One Fields Medalist (the Fields Medal is like the Nobel Prize, but for math--there is no actual Nobel Prize in math) * Several winners of the Wolf Prize, which is one step below the Nobel * At least one winner of the Breakthrough Prize, which is BIGGER than the Nobel (more money) * Several members of the National Academy of Sciences * Numerous high-ranking academics and tenured professors in STEM fields, including the first female theoretical physicist ever to win tenure at Harvard, and the most influential geneticist alive today * Numerous successful entrepreneurs, lawyers, engineers, inventors, and physicians * Numerous successful writers and journalists * At least three actors whom you have almost certainly heard of and very likely seen on your screen (unless you are one of those people who never watch movies). And it shows no signs of slowing down. ("Nothingburger." ROTFL)
    2
  48. Right you are! It's a Chinese bio-weapon, and the reason why the Chinese unleashed it when they did is very obvious to anyone who was up-to-date on the trends in classical music. There's an opera-- Puccini's last opera-- which is very challenging and not performed all that often, except by the really top-level companies, because it's so difficult for the singers. Puccini never finished it, but other lesser composers have composed endings. It's called Turandot and it is set in ancient Peking, or rather, in Puccini's fantasy of what ancient Peking was like. Now, Turandot was experiencing renewed popularity early in 2020; it was a big fad in the opera world. The Met was scheduled to do it in April, and several other opera companies like San Francisco Opera and Chicago Lyric Opera were gonna do it, and even the "little-grand-opera" companies like Regina Opera in Brooklyn and West Bay Opera in Palo Alto -- companies which cast young, still-unknown singers to give them a start on their careers, and which perform in small venues for audiences of fewer than 150 people, were getting ready to do it. It was also trendy in Europe. (These trends come and go.) This opera Turandot is very offensive to Chinese nationalists, because it depicts the Chinese people as superstitious, bloodthirsty barbarians ruled by a sadistic tyrant. But because of COVID-19, the companies had to cancel their performances. This was obviously what the Chinese government was hoping to accomplish by unleashing the virus at that particular time-- to prevent Turandot from being performed in Europe and USA. That is cui bono in this case.
    2
  49. Who cares if it's alive? If my organs are sustaining it and sheltering it, then I will decide how long it gets to stay alive. And when I decide, I'm not gonna worry about whether or not you approve.
    2
  50.  @3Betanzos  Life has lots of value in and of itself. But not enough to justify forcing a pregnant patient to shelter it and sustain it inside her body by use of her internal organs against her will. You are not allowed to do that even though your life has value.
    2
  51.  @charlesjohnson3625  Yes, of course I am pro-choice. And pro-life.
    2
  52. The goal is (probably) to learn why the animals are so excited on cocaine. Surely even you can see why that would be useful to know.
    2
  53.  @zachariah1990  Yes, I knew that. But how is it relevant to a discussion of funding basic science?
    2
  54. Many biologists would hesitate to define “woman” too. I know; my profession was in bio-science.
    2
  55. Very good. Now, try posting what she really said.
    2
  56.  @wesleyashley99  That depends on what you were trying to achieve (on what your definition of "success" is). It was not correct, though.
    2
  57. No one who knows anything about virology would say what you just said.
    2
  58.  @alanjm1234  Q: Where do they get virgin wool? A: From ugly sheep!
    2
  59. RE: "What’s the first thing the doctor does when he turns to you and says your grandma has passed away ?" He checks to see whether or not her insurance plan will pay for his services. That's the first thing he does.
    2
  60. Don’t you want people to read what you post?
    2
  61. Why? The point of posting on social media is to get people to read what you post, isn’t it?
    2
  62.  @sandie1112  For what crime?
    2
  63.  @notyourtypicalcomment2399  You're right that the fetus is not violating the woman's rights. Right-to-lifers are the ones who are violating the woman's rights. The fetus is an innocent beneficiary of the violation which the right-to-lifers' violations. Just as (here's a clarifying analogy) when Robin Hood broke the law by stealing from the rich and giving it to the poor, the poor were not guilty, but they benefited from Robin Hood's violations. The poor should not have been punished, but they shouldn't be allowed to keep the money either.
    2
  64.  @francescapoteet5481  RE: "That child is separate from the mom although inside her body." Then let it be removed from her body (if that is what she wants) and be separate in a separate place (for as long as it can, which is usually somewhere between ten seconds and five minutes). Own the separateness! Celebrate the separateness. Maximize the separateness! Let there be separateness in great abundance, since it is so important to you. RE: "... it is a living human being on its own and has rights as well." Yes, but like your rights and mine, its rights stop at the barrier defined by the patient's skin. Inside your body, there are no rights for anyone, unless you say there are. Inside my body, I decide who has rights, and what rights they have, and when, and why, and how long. Inside my body, I can switch everyone else's rights on and off like an electric light. Inside my body, if I decree that you have rights during odd-numbered times of day and no rights during even-numbered times of day, my decree makes it so.
    2
  65.  @notyourtypicalcomment2399  No sir. Laws against abortion don't only require us not to kill anyone. They require that one person be forced, by the government, to grant access to the inside of her body when she does not want to. Enduring a whole pregnancy, and childbirth, is not a passive, nothing kind of thing. It's an affirmative undertaking and a bloody great imposition. Like submitting to a major surgery for someone else's benefit, not yours, and not resisting,
    2
  66.  @beno.9958  How the woman became pregnant does not reduce or invalidate her right to choose how long to remain pregnant. Her responsibility is to choose wisely, and it is a responsibility to herself. You complain that it's not fair to the fetus. Well, the fetus which gets conceived and aborted gets to live a short life between the time when it is conceived until the time when it is aborted. If she had been more careful to avoid conceiving it, then it wouldn't even get that short time! And that would be worse. A short life is better for the one who lives it than no life at all. So I find it very difficult to feel sorry for the fetus. Sure, it would be better to get more life than it gets, but the short life it gets is better for it than no life at all. Nobody gets to live as long as he wants to live. Especially, nobody whose living requires the use of the insides of another person's body gets to live as long as he wants. He only gets to live as long as he can get the other person to authorize the use of the inside of her body to keep him alive. Too bad for him!
    2
  67.  @helenn6061  "Natural" doesn't matter. As far as morals, ethics, and philosophy go there is no "natural" and "unnatural". Any moral or ethical predicate or imperative which applies to natural things or in natural situations, applies equally well to artificial things and in unnatural situations. To argue otherwise is to commit the "Naturalistic fallacy" or the "Appeal-to-nature fallacy". Undergraduate philosophy majors learn this, usually in Freshman year.
    2
  68. I can tell you what her answer would be: "Senator, changing the law will not be part of my job. That is YOUR job."
    2
  69. You have no idea what a total shutdown would do.
    2
  70.  @Repdem  Right. If Rand Paul wants to cut Federal spending, let's start by cutting the budgets of Fort Campbell and Fort Knox by 45%, and see what Senator Paul has to say about that.
    2
  71. How to would you know?
    2
  72.  @divinenation22  If we had not isolated and purified the virus, how in the world would we know, and be able to modify, its complete RNA-sequence???
    2
  73.  @divinenation22  Where's your evidence that it doesn't? You are the one pushing a non-mainstream opinion so the burden of proof is on you, not on me.
    2
  74.  @GODHATESADOPTION  It's not really all THAT complex. Most ophthalmologists spend most of their time replacing lenses which have cataracts. Takes about 20 minutes and has a very low complication-rate.
    2
  75. ​ @sherrillsturm7240  Agree. Every doctor knows that things are not as cut-and-dried as he is trying to make out. As a politician, Rand Paul also knows that the public can be bamboozled by pretending that epidemiology is an exact science or that specialty-vocabulary (like the phrase "gain-of-function") doesn't change over time or vary in meaning depending on who is saying it to whom and in what context. James Jordan is the same. He shouts at Fauci: "The American people want to know how many need to be immunized in order to return to normal! We want the number! Don't talk mush, just GIVE US THE NUMBER!" He knows perfectly well that the number depends on what we do, how we behave. But he pretends that there's a simple answer.
    2
  76.  @jimmycricket5366  Rand Paul? He'd be out of his league.
    2
  77. You feel that way because you don't understand what is happening, what is involved. Spend a few years volunteering on an OB ward.
    2
  78. "My work is on nursing homes; I'm a health-care economist." "That's outside my scope." "That's not for someone in my position." Jim Jordan seems determined to compel this poor guy to express opinions about subjects he doesn't know anything about. 3:30: Now Jordan is grandstanding. What a waste of the witness' time.
    2
  79. To me it looked like she was trolling him, pretending to take his childish "gotcha" theatrics seriously.
    2
  80.  @dannygrounds7119  A paper one.
    2
  81.  @HemiBurns  The definition would depend on context. "Woman" means something very different in a discussion of, say, neo-Darwinian biochemical evolution of an x-linked recessive genetic disease, from what it means in a play by Shakespeare or a novel by Robert Graves! And it might mean something different from all of those, in the context of a law which defines the term in an unconventional way. Did you know, for instance, that in one law (I don't remember which law it was but it's an often-cited part of American family-jurisprudence pertaining to divorce in the state of New York) the term "mother" is explicitly defined in the law's "definitions" section as including step-mothers? So if one of the parties to a lawsuit involving that law were to say "the law only says that the child's mother has authority over the child; the child's stepmother has no authority!" the judge would have to answer: "You are wrong, because the "definitions" section defines "mother" to include the stepmother; I therefore rule for your opponent here, not for you."
    2
  82. It is a scarce procedure. Less than one million per year in a country of more than 300,000,000? That's less than one per 300 people, which is pretty scarce. I mean, if you had a lot of jugs full of 300 red cherries each, and in each jug only one of those cherries were yellow rather than red, you'd say that the yellow cherries were pretty scarce, wouldn't you?
    2
  83.  @ajolleyduck2933  If the three year old is located inside the parent's body (somehow) then yes, the parent may kill the three year old, and doing so is justifiable homicide, not murder. If (as happens more often) the three year old is not located inside the parent's body, but is outside the parent's body, then no, the parent may not kill the three year old; doing so would be murder, and not allowed. I hope this makes things clear for you. I am trying to write as simply and directly as I can.
    2
  84.  @BeeBlot  And we can fix the gun problem by being clever and innovative, too.
    2
  85. Not yet.
    2
  86. Yeah, Ted, gun-control alone won't fix the problem. But more cops and shrinks without gun-control won't fix it either. We need more cops, more shrinks, AND more gun-control.
    1
  87.  @jackmeoff9299  Your screen name is appropriate for your intelligence level. The public high school in NYC which I graduated from is still one of the best high schools in the world - public, private, vocational, or charter.
    1
  88.  @max420thc  That's not true. Dems have the biggest two or three - Soros, and Bill Gates- but the Elon-Musk types, the Scaife family (who inherited Andrew Mellon's fortune), the much larger level of guys who own single-digit-number of billions, are all Republicans.
    1
  89.  @jackmeoff9299  Not at the public school I went to. It was very rigorous and still is.
    1
  90.  @TUKByV1  Stuyvesant High School. Look it up.
    1
  91. Don’t worry! The fourth amendment protects Americans from unreasonable seizures.
    1
  92. There is no such thing as a reliable lie-detector test.
    1
  93. Because Harris, unlike Trump, is not sold to malignant foreigners
    1
  94.  @vickiroman189  All together now, kids: gimme an H! Gimme a Y! Gimme a P! Gimme an O! Gimme a T! Gimme an H! Gimme an E! Gimme a T! Gimme an I! Gimme a C! Gimme an A! Gimme an L! Whaddowegot now? That's right, kids! HYPOTHETICAL!!!!
    1
  95.  @wayando  When did human life ever have great value??? When have human beings ever lived in peace, except for a few minority groups in places like Pennsylvania?
    1
  96.  @charlesjohnson3625  No, the debate is about whether or not being a human life entitles it to be sheltered and sustained inside another person's living body, against her will and in spite of her active efforts to get rid of it. (The answer is NO!)
    1
  97. Yeah, let's cut spending. Start by cutting the budget of the Fort Knox Army Base in Kentucky by 45 percent. Let's see how Rand Paul votes on that!!
    1
  98. Yeah, it's legislative extortion and it's wrong. And the Republicans are gonna vote against it and be blamed for risking a default. Joe Biden is not senile; he's a very very clever, seasoned political warrior who knows everything and has seen everything. The Old Mongoose, the political counterpart to boxer Archie Moore.
    1
  99.  @Harbinger_of_nurgle  How would you know? Do you know anything at all about the history of science and technology?
    1
  100. In what context?
    1
  101. What would you do if the vaccine companies refused to sell vaccines in USA any more? That's what they did back in the day. The US government backed down every time - they didn't want their voters to have to live without polio vaccines.
    1
  102. Re: “Every republican member of this committee asked the Chairman to hold a hearing on anti-Semitism in February!” Why? Is anti-Semitism in February any worse than anti-Semitism in March, or in April, or in any other month?
    1
  103. By all means, let's have the Federal government investigate these attacks. I want to know: how many of the attacks are false-flag attacks staged by right-to-lifers? Some of them look awfully fishy. Why is there no information about this? Start by finding out where every employee and regular volunteer at each vandalized clinic was at the time when the clinic was vandalized. Trace their locations! The fund-raising power of false-flag operations is so large, and so obvious, and so in keeping with the way the Republican Party operates today, that if they were not staging false-flag attacks, you'd have to try to figure out why not.
    1
  104. What if the infant has a condition for which there is no medical care?
    1
  105.  @TheSignofJonah777  What if it can't be saved? What if it has no lungs and no skin?
    1
  106.  @TheSignofJonah777  Conducting what?
    1
  107.  @clhowy87  That's not true. There are plenty of conditions which are compatible with life inside the woman's uterus, but not outside it.
    1
  108.  @clhowy87  That's not true, especially if "live" is "having a heartbeat which can be detected by ultrasonography or doppler amplification". But even if you use a more realistic definition of "live fetus", there are still conditions which are not deadly to the fetus until it is separated from the pregnant woman, but then are deadly. Ectopia cordis, for instance. We don't need people like you who don't know about this stuff trying to regulate medical practice. Stay out of the clinic and leave medicine to medical people (paraphrasing Dr. McCoy).
    1
  109.  @jennmcdavitt3782  No, not sick. Well-informed. Unlike you.
    1
  110. Awww. Cry me a river. So far right-to-lifers have murdered eight abortion workers in USA. You all can start bitching after someone actually murders somebody for being pro-life, if anyone ever does.
    1
  111. Let’s cut federal spending! Start by zeroing out Ft. Knox and Ft. Campbell (both in Kentucky). Sound good, Senator?
    1
  112. We need Ukraine’s lithium and rare earth metal ores. !!!!
    1
  113. Who paid for your work? The taxpayers?
    1
  114.  @loaded.357  No, what she said included the all-revealing line "... in this context? ..." That shows that she is thinking about the fact that the term "woman" means different things in different laws, depending on how the particular law defines the term "woman" in its "Definitions" section. And that is the point: It is part of a judge's job to avoid bringing a personal definition of a word into the courtroom; the definition may be different in different contexts, or defined differently by the text of the law itself, from what an ordinary Bozo or an uneducated, unrefined hick (like Senator Blackburn) might think it means. Regarding the sex-offenders: that accusation was based on one case, in which the defendant was himself barely over-age (19 years old) and the prosecutor only asked for a very short sentence. So the prosecutor in that particular case, not Ketanji Brown-Jackson, was soft on the crime.
    1
  115. ​ @loaded.357  In 2019 she sentenced one to 29 years. Not months; years.
    1
  116. I’m 1979 there were money market accounts paying 13%.
    1
  117.  @gcallananpainting  What are you talking about (if anything)??
    1
  118. So let me get this straight: the allegations are that FBI is targeting CATHOLICS, under the administration of JOE BIDEN? Newsflash: Joe Biden is Catholic. A devout, practicing, mackerel-snapping wafer-eating Poper-scoper, in fact.
    1
  119.  @eyealter  So can we agree that if the vaccine turns out to be harmful, then the guy who had it approved at "Warp Speed" should pay for all the damages?
    1
  120. It is clogged and understaffed. Hire more judges and agents to make it work.
    1
  121. "Fungible" means "tasty in mushroom sauce". The root is fung, as in "fungus". The Italian for "spaghetti with mushrooms" is "spaghetti con i funghi".
    1
  122. Because they are smarter than you.
    1
  123. Or maybe they know something which you don’t know….
    1
  124. The (obvious) right answer to this whole dispute is: we should develop a new vaccine which, instead of only targeting the spike-protein, also targets the other two proteins which are on the surface of the virus, as well as the spike protein. (The two other proteins are called "E" for "envelope" and "M" for "membrane". There's also a protein in the virus called "N" for "nucleocapsid", but that one doesn't appear on the surface of the virus, only in the interior of the virus, so, vaccinating against it would probably not make much difference.) A vaccine which elicits antibodies against all three proteins would almost certainly be just as protective as a previous infection, and unlike an infection, would not risk being passed on to an elderly or immuno-compromised patient who might die of it. Natural immunity is great, but not if the price of waiting to get it is killing grandma, or killing your friend who has HIV, or killing your brother who is getting chemotherapy for cancer.
    1
  125. If that were true, how would you know???
    1
  126.  @theegyptianconqueror7100  In 2015, Senator Rand Paul fought very hard to PREVENT cuts in wasteful Federal military spending at Fort Campbell and Fort Knox - both of which are in his state (Kentucky). He wants to cut Federal spending in YOUR state and in MY state, but keep those greasy Federal pork-dollars coming into HIS state. He's a posturing hypocrite. An actor.
    1
  127. Yes. Even Rand Paul is part of the swamp. He talks the budget-hawk's talk, but in 2015 when the Federal government was cutting wasteful military spending IN HIS STATE (Kentucky), he fought against the cuts like any other pork-addicted senator. He wants to cut Federal spending in YOUR state, and in MY state, but not in HIS state. He'll never drain the swamp, because he IS the swamp.
    1
  128.  @efirce  No they're not. The dollar is still the lingua Franca of international finance. If and when the world abandons the dollar, it won't be a gradual thing. It'll be very sudden and there won't be any question of why it's happening.
    1
  129. No, believing in a secure border doesn't mean you're racist. It means you're stupid.
    1
  130.  @jackmeoff9299  The stupid part is imagining that a border hundreds of miles long can be secured at all. Most illegal immigrants crossed legally anyway, but didn't leave when their visas expired. There's really only one way to stop illegal immigrants and that would be to punish employers very severely for employing them. And that won't happen, because we need them. No one is serious about stopping them and if we did stop them prices would shoot up and no one would be able to afford food. De Santis has tried to impose a purely symbolic penalty against trucking companies which hire illegals, and the hispanic truckers are refusing to deliver in Florida.
    1
  131.  @Chiclette-ld1xx  A technical point: there is no "moment of conception". Conception is a process. It takes about 24 hours. The sperm-head fuses with the egg, and then the paternal chromosomes slowly make their way through the ooplasm to the nucleus of the egg, and then take up their positions beside the maternal chromosomes and begin directing mRNA synthesis (and, ultimately, protein synthesis), and THEN the process of conception is complete and you have a true diploid cell.
    1
  132.  @ajota2288  That's true, you shouldn't just create it and erase it, but you don't have to sustain and shelter it inside your body longer than you want to, either.
    1
  133.  @ajota2288  Exactly. But you could phrase it better: If you don't want it, don't grow it. Get rid of it early on so that it doesn't grow.
    1
  134.  @hauteemonroe6715  Yes, but they're no good for a patient who is ALREADY pregnant. It's too late to prevent her pregnancy.
    1
  135. There's purposeful theater every time anyone, on either side, talks about Ukraine. When Democrats talk about Ukraine, they are playing purposeful theater, because they say that we're helping the Ukrainians because they're brave, or because they are resisting tyranny, or because "their struggle is our struggle". Please. We're not babies; you don't have to pretend that there's a Santa Claus or a Tooth Fairy. We're helping the Ukrainians because we hope that when the war winds down and the bidding begins, they'll give us preferred-buyer status on those lovely rich deposits of lithium, rare-earth metals, and other strategic minerals they have. To talk about Ukraine and leave this out is pure theater. When Republicans talk about Ukraine, they are playing purposeful theater, because they don't admit that helping the Ukrainians in exchange for preferred-buyer status on the strategic-mineral goodies is a very good investment, well worth the money we're putting in, if the Ukrainians manage to win. And they are much more likely to win than we were in Iraq or Afghanistan, because the natives in Ukraine (the Ukrainians) like us and really do welcome our help. It's not like Afg or Iraq where we were knocking over the local government and hoping that the people there would thank us for it, and imagining a regional movement in support of us when there was none. To talk about Ukraine and leave this out is pure theater.
    1
  136. Do you know why the law. Against blockading clinics was passed?
    1
  137. Why were they guaranteed immunity? What is the history of that guarantee?
    1
  138.  @timothynaquin8899  WRAWWWWG!!! The policy is much older than that.
    1
  139.  @timothynaquin8899  I ask in order to determine whether you know what you are talking about or not. So far: NOT! The vaccine manufacturers were granted immunity, and a special vaccine-only court system for evaluating lawsuits, because they were being sued out of business by morons filing junk-lawsuits which were being decided by know-nothings who didn't understand the issues. So the companies went to Congress and said: fix this and protect us, or we will stop selling vaccines in USA altogether. Ask your constituents whether they want to go back to the days when everyone worried about getting polio and spending the rest of their lives in a wheelchair like FDR.
    1
  140. Is there an expectation of privacy when you post on social media??? Isn’t the idea that you post stuff because you want everybody to read it???
    1
  141. Great idea. And then, the world will lose faith in the dollar, and it won't be the automatic go-to currency any more, and we'll have to pay for stuff we import using Euros, Yuans, and Yen. We'll be living like the Brits are living now.
    1
  142. Dr. Wade says "there's new scientific evidence". But some of the new information the Department of Energy used for their new evidence is classified. So how would Dr. Wade, who no longer works for the government, have seen it? And if he hasn't seen it how does he know whether there's any new evidence?
    1
  143. Fauci sounded clear, lucid, and reasonable. The Congresswoman sounded like a whacko.
    1
  144. Biden probably would win if he’d stayed in
    1
  145. So Senator Paul wants to cut spending? Ok. Let’s start by zeroing out Fort Knox and Fort Campbell (both in Kentucky). Sound good, Senator?
    1
  146. No, abortion is not murder. When it is done at the request of the womb-owner, it is a form of righteous, justifiable homicide.
    1
  147. It's more likely a first-pass demonstration of technology which might be used to make a bio-weapon in future. When someone makes, and unleashes, the actual bio-weapon, you'll know. There won't be the least little shred of doubt.
    1
  148. He's responsible because we put him in jail if it happens. That makes him responsible.
    1
  149.  @FindfreedomInChrist-yb7ns  RE: "It is our business if it’s a.) permitted by law and b.) uses tax dollars to provide for it." But it doesn't cost you any tax dollars. It SAVES you tax dollars. Every abortion prevents much greater expense. You are being forced, by your government, to pay ... LESS, and to be ... RICHER. RE: "We don’t want to participate in killing unborn babies in the womb." There is no such thing as THE womb. Every womb is part of a woman's body. It's HER womb, not "THE womb". Wombs have owners, and the owner of each womb is entitled to say who gets to live inside HER womb, and when, and HOW LONG.
    1
  150. It is certainly far above your capabilities.
    1
  151.  @noway742  Hardly! A remark about someone's religion is not the same -- not even "about the same" -- as a comment about his intelligence and capabilities.
    1
  152. Catholics were involved in the murders of several abortion workers in the 1990s. There was even a priest who called openly for more murders in the name of the Church. He was never excommunicated, either. His name was Father David Trosch.
    1
  153. Did you know that the word "gullible" isn't in the dictionary? Look it up, you'll see, it's not there.
    1
  154. This guy should be acting in horror movies and slasher-flicks. He's equal parts Jack Nicholson playing the Joker and Anthony Hopkins playing Dr. Hannibal Lekter.
    1
  155. Yes, science says life begins at conception, but true philosophy says that women should be able to get abortions anyway, even though life begins at conception.
    1
  156. That's what they said in the 1970s: "we'll never be able to pay the debt!" Then the digital revolution happened, and the computer industry emerged.
    1
  157.  @davidjennische335  We already have digital currency. We have had it since banks first started using computers, back in the 1970s and 80s. Or do you imagine that when one government makes a big payment to another government, they ship truckloads of cash?
    1
  158. Who cares? They're designed to kill and injure people, and that is what they're used for. That's all you need to know.
    1
  159. The only people less trustworthy than the Democratic Party is the establishment Republican Party, and the only people less trustworthy than the establishment Republican Party are the Trumpies.
    1
  160.  @jeffb5785  You don't do your cause any good by saying things which are obviously false (like that the Democratic Party is "full of terrorists".) Any normal person who looks at that will instantly write you off as a loop-a-dupe, not worth reading. The Republican Party has a serious problem now: for five years they have been in thrall to a cult leader who is unlike any previous president in my lifetime (I'm almost exactly the same age as you), in that all previous presidents - even Nixon - wanted to be, in some sense, good presidents. Our disagreements were over what makes a president "good", and over what to do in order to be that (however you define it). In contrast, the former-president doesn't care at all about being a good president. He just wanted - and wants - to do what he has always tried to do, which is: get is followers (the suckers) to send him more money sooner and faster. In order to be competitive again, the Republican Party will have to convince the voters that they can function as serious politicians, serious leaders, again. This will take time, and careful strategic planning. Saying "the other guys are terrorists" won't get it done. In fact it can only appeal to the people you need to separate from.
    1
  161. You wouldn't like living without the government. Your family would die of poison in their food, and you'd be the first in line trying to sue the farmers.
    1
  162. Then instead of a few very long bills, we'd have a very large number of shorter bills. No real benefit!
    1
  163.  @connorhill8889  Would we have been able to accomplish the Moon mission with only state governments working on it? I would say probably not, because the work had to be coordinated in a top-down way, even though much of it was done by local projects.
    1
  164.  @connorhill8889  Sure, it's easy to do something for the second time, when you don't have to deal with the risk that it might turn out to be impossible or non-feasible.
    1
  165.  @connorhill8889  The astronauts were trained in the (Federally funded) US armed forces; and, besides giving money to the engineers, the government also gave $ to basic scientists, who cannot be funded by profit-seeking private money (since basic science doesn't work on what WILL bring profit to its backers; it works on what MIGHT bring profit to SOMEONE, SOMETIME in the POSSIBLY VERY DISTANT FUTURE, most likely in COMBINATION with other bits of BASIC science funded the same way (government or charity and charity is not reliable). Please stop thinking like a kid reading comic books. A real-life program isn't like dreaming up an Iron-Man body-armor suit which also enables the wearer to fly or a radar-sense which enables a blind man to fight like a TaequanDo master. In real life, you have to work within the real rules - the laws of physics and the laws of economics. That means you can't solve real-life problems by saying magic words like "free market, free market, cut taxes, cut taxes". You have to engage the real problem and work with real laws of chemistry and physics, or the project won't succeed, and if you rely on economic fairy-tales, you won't be able to start.
    1
  166.  @ChaoChromeMessor  it's not a matter of my definition; it's a matter of the law's definition. "§ 248 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances. "(a) PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES.—Whoever— "(1) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person because that person is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services; "(2) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship; or "(3) intentionally damages or destroys the property of a facility, or attempts to do so, because such facility provides reproductive health services, or intentionally damages or destroys the property of a place of religious worship, shall be subject to the penalties provided in subsection (b) and the civil remedies provided in subsection (c), except that a parent or legal guardian of a minor shall not be subject to any penalties or civil remedies under this section for such activities insofar as they] are directed exclusively at that minor. "(b) PENALTIES.—^Whoever violates this section shall— "(1) in the case of a first offense, be fined in accordance with this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and "(2) in the case of a second or subsequent offense after a prior conviction under this section, be fined in accordance with this title, or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both; except that for an offense involving exclusively a nonviolent physical obstruction, the fine shall be not more than $10,000 and the length of imprisonment shall be not more than six months, or both, for the first offense; and the fine shsdl be not more than $25,000 and the length of imprisonment shall be not more than 18 months, or both, for a subsequent offense; and except that if bodily injury results, the length of imprisonment shall be not more than 10 years, and if death results, it shall be for any term of years or for life."
    1
  167.  @ChaoChromeMessor  What are you talking about?
    1
  168.  @3075bridget  That is not what I mean. I mean, do you know the history? What event (or rather, what sequence of events) prompted the government to enact the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances ("FACE") law? What was the government seeking to prevent from recurring?
    1
  169.  @stormyweather9917  I know better than you how abortions are done. And intimidation is defined by the laws and the courts. No one is getting arrested just for carrying a sign.
    1
  170.  @stormyweather9917  We no longer try to dehumanize the unborn baby. (The 1970s were a long time ago now, you know.) We say yes a fetus is a live human person, but pregnant women are entitled to get abortions anyway, and it's not murder when they do; it's a form of justifiable homicide. Not because of what a fetus is, but because of where it is.
    1
  171.  @stormyweather9917  There are several ways. The only ones I don't know much about are the ones late in pregnancy. It's hard to find doctors who do those, because there are so few patients who want them, so I've never been able to find out many details about how they are done.
    1
  172. Why?
    1
  173.  @davidwomack5982  What's to investigate?
    1
  174.  @710earl  HAhahahahahaha Funny joke
    1
  175.  @brieziethirteen13  If you had been working with viruses for even one year, then you would know that Fauci did not "bulid" the virus (not even his worst enemies say that he had any direct hand in it; so far the worst they have said is that he has some responsibility for funding Chinese scientists who built it). Well, perhaps you can explain the difference in life-cycles between coronaviruses (which carry their genetic information in the form of RNA) and retroviruses (which also carry their genetic information in the form of RNA). What do retroviruses do which coronaviruses do not do, and how does the difference affect their different life-cycles and the different courses of the diseases they cause? If you have taken even one course which includes any information about viruses, you should be able to answer that in a few seconds without looking it up. I'm betting you can't even if you do look it up!
    1
  176.  @uplanddigitaldreamer  But being falsely accused, by for-profit conspiracy-theory-minded loop-a-dupes, of treason, crimes against humanity, conspiracy, and lying to Congress, is not punishable at all.
    1
  177.  @divinenation22  You don't have to prove or disprove anything! And that is a good thing for you, since you can't. But if you don't, then there's no reason for anyone to bother with your opinion. I go with what the mainstream says UNLESS someone shows that it's wrong (ie disproves it).
    1
  178.  @divinenation22  There you go again, with this silly idea that ordinary people who don't know virology or epidemiology can form an opinion about COVID which is worth anything. Now, I am a retired antibody chemist and I know a bit about this - but I resist the urge to form my own opinion, because my expertise does not include virology, so I don't know enough. You, whose expertise does not include any biology at all, should resist the urge to form an opinion even more vigilantly. You should have only one opinion: the true opinion that you don't know the answer.
    1
  179.  @brieziethirteen13  As I thought. You know nothing about this, but you have an opinion about it even so. That means you will be stupid forever. (Sorry to give you bad news.)
    1
  180.  @Kobisashi  If you don't know English, I can't help you.
    1
  181.  @brieziethirteen13  I'm sorry: what were you trying to prove by posting this patent?
    1
  182. If they are religious hospitals, then they shouldn’t be getting Medicaid anyway.
    1
  183. Biden is clever. He could have gotten the debt ceiling fixed during the lame-duck session. But he didn't. Now the Republicans will have to choose: EITHER be responsible for the worst financial disaster in human history, OR cave and face the wrath of their disappointed loonie base.
    1
  184. They were right
    1
  185. A better translation would be: "I don't rule according to my personal preferences. I rule according to the law."
    1
  186.  @alittlewheiser521  Of course it doesn't! I'm not specially entitled, except inside my body. And you are specially entitled inside your body. That's why we don't let the government force you to get an abortion (any more).
    1
  187. RE: "What happens when Americans finally start knocking on their doors at their homes?" Those Americans will be shot for being dangerous trespassers, same as you would do if a visibly hostile stranger started knocking on your doors at your home. That's (most likely) what would happen.
    1
  188. Can you define what a woman is?
    1
  189.  @HemiBurns  Well, yes, I probably could, if I thought about the question. But you see, I AM a biologist (strictly speaking I am a retired antibody-chemist, but antibody-chemistry is a form of biology, obviously, and most of my career was in the business of inventing antibody-based medications, which is a bio-science), so the fact that I can define what a woman is doesn't have any bearing on Ketanji Brown-Jackson not being able to define it because she's "not a biologist". But this is all moot anyway, if you take the trouble to watch or read what she actually said. She was talking about the fact that many laws have "definitions" sections which define the terms used in the text of the particular law, including terms which are commonly used differently in ordinary conversation. Words like "woman", "parent", "child", "mother", "father", "caregiver", and part of the judge's job is to interpret the law according to the definitions given in the law, or, if the "definitions" section doesn't include the term in question, according to current technical/scientific jurisprudence, not according to the way a stupid uneducated grunt/hick like Senator Blackburn might use the term in ordinary speech. (Oh, I shouldn't call her "uneducated": she did graduate from college with a major in ... home economics!!! LOL).
    1
  190.  @HemiBurns  The point is you can define "woman" many different ways, and a judge is supposed to define it in the way which is most relevant to the case she is presiding over and judging, according to the definition given by the relevant law itself, if it gives one. The judge is NOT supposed to walk into the courtroom carrying the burden of a pre-decided definition.
    1
  191.  @RootzRockBand  Excuse me. I'm not trying to steer anything. I'm only pointing out that something can display an audible heartbeat and still not be alive. Therefore, an audible heartbeat, by itself, is not enough to qualify as evidence of human life. Any claim you make that this is "steering" the conversation in any direction is something from you, not from me. Personally, I don't care if an unborn baby is alive, or when life begins, or any of that distractive govno. Even if it is alive, if it's inside my body, being sheltered and sustained by my internal organs, then I get to decide how long to let it stay there, no matter what it is and no matter what will happen to it when it leaves. I would be entitled to get rid of it even if it were a fully-aware person, standing up inside me, playing a violin, and solving previously-unsolved math problems. If all the human beings in the whole world were (somehow) located inside my body, then I would have a right to get rid of them, or, to spare the ones I like, and get rid of the ones I don't like. If God were located inside my body than I would have a right to kill God.
    1
  192.  @drsomeone1  You can survive several minutes - without a heartbeat. Brain damage usually begins after five minutes.
    1
  193.  @drsomeone1  RE: "but if the baby is aborted at 35 weeks because the woman simply doesn't want him..." Then you are living in some alternative universe, not this one.
    1
  194.  @annmalleybooks  Mengele is irrelevant
    1
  195.  @ajolleyduck2933  There is no such thing as the "natural order of life".
    1
  196.  @maggie648  I was welcome inside my mother's body. My mother chose to have me, willingly. If I had been unwelcome, I would rather be aborted than have the government force her to carry me against her will. If you were any kind of a human being at all, you would feel the same way about your mother.
    1
  197.  @3namechangezalowdevry90day7  Delivering the baby before it is viable ex utero is called "doing an abortion".
    1
  198.  @3namechangezalowdevry90day7  Sure, if the patient is willing to shelter and sustain it inside her body that long, and, if she is willing to endure the delivery when the fetus is that large. I thought we were talking about situations where she's not willing.
    1
  199.  @3namechangezalowdevry90day7  RE: "You're still trying to claim "castle doctrine"?" No sir. Body doctrine. Medical autonomy. RE: "Castle doctrine applies to a threatening intruder, not an innocent family member...: Of course! But body doctrine is not subject to any such limitation. It applies to everyone. Absolutely everyone, with no exceptions. It applies to God Himself. RE: "... you invited in..." Only for a short stay, to be ended when I say, regardless of all other considerations. RE: "... and who can't leave for medical reasons. ..." See above.
    1
  200.  @Alice-iu7gx  No, I'm not comparing anything to anything and I'm not making a "'gotcha' argument". I'm pointing out the true fact that hearing a heartbeat does not necessarily indicate life. It could indicate a fake heartbeat.
    1
  201.  @Alice-iu7gx  A baby's heartbeat can be faked too. There are fetuses which have heartbeats but no brains and no minds. And there are fetuses which have heartbeats but also have defects which render them unable to survive more than an hour after being born. That's what Governor/Dr. Northam (who used to be a pediatric neurologist before he went into politics) was talking about.
    1
  202. No he's not. He's only pretending.
    1
  203. Senator Graham asked "Can an unborn child feel pain 20 weeks into the birthing process?" Her answer was pretty good: "I don't know". I would have answered: "Senator, I have never heard of anyone whose birthing process lasted 20 weeks. If there were a childbirth in which the process (sometimes called "labor and delivery") lasted 20 weeks, I don't know whether the baby would feel pain, but I'm quite sure the woman giving birth would. (Brrrrr!)"
    1
  204. Doesn't matter what it is. What matters is where it is. My ownership of my body includes a right to kill anything located inside it. Anything. If ALL the human beings in the whole world were (somehow) located inside my body, then I would be entitled to kill any of them or all of them. If God were located inside my body, then I would have a right to kill God.
    1
  205.  @GT-dh5nk  Or, you can sharpen your wits, and find a way to change the facts of life. We invented the polio vaccine. We can invent a gun vaccine too!
    1
  206. Of course, what she meant was "we have to pass it to see whether it will work".
    1
  207. That's less than 2% of abortions. Maybe less than 1%.
    1
  208. RE: "What would happen if we all just didn’t pay our taxes, and put that money into building our families and local communities?" You'd get arrested and sent to prison. Next question, please.
    1
  209. Jim Jordan is probably not as stupid as he pretends to be.
    1
  210. HOW?
    1
  211. Prison beds are expensive. Where’s your money?
    1
  212. Good! That means she won't be ruling based on what she thinks the law should say; she will rule according to what the law does say.
    1