Comments on: October 12 roundup

By: Bill Poser

Bill Poser — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 21:37:46 +0000

Jack Olson@Just a guess, but some same sex marriages are in fact legal in California, namely those contracted after the CA Supreme Court legalized them and before the passage of Proposition 8. The proposition did not have retroactive effect. It may be that the plaintiff and her lover married during the period in which it was legal to do so.

By: Jack Olson

Jack Olson — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 21:04:34 +0000

The newspaper identified the plaintiff’s lover as her spouse and a party to the lawsuit. Yet, California law specifically prohibits marriage between people of the same sex. Then, isn’t the newspaper description inaccurate, and by what right is the woman’s girlfriend a party to the lawsuit? What legal right of hers has been denied if the clinic refuses fertility treatment to another woman she is unrelated to?

By: nevins

nevins — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:48:40 +0000

The lesbian desiring medial assistance for her ‘infertility’ does not seem infertile in any medical sense.
She may need a man like a fish needs a bicycle; but she needs some of the little swimmers from the man.

By: Charles Platt

Charles Platt — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:05:39 +0000

Re first-amendment rights and drug labeling: Search online for

“First Amendment Aspirin”
(include the quotes to restrict the search to that specific phrase)

and you will find that many years ago, Life Extension Foundation (LEF) marketed low-dose aspirin under this trade name. The label suggested taking it for the FDA-unapproved but medically justified purpose of reducing the risk of strokes and other cardiovascular events.

FDA warned LEF to cease and desist. LEF refused. So FDA went to the company that actually manufactured the pills and supplied them to LEF. The manufacturer bowed to FDA pressure.

Today, you can still buy low-dose aspirin in any pharmacy. This dosage is specifically intended to reduce cardiac risks, but manufacturers are still prohibited from saying so.