Ok, I'll bite: Tell me about all the great reasons to allow on-demand elective abortions at 6 months. Please couple them a thoughtful explanation of why the life and rights of the unborn child are not a legitimate concern to you at that point of development.

The amount of time doesn't matter — what matters is that the RU-486 prescription, like all prescriptions, is not safe for all people, at all times. This is why we have controlled substance laws to begin with. (I assume you don't think that people should be able to get get whatever medicine they want,whenever they…

You're right: it is safe to prescribe for about 67 days after the last period (9.57 weeks), not 8 weeks. A whole week and a half difference!

I don't know what state you live in, but where I have lived (WA and CA) that isn't really an issue because the State picks up the tab for income-qualified patients.

RU-486, the drug combo described in this article, IS NOT JUST A HIGH DOSE OF BIRTH CONTROL.

I'm curious: how does this methodology define "latina models"? Are all those gorgeous Brazilian and South American models lumped into the category based on region of birth, or are they basing it on appearance of skin color. For example, if Giselle and/or Adriana Lima walked, would they be considered to be white or…

As you wish. If you decide that you would like to talk in a civilized manner, my doctorate degree and I will just be sitting over here in our little fact-based corner of the internet.

Aspirin doesn't induce miscarriage and carry along with it all sorts of immediate and serious health risks, including death.

Who cares that you could go to jail, lady? That is on you.You know what I care about? That your ignorant ass could fucking kill someone.

nothing at all to do with health, just want to fuck with people who need abortions

That would be a sign that you think you're better than ... them.

First, what you makes you think it affects me, either way?

True, true. But "omg there are racists are racist on Twitter!" isn't a very good story. It is certainly less interesting than fat-shaming bitchy girl takes crown from her predecessor who she fat-shamed.

To be fair, that is just a low-cut and well-fitted dress. Not a suit. :)

What 'makes sense' and what the law says doesn't always align (for me), especially when talking about negligence cases.

They are the licensing body, in my understanding.

I don't think there is an 'assumption of risk' argument to be made here, at least not a great one. There isn't 'express' assumption of the risk, because we don't an agreement between the parties. So, it can only be implied assumption of the risk.

If an adult fighter wants to have some surgery done, and she assumes the risks involved, then so be it.

That anything which is the worj of an "artist-surgeon" is expensive to repair and thus must be banned isn't their position, and therefore your statement isn't taking anything to any conclusion, let alone a logical one.

Why? For the douchiest, stupidest possible reasons.