Adding the actual FDA link since it's not behind a paywall. Looks like they've looked at data going all the way back to 1973 to assess the efficacy and safety of the dosage. That will be an important bit of knowledge when the inevitable lawsuit comes out "because the FDA didn't do their due diligence."
[https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-nonprescription-daily-oral-contraceptive]
If she's not a Russian asset, she's at least parroting their talking points.
Multiple intentional mistranslations. Added to that cherry picking which gospels you want to add because some of them contradict the religion you're trying to build.
I did not write a full dissertation on my personal feelings on religions role in societal growth and collapse because I didn't think it was relevant. Therefore, you really do not have any basis for judging what it is I need to research or learn to distinguish. I may agree with your world view, but I have not given you any data with which to make that conclusion.
A literal interpretation of the old testament bible. And the idea that a nearly 3000 year old collection of verbal teachings by a mostly tribal society is still applicable today. There are a lot of rules there that if they followed would lead to some hilarity. Some that would lead to a lot of heartache too. [https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_actions_prohibited_by_the_Bible] The evangelicals ignore the parts of the new testament they don't like and the new covenant that Jesus represents. Read that as they ignore the parts about love and compassion for your fellow human; living with grace and kindness.
I grew up and was quite active in the UMC. Seeing stories like this give me some hope that the church is finding it's way again after the evangelicals took over. The evangelicals seem to be the ones that are leaving, btw. I left long ago and consider myself non-religious due to the evangelical movement that's grown so powerful these days.
I decided to look up the church's position and found it here: [https://www.umc.org/en/content/ask-the-umc-what-is-the-churchs-position-on-homosexuality] Still leaves a lot to be desired, but it's a step in the right direction. Albeit very small step.
This comment section really gives me pause though. You don't have to agree with someone's spiritual or religious views, but you should respect them. Now, if those religious views are hateful and encourage violence, then yes by all means call them on their BS. I'll hold the bull-horn for you and have your back if things go sideways. But the hate and anger in this comment section was aimed at the people that are trying to change the church for the better, not those that left because they hate the LGBTQ+ folks. Seems folks forgot the humans.
She’s been especially popular with conservatives, who promoted her as a perfect symbol of how overly theatric and inane progressives can be — like when she attacked the Supreme Court’s affirmative-action decision last week by saying “no Black person will be able to succeed in a merit-based system.” The tweet was viewed more than 27 million times.
There had to be signs before it got this far...had to be. Any word yet on who (or what group) was behind the account? This is like that "liberal leaning" TikTok account that was exposed as being faked. I'm very careful of quoting or up voting any emotionally charged hot-takes on things, especially when I agree with them. It's hard to tell when people are acting in good faith these days.
Yeah, I agree with you on that. I think the article, and even the researchers, are utilizing a lot of word play between violence, aggression, vengeance, retribution, and anger. I think the study can be useful for showing that more research needs to be done in treating aggressive tendencies in people to make sure the proper methods are being used. However, I do not think it's anywhere near debunking conventional wisdom.