Here's an example how we end up with thousands upon thousands of pages of silly regulations in this country: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsme...oposes_bill_to_outlaw_aborted_hum.php?ref=fpb Oklahoma GOPer Proposes Bill To Outlaw ‘Aborted Human Fetuses’ In Food An Oklahoma Republican is pushing a bill to outlaw the use of human fetuses in food, because, as he says, “there is a potential that there are companies that are using aborted human babies in their research and development of basically enhancing flavor for artificial flavors.” State Sen. Ralph Shortey introduced a bill on Tuesday “prohibiting the sale or manufacture of food or products which contain aborted human fetuses.” Though he has allowed that he is not aware of this occurring in Oklahoma, or anywhere for that matter, Shortey cited research he did on the internet that claimed that some companies use embryonic stem cells to help develop artificial flavoring. “It would be a public relations nightmare for a company to use” aborted human fetuses for R&D, Shortey told KRMG Radio, so when asked they usually say something like “we strive to do things ethically.” “I’m not entirely sure if there are any” companies doing this, he continued. “But the fact is that there is a potential that there are companies that are using aborted human babies in their research and development of basically enhancing flavor for artificial flavors. And if that is happening — because it is a possibility — and if it’s happening then I just don’t think it should even be an option for a company.” Shortey added that if you took this idea to its logical conclusion, you could “force every human being” to be an organ donor, “and that’s kind of what we’re doing with these children. Before they’re born, we’re going to kill them and then we can do anything we want to with your body.” “You may think it’s ethical to kill a child in the womb,” he said. “But the question now before us is: is it ethical to then use that aborted child for research and development to enhance flavors in food?” You can listen to the full audio of the interview here. U.S. Food and Drug Administration spokeswoman Pat El-Hinnawy told the Associated Press that the “FDA is not aware of this particular concern.” And Tony Lauinger, the executive director of Oklahomans for Life, a pro-life group that has pushed anti-abortion laws in the state, said “I don’t know anything about that.” The bill will be taken up by the Senate Human Services Committee in February. Shortey did not return TPM’s request for comment.
OK legislature bills need to be sponsored anonymously, this guy's doing nothing but trolling for campaign contributions. If you're honestly, truly pro-choice, it's time to start cutting some checks.
Interesting. So if Dodd-Frank puts restrictions on what banks can do, you don't consider that to be regulating the banks? But if they tell the SEC to put restrictions, they would be regulating the banks?
Power to legislate is vested solely with Congress (see Constitution, Article 1), it cannot cede legislative authority to a decree-issuing executive agency Only kings and tyrants and politburos issue edicts, but that's how our regulatory agencies operate. In fact, many laws make agency heads defacto rulers over their area of authority, with language like "The Secretary of X shall have the power/discretion to determine Y or exempt Z" An elected representative is perfectly capable of consulting experts before casting a vote. Just say no to rule by unelected "experts".
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8Sp-VFBbjpE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
lol. reminds me of last year when the Louisiana state legislature outlawed "animal-human hybrids". Brilliant.
If someone can abort/kill a fetus, then surely they would have no problem eating if edible. To make a distinction would be illogical to me. While I'm sure baby fetuses are not appetizing to anyone, there are far less appetizing things we knowngly and unknowingly consume in an average diet.
That's like saying if someone can execute a prisoner then surely they would have no problem eating prisoners.
Sure it can - if it legislates that. And an elected representative is perfectly capable of allowing experts to simply make the regulations, free of political pressure, and then provide oversight and overrule regulations they don't like through additional laws.
I'm pretty sure he's using the terms interchangeably, and rightfully so. The spirit of the argument against "over regulation" is simply too many damned rules. How they come into existence matters not. They're still useless at best, or harmful at worst.
no difference between democracy and tyranny? only the ends matter? It matters because we as citizens are supposed to have the power to vote out the rule makers, and elect the rule makers to begin with. Federal agencies are full of rule makers we had no say in. Article 1 and the 17th Amendment of the Constitution defines who the rule makers are, and that they shall be elected by the people.
