Win uses cookies necessary for site functionality, as well as for personalization. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies as described in our Privacy Policy.
That's a fair enough opinion. I disagree. I don't think it should be in the title. The title is powerful without the location, and the idea is a threat to free people in any country. Titles should be kept as short as possible. It's in the article and very clear.
This is my opinion on the matter.
Personally, I never open "mystery threads," so I like OPs to give me as much info as possible without my having to read an article to ascertain the subject matter about which I might not be interested. After all, the thread title doesn't accommodate that many characters, anyway.
And yours was powerful. That's because, and you must admit, you probably wanted us to think that the issue involved an American law or ruling.
These parents and legislators are not ending this sort of bullshit by using a better legal strategy. They SHOULD make the argument that since it is a medical procedure and all such procedures come with risks attached to them for adverse reactions, no patent should be compelled to allow the courts to impose added medical liability risk on them, because the parents will be the ones expected to miss work days, pay doctor's fees, shell out money consequential side effects, etc. , meaning interference with parental finances. The court assumed ZERO risk in imposing responsibilities on parents, so the law should be "No risk, no responsibilities"---i.e, it cannot impose the second where it does not assume the first.
In AUSTRALIA.
COMING TO AMERICA SOON
I don't doubt that, but where this is happening should be reflected in the thread title:
Australia: Don't want your son to take "puberty blockers?" TOO BAD, BIGOT!!!! Coming to America soon.
You're welcome. 😀
That's a fair enough opinion. I disagree. I don't think it should be in the title. The title is powerful without the location, and the idea is a threat to free people in any country. Titles should be kept as short as possible. It's in the article and very clear.
This is my opinion on the matter.
OK...🤔 That's something to think about.
Personally, I never open "mystery threads," so I like OPs to give me as much info as possible without my having to read an article to ascertain the subject matter about which I might not be interested. After all, the thread title doesn't accommodate that many characters, anyway.
And yours was powerful. That's because, and you must admit, you probably wanted us to think that the issue involved an American law or ruling.
I could be wrong. But I don't think so.
ETA: And I will stop being a busybody!
These parents and legislators are not ending this sort of bullshit by using a better legal strategy. They SHOULD make the argument that since it is a medical procedure and all such procedures come with risks attached to them for adverse reactions, no patent should be compelled to allow the courts to impose added medical liability risk on them, because the parents will be the ones expected to miss work days, pay doctor's fees, shell out money consequential side effects, etc. , meaning interference with parental finances. The court assumed ZERO risk in imposing responsibilities on parents, so the law should be "No risk, no responsibilities"---i.e, it cannot impose the second where it does not assume the first.
Patriots gotta stop reproducing with crazy leftists.