True, but people worked out the correct physical parameters, tools, and techniques for extracting unborn fetuses a long time ago.

I think they mean "Individualist" = libertarian, "hierarchical individualist" = Neocon

Just another scientific study that simply confirms what everybody already knows is true.

Religion / spirituality doesn't speak to science. The set of questions that science can answer are not within the same realm. And while there have been plenty of establishment religious "leaders", especially in the Dark Ages, that expressed animosity to scientific ideas, that was about authority and power of the institution, not the religious teachings themselves.

I really don't understand the delight that some people take in attacking religion. People have found spiritual enlightenment for themselves and taught others techniques for achieving it themselves, and this has produced tremendous benefits to people for millions of years. Yes, it's been used as an excuse to enslave and torture people, too. Anything with such a powerful influence on a population will be used by tyrants for their own purposes. But that seems to be the only thing some people want to acknowledge.

Yea, that's great, we're getting better at understanding evolution. Okay. Nice. Why use that to try to tear down someone's beliefs? Studying evolution isn't going to help anyone get over the loss of a child or family member, and it's not going to help them find satisfaction in helping to feed and clothe the starving or serving mankind in other ways.

Congratulations! You just failed self-actualization.

It's all the people with budgets at all the companies and organizations that got a PR mention in the article, that's who. Like most of the media today, these guys are just doing marketing, they are not involved in "informing" anyone about anything.

Often with contentious issues, the Supreme court will wait for a case that suits well for making a clear precedent that lower courts can follow without splitting hairs over minutia. Witness, for example, Sackett v. EPA. There were many previous cases challenging the exact same implementation of law that the Sackett case addressed, but the court declined to review. But with Sackett, SCOTUS was able to create a bright line and clear guidance.

That's not a bad justification. Unfortunately, because Congress has addressed the issue and SCOTUS has ruled on it, in this case it is also an expansion of federal power that tramples on the separation of powers, and ultimately erodes the rule of law.

Not that I agree with these decisions - MJ prohibition is seriously flawed for many reasons, especially with the Federal government claiming police powers that should belong solely to the states. But many people, especially those in power in Washington, don't concern themselves much with following the law unless it suits their purposes.

Since SCOTUS has failed to defend the people and the states on this issue, it falls to the states to nullify, as described by Jefferson in the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions, and used by several states to oppose slavery before the civil war.

What a show. Nobody seems to have heard that those provisions, ensuring that they applied to US citizens, were included at the request of the White House.

He also fails to uphold the Constitution by doing so, a clear violation of his oath of office. There is no wiggle room here, from Article II:

he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed