i said its common in the medical field to have training/qualifications/certifications of these types of things for those types of people (PAs etc). thanks for exposing yourself and have no clue what is being discussed, you lose and facts destroy you again.
theres nothing i said thats wrong, in the medical community people are already trained for these things. For PAGES ive been saying the LAW prevents its and does so NOT based on medical/science reasons. Should i qoute myself to further prove you wrong and that your the only one informed? i gladly will, just another example of you being uneducated on a topic and blindly biasedly ranting about it just like when you missed POST 4 and wanted the bill language proved to you. If you want further exposed let me know because your failures always crack me up. thanks!
nothign new in this post just still a few that simply dont understand what actually happen, read the bill and educate yourselves.
what is going to happen is more access to healthcare to people who need it under the SAME medical regulations/rules/protocols that the medical community has support and been using all along.
Laws simple stopped the SPECIAL and EXTRA limits that the medical/science world did not deem necessary.
good job cali thats always a bonus!
now more people will have better access to needed and regulated care
On page nine you wrote:1) In response to me pointing out this was a new allowance under state law. Clearly you're suggesting this falls in with regulations that are generalized elsewhere1.) yep and the fact you keep missing is these regulations/rules have been around much much much longer and are the same else where
2) Your posts are largely incoherent. So it's unsurprising what you intend to express is often not represented in the content of your writing
3) If these individuals were already trained for these things, what is the point of further certifying them, and can you quote material from a general training program, either vocational or academic, that demonstrates this claim?
you lose again, thanks for trying to sell your misunderstanding though, and telling ME what I meant, you try that a lot and you always fail at it.it was very amusing
the law is being safe to shut the crybabies up (like the couple in this thread up) just like some of the gay rights law DOUBLE up on saying churches dont have to marry them, well thats in the constitution and is already a given, why do they do it though????? to double up for crybabies lol (I actually also comment on the law doubling up on this in a couple posts and one was directly too you)
also as far as your other stupid request its in here already, i posted it and someone else did to where it mentioned these this type of training is already in their scope.
I got an idea, maybe read the WHOLE thread, the bill, the links and then do some research yourself just for extra measure so you dont have to keep getting exposed on this topic and showing how severely uneducated (but more so biased) on this topic you are.
facts defeat you again, as always thanks for playing, also PLEASE keep posting so i can keep destroying each of your posts.
You lied, your posts failed and you have been factually wrong.
Amazing, California creates the abortion equivalent of a drive through wedding chapel and claims it's for women's health.
California stopped interfering with the regulations the medical community already had in place by no longer adding additional ones, now they no longer get in the way.
California by itself has no power to overrule the FDA in a negative safety direction, they can ADD legislation but they cant subtract from the rules set forth by the medical community, their rules, protocols and regulations deemed this ok and now California is allowing it so California didnt "create" anything and yes it is for health in general. More access to more health.