Anti-abortion advocates, including Republican lawmakers and state officials, want the EPA to review mifepristone as a water contaminant. Scientists say there’s no evidence it harms the environment or people.
While there is no scientific evidence that abortion medication is contaminating Americans’ water supply, it has nonetheless become a central claim by the anti-abortion movement. Activists, Instagram influencers and Republican Party officials — including state and federal lawmakers — are doubling down on what experts describe as a disinformation campaign that mixes environmental policy and reproductive rights, and risks exploiting legitimate concerns about clean water.
Because:
If we’re testing for abortion pills, why not viagra, too?
We should be. None of these tests are mutually exclusive. They are just trying to weaponize the gendered nature of this discussion to try and avoid doing anything about it.
No, it’s a response to weaponizing health care.
What is a response exactly? Calls to do nothing?
You’re attempted gotcha retort of “should we test for viagra too” is a perfect example of exactly what they are trying to accomplish here.
Contaminated drinking water has been a major issue in the US for decades and by shifting the conversation to testing for abortion pills or testing for viagra they turn the conversation into a gender war and get to avoid addressing the actual issue.
None of these tests are mutually exclusive and they should all be being done to avoid the entire country becoming Flint Michigan.
There isn’t enough time, money or resources to test for absolutely everything. Non-scientists weaponizing women’s healthcare started the gender conflict, the article is a response to it. You could try reading it before commenting on it.
No one is arguing we should test for absolutely everything but that was a nice strawman argument. Following it with an appeal to authority and assumption about what i have or havnt done is a nice touch too.
They are “weaponizing women’s Healthcare” specifically to get this kind of response from people like you and you’ve fell for it hook line and sinker.
So you didn’t read the article?
You should probably look up the definitions of those fallacies as well. An appeal to authority isn’t a fallacy when you quote the relevent authority on a topic, and it’s not a strawman to use the same argument as the article we’re discussing.
One of us clearly didnt read the article as nowhere in the article is anyone arguing that we should test for everything(the thing you argued against). You dismissing the calls to test the water for these medications with “well we cant afford to test for everything” is absolutely a strawman because you are addressing an argument that isnt being made. Your statement about “non scientists” is an indirect appeal to authority that attempts to frame the topic as one that can only be broached by “scientists”. An appeal to authority logical fallacy is an informal logical fallacy where a claim is deemed true solely because an authority figure or expert asserts it, rather than providing sufficient evidence or reasoning. By dismissing the people who want the water supply tested for the abortion medications as “non-scientists” you are attempting to imply that the counter argument “we shouldn’t test the water” is true based solely on what some “scientists” are arguing. Furthermore, you didnt actually quote anyone in your argument, it was solely an indirect appeal to authority.
So you still didn’t read the article?
They did tests.
Furthermore, listening to scientists about science is not an appeal to authority.
If you didn’t get the subtext on the statements about resources and needs with regard to water testing, perhaps try to actually read it.