@pelotron@JackFromWisconsin Madison, in particular, is notorious for having an impossibly long and contentious process for getting new housing through committee. I'm not convinced that slashing red tape with a chainsaw is the way to address it, but I suspect the prohibition on city government from rejecting projects that meet standards is a statement about Madison.
@archomrade This is also the strategy that underpins right-wing efforts to make the pill over-the-counter: once doctors aren't prescribing it the decision to carry it or not rests entirely with the point-of-contact for access. You can effectively build "dry counties" for the pill this way.
@archomrade The end-game is to take the decision from doctors entirely and give it to someone else. Doctors are far less likely to refuse to prescribe the pill than pharmacists are to refuse to provide it, if they know they have the authority to block its access. It's easier for all 1-4 pharmacists in a red district to collude than it is to get all doctors in the area to do it. The goal of this kind of legislation is to take that authority from doctors and give it to people willing to gatekeep.
It's part of a long play to eventually take the decision to administer the pill away from doctors, so it can be legal for individual points-of-contact for accessing the pill to refuse to provide it based on personal religious beliefs. With a critical mass of refusers and no intervention by a doctor, the pill becomes effectively banned in some places.
@pelotron @JackFromWisconsin Madison, in particular, is notorious for having an impossibly long and contentious process for getting new housing through committee. I'm not convinced that slashing red tape with a chainsaw is the way to address it, but I suspect the prohibition on city government from rejecting projects that meet standards is a statement about Madison.
@archomrade This is also the strategy that underpins right-wing efforts to make the pill over-the-counter: once doctors aren't prescribing it the decision to carry it or not rests entirely with the point-of-contact for access. You can effectively build "dry counties" for the pill this way.
@archomrade The end-game is to take the decision from doctors entirely and give it to someone else. Doctors are far less likely to refuse to prescribe the pill than pharmacists are to refuse to provide it, if they know they have the authority to block its access. It's easier for all 1-4 pharmacists in a red district to collude than it is to get all doctors in the area to do it. The goal of this kind of legislation is to take that authority from doctors and give it to people willing to gatekeep.
@JackFromWisconsin @archomrade
It's part of a long play to eventually take the decision to administer the pill away from doctors, so it can be legal for individual points-of-contact for accessing the pill to refuse to provide it based on personal religious beliefs. With a critical mass of refusers and no intervention by a doctor, the pill becomes effectively banned in some places.