The law has been on hold since 2021, but, after June's Supreme Court ruling addressing a similar Tennessee law, the Eighth Circuit upheld Arkansas's law.
Clair here 💕Thank you for bringing clarity to “ circle jerk ruling”..if it were a “ gun” they would all feel the effects..but, alas it’s the victims seeking care who are still the victims..
I wonder how long before all care is gone regardless of age.. ??
Perhaps an Executive Order written with a “ sharpie “ will rule the day.. courts be dammed!
Ha,Ha,ha Clair Here I went on line to see if I could qualify to join ICE.. yes! My age ( 91 ) was not a problem . However my status as a transgender woman was a different matter ☹️.. oh well, what the hell.. I didn’t want to join anyway..
Clair here💕Thanks for the “ likes”… We all to stand together in solidarity as what we are experiencing today is just a preview of what’s coming.. it pales when compared to Hitler in 1933…so, as the saying goes..”take care of yourself and each other “.. ML💕Clair
'Our minds are made up, our higher court has spoken, do not confuse us with complex essential questions that may have been effectively debated in the lower court.'
"To shield public employees from personal injury lawsuits for job-related damages, the courts have overstepped, effectively barring public access to vital federal court functions. These functions include asserting rights and identifying constitutional mandates that the government has exceeded, and at the very least, assigning fault for whoever may ask the court to do so."
This is good news and will spare some kids from making medical decisions whose ramifications they can't fully appreciate. The care will still be available once they reach adulthood.
I find the heart of the (if I can stretch the term far enough) logic here to lie in the statement "two parallel currents in this Nation’s history and tradition—first, states can prohibit medical treatments for adults and children, and second, parents cannot automatically exempt their children from regulations."
Re the first, medical treatments have been banned when they have been shown to be dangerous and useless, that is, harmful to public health. But is there a "history and tradition" of banning medical treatments without regard to, indeed in defiance of, their research-backed and observationally-demonstrated benefits? Of randomly banning them based on ideology, not science or medicine, justifying it because it wasn't "solely" driven by hatred? If there is, the court doesn't point to any evidence of it - because it can't.
Re the second, we should all write that down. I imagine it won't be a week before some other case invokes "parental rights" in pursuit of some reactionary agenda about book banning or school subjects or inoculations or whatever; invoked, that is, to "automatically exempt their children from regulations" applicable to others, at which point such "history and tradition" will prove to be extremely flexible.
Abortion has long been shown by research to be safe - much safer than childbirth, in fact - but I'm not sure about how much research has been done on benefits of abortion. Which would differentiate it from GAC.
But no matter. I can even concede the point because all it does is add an exclamation point to bans on health care driven by ideology rather than fact.
Goodbye reasonableness and medical science … hello eugenics.
All science has been declared as fraudulent and only misinformation can be considered truthful. Welcome to Wonderland!
This will kill kids. No doubt. These people are simply evil—banal or baroque: evil.
The party of personal freedom, folks.
Clair here 💕Thank you for bringing clarity to “ circle jerk ruling”..if it were a “ gun” they would all feel the effects..but, alas it’s the victims seeking care who are still the victims..
I wonder how long before all care is gone regardless of age.. ??
Perhaps an Executive Order written with a “ sharpie “ will rule the day.. courts be dammed!
ML Clair🥲
Ha,Ha,ha Clair Here I went on line to see if I could qualify to join ICE.. yes! My age ( 91 ) was not a problem . However my status as a transgender woman was a different matter ☹️.. oh well, what the hell.. I didn’t want to join anyway..
😊Clair
You rock,girl! Best laugh i've had all week.
Clair here💕Thanks for the “ likes”… We all to stand together in solidarity as what we are experiencing today is just a preview of what’s coming.. it pales when compared to Hitler in 1933…so, as the saying goes..”take care of yourself and each other “.. ML💕Clair
Clair here💕Thanks for sharing your thoughts and insights with me…
Yes, we are facing the fight of our lives with the cards stacked against us..
However we are stronger than our opponents as we are committed to who we are and nothing they say,do.. or try can change that..
oppression movements have been here before .. they are built on hatred and lies as this one is..
Stand fast this too will pass
ML💕Clair
Cruel, vile and flat out evil.
If there had not been animus, this subject would have remained with Drs -- where it should be.
'Our minds are made up, our higher court has spoken, do not confuse us with complex essential questions that may have been effectively debated in the lower court.'
Nice going, circle jerks.
"To shield public employees from personal injury lawsuits for job-related damages, the courts have overstepped, effectively barring public access to vital federal court functions. These functions include asserting rights and identifying constitutional mandates that the government has exceeded, and at the very least, assigning fault for whoever may ask the court to do so."
https://randoliberal.substack.com/p/i-call-bullshit
This is good news and will spare some kids from making medical decisions whose ramifications they can't fully appreciate. The care will still be available once they reach adulthood.
I find the heart of the (if I can stretch the term far enough) logic here to lie in the statement "two parallel currents in this Nation’s history and tradition—first, states can prohibit medical treatments for adults and children, and second, parents cannot automatically exempt their children from regulations."
Re the first, medical treatments have been banned when they have been shown to be dangerous and useless, that is, harmful to public health. But is there a "history and tradition" of banning medical treatments without regard to, indeed in defiance of, their research-backed and observationally-demonstrated benefits? Of randomly banning them based on ideology, not science or medicine, justifying it because it wasn't "solely" driven by hatred? If there is, the court doesn't point to any evidence of it - because it can't.
Re the second, we should all write that down. I imagine it won't be a week before some other case invokes "parental rights" in pursuit of some reactionary agenda about book banning or school subjects or inoculations or whatever; invoked, that is, to "automatically exempt their children from regulations" applicable to others, at which point such "history and tradition" will prove to be extremely flexible.
Seems to me abortion has been banned in the way you describe, minus the mind-boggling bit about the ban not being driven solely by hatred.
Abortion has long been shown by research to be safe - much safer than childbirth, in fact - but I'm not sure about how much research has been done on benefits of abortion. Which would differentiate it from GAC.
But no matter. I can even concede the point because all it does is add an exclamation point to bans on health care driven by ideology rather than fact.
Thanks for the observation.
Exactly. Another intimate and highly personal decision that the government has no business intruding upon.