As Rhode Island Hospital begins turning over documents to a far-right judge in Texas, a number of grand jury subpoenas have been issued and DOJ settled with one hospital.
Forced detransition is next, clothing and underwear police, armed guards in potties (but only for theatrics, cops are expensive). Debanking doctors and other caregivers and health providers. Lawfare against doctors, hospitals, research centers, and my guess is open warfare against feminists and other rights advocates who help the gender nonconforming. The really SICK thing is that MOST of the cases they treat surgically are congenital disorders for children who desperately need care. Shame on conservatives…this is a blot and a stain upon America. My heart just breaks.
That already happened to Texas Children’s Hospital. The state of Texas forced them to fire 5 doctors and open a Detransition Clinic. It’s so dystopian and scary.
The people pushing this agenda are ignorant and refuse to understand why people end up at hospitals persuing treatment for these congenital disorders. And it is willful ignorance under the guise of Christian thinking. Politics does not belong in Medicine. However it is difficult to push politics away when the government is the payer. For private insurance the government should have little to no say. I would suggest interested medical groups begin working together to create a Medical Constitution to stand up for the Rights of all healthcare workers and patients. Have this Constitution become an Amendment to our own American Constitution. It is time!
The conduct of the DOJ before the courts and the toleration of this blatant forum shopping is at best a disgrace. Any attorney who proceeds in a manner that deliberately misinforms or fails to inform the court and opposing counsel should be subject to disciplinary proceedings before the court misled and/not fully informed.
"courts need to keep their eyes opened to the reality as McElroy saw and detailed it, not to the image of courts as they would wish things to be." Isn't that exactly what way too many judges are doing, ruling on what they wish things could be. I give you Alito and the color blind society.
Who would send their kids to a "detransition clinic." That just seems a threat that will keep more and more kids hiding their sexuality from their parents and with lack of support, more and more prone to suicide.
It's really not that difficult: Just don't hand over the information. Do not obey a single ruling handed down by Reed O'Connor. Every single person who had the power to say "No, we won't be doing that" but failed to do so should be immediately fired from their positions and hounded from polite society. Collaborators should be severely punished.
I expect it will soon - indeed it has - come to that, where people need to just say "no." The problem, the difficulty, with what we used to call "doing 'no'" is that it involves consequences and it's always easier to convince ourselves that those consequences (which seem real and immediate) are of greater weight than the potential gains (which seem distant and uncertain) than it is to convince ourselves that the risks are worth the goal.
Breaking through that psychological barrier takes a good deal of courage, perhaps even more so for those in situations like hospitals, where people may fear the consequences not only to themselves but to others.
So I have some sympathy for places like Rhode Island Hospital even as I agree that the moral (and in the long run, more effective) course of action would be to tell Reed O’Connor and the entire 5th Circuit to stick it.
Hence the need to severely punish collaborators - and to announce our intentions to do so loudly and insistently. It must be made crystal clear that, the second such a course of action becomes possible, these people will suffer such overwhelming personal and professional consequences from their collaboration that whatever the Trump regime threatens them with looks like the preferable option. The time they've spent on this earth so far has apparently not done anything to make them less callous, less cruel, or less short-sighted; "sympathy" for them comes after they are removed from positions where they can do this amount of harm to their fellow human beings.
My sympathy (or, as you tellingly put it, "sympathy") was specifically directed at people in the crosshairs of the state, including situations such as that involving Rhode Island Hospital where those targeted may be deterred from resistance not only by the consequences to themselves but to the broader community; in the specific example, those whose access to care might be damaged by institutional resistance - which could, for example, result in the loss of Medicaid funding.
I recognize that you refer to "people in positions of power" but also say every person who "failed to say no" should be "hounded from polite society" and include those who acted under "whatever the Trump regime threaten[ed] them with" among the collaborators.
I find it both strategically dumb and morally offensive to lump those who wind up bending before the power of the state together with actual collaborators, who by definition are those who willingly cooperate with an enemy or oppressor.
Reed O'Conner (who faces no threat from Trump) is a collaborator - indeed, we could properly call him an oppressor. Rhode Island Hospital (which is under threat) is not. And we should not confuse the two.
I repeat: I have sympathy for places like Rhode Island Hospital even as I agree that the ethical and (ultimately) more effective course would have been to say "no."
In the immortal words of Mr. Spock, "I understand. I do not approve."
Meanwhile, cis (not trans) teens are far more likely to receive the same healthcare and in greater numbers. But that somehow is just fine. To be celebrated, even.
How is this not recognized as animus toward trans people?
The trump regimes concern with a small number of trans children and their parents decisions than the millions of children being abused , neglected or just suffering from poverty is appalling.
Why are there no ethical complaints against Reed O'Conner?
He is patently biased to the point that he essentially has decided LGBTQ+-related cases even before they are filed. Overt animus drips from his every order. (Why is that not an issue in every such case he handles?)
He got a request to enforce a subpoena against Rhode Island Hospital signed by two of his former law clerks (Why didn't he recuse himself?) and issued it hours later. (Why was the target not allowed a chance to respond?)
He has continued to press the matter even after learning (assuming he didn't know originally) that the parties were in active negotiations literally the day before the request for the enforcement order. (Why didn't he withdraw the order as not ripe?)
And now he has declared that he can decide where the targets of his bigoted wrath can seek relief and by implication what cases and motions other courts can accept.
And yet nothing happens and lawyers wonder why people don't trust the system.
Forced detransition is next, clothing and underwear police, armed guards in potties (but only for theatrics, cops are expensive). Debanking doctors and other caregivers and health providers. Lawfare against doctors, hospitals, research centers, and my guess is open warfare against feminists and other rights advocates who help the gender nonconforming. The really SICK thing is that MOST of the cases they treat surgically are congenital disorders for children who desperately need care. Shame on conservatives…this is a blot and a stain upon America. My heart just breaks.
That already happened to Texas Children’s Hospital. The state of Texas forced them to fire 5 doctors and open a Detransition Clinic. It’s so dystopian and scary.
Texas and Iran just differ in humidity. And rednecks. Iran is probably much nicer.
The people pushing this agenda are ignorant and refuse to understand why people end up at hospitals persuing treatment for these congenital disorders. And it is willful ignorance under the guise of Christian thinking. Politics does not belong in Medicine. However it is difficult to push politics away when the government is the payer. For private insurance the government should have little to no say. I would suggest interested medical groups begin working together to create a Medical Constitution to stand up for the Rights of all healthcare workers and patients. Have this Constitution become an Amendment to our own American Constitution. It is time!
Next up, a Texas grand jury issues subpoena for hospitals serving people of the wrong color.
HIPPA, anyone? WHY is this not in play? Also, defy the subpoenas based on HIPPA and lack of parental consent…what could happen?
If that is all, then DO IT. DEFY.
contempt of court
Damn. You're my nominee for a Pulitzer...
The conduct of the DOJ before the courts and the toleration of this blatant forum shopping is at best a disgrace. Any attorney who proceeds in a manner that deliberately misinforms or fails to inform the court and opposing counsel should be subject to disciplinary proceedings before the court misled and/not fully informed.
"courts need to keep their eyes opened to the reality as McElroy saw and detailed it, not to the image of courts as they would wish things to be." Isn't that exactly what way too many judges are doing, ruling on what they wish things could be. I give you Alito and the color blind society.
Who would send their kids to a "detransition clinic." That just seems a threat that will keep more and more kids hiding their sexuality from their parents and with lack of support, more and more prone to suicide.
It's really not that difficult: Just don't hand over the information. Do not obey a single ruling handed down by Reed O'Connor. Every single person who had the power to say "No, we won't be doing that" but failed to do so should be immediately fired from their positions and hounded from polite society. Collaborators should be severely punished.
I expect it will soon - indeed it has - come to that, where people need to just say "no." The problem, the difficulty, with what we used to call "doing 'no'" is that it involves consequences and it's always easier to convince ourselves that those consequences (which seem real and immediate) are of greater weight than the potential gains (which seem distant and uncertain) than it is to convince ourselves that the risks are worth the goal.
Breaking through that psychological barrier takes a good deal of courage, perhaps even more so for those in situations like hospitals, where people may fear the consequences not only to themselves but to others.
So I have some sympathy for places like Rhode Island Hospital even as I agree that the moral (and in the long run, more effective) course of action would be to tell Reed O’Connor and the entire 5th Circuit to stick it.
Hence the need to severely punish collaborators - and to announce our intentions to do so loudly and insistently. It must be made crystal clear that, the second such a course of action becomes possible, these people will suffer such overwhelming personal and professional consequences from their collaboration that whatever the Trump regime threatens them with looks like the preferable option. The time they've spent on this earth so far has apparently not done anything to make them less callous, less cruel, or less short-sighted; "sympathy" for them comes after they are removed from positions where they can do this amount of harm to their fellow human beings.
My sympathy (or, as you tellingly put it, "sympathy") was specifically directed at people in the crosshairs of the state, including situations such as that involving Rhode Island Hospital where those targeted may be deterred from resistance not only by the consequences to themselves but to the broader community; in the specific example, those whose access to care might be damaged by institutional resistance - which could, for example, result in the loss of Medicaid funding.
I recognize that you refer to "people in positions of power" but also say every person who "failed to say no" should be "hounded from polite society" and include those who acted under "whatever the Trump regime threaten[ed] them with" among the collaborators.
I find it both strategically dumb and morally offensive to lump those who wind up bending before the power of the state together with actual collaborators, who by definition are those who willingly cooperate with an enemy or oppressor.
Reed O'Conner (who faces no threat from Trump) is a collaborator - indeed, we could properly call him an oppressor. Rhode Island Hospital (which is under threat) is not. And we should not confuse the two.
I repeat: I have sympathy for places like Rhode Island Hospital even as I agree that the ethical and (ultimately) more effective course would have been to say "no."
In the immortal words of Mr. Spock, "I understand. I do not approve."
So sad, so wrong & another reason I'm furious I pay taxes in Texas. This isn't policy I voted for.
Hospitals simply cannot afford these ongoing battles.
Maybe “Tobago can’t bind the world,” but Reed O’Connor sure can—or so it seems.
Meanwhile, cis (not trans) teens are far more likely to receive the same healthcare and in greater numbers. But that somehow is just fine. To be celebrated, even.
How is this not recognized as animus toward trans people?
The trump regimes concern with a small number of trans children and their parents decisions than the millions of children being abused , neglected or just suffering from poverty is appalling.
Why are there no ethical complaints against Reed O'Conner?
He is patently biased to the point that he essentially has decided LGBTQ+-related cases even before they are filed. Overt animus drips from his every order. (Why is that not an issue in every such case he handles?)
He got a request to enforce a subpoena against Rhode Island Hospital signed by two of his former law clerks (Why didn't he recuse himself?) and issued it hours later. (Why was the target not allowed a chance to respond?)
He has continued to press the matter even after learning (assuming he didn't know originally) that the parties were in active negotiations literally the day before the request for the enforcement order. (Why didn't he withdraw the order as not ripe?)
And now he has declared that he can decide where the targets of his bigoted wrath can seek relief and by implication what cases and motions other courts can accept.
And yet nothing happens and lawyers wonder why people don't trust the system.
I like reading your posts!
Idea for the next hbomax show:
SE-cession. How can it make sense to continue tolerating cult-members and sadists? Regardless of the will of the people….?