Very glad to see so many folks commenting so quickly regarding this, as I think it’s a really important decision. As I said on social media, there is so much that is extremely troubling about the ruling. These are just some of the key concerns it raises for me. Ultimately, I decided best to keep this piece — which had to explain the law, case, and ruling in addition to concerns — to under 2,000 words (and barely made it) so that it would remain somewhat more accessible to a broad audience.
So deeply disturbed and concerned about this march toward "natural"(conservative Xian law based on their biblical interpretation) law and away from secular law. So deeply concerned. Thanks for your reporting.
I would love for Amarillo Mike to explain how there is a “fundamental right to control and direct the upbringing of his minor children” under the 14th Amendment but no right for women to control and direct the usage of their own uteruses.
The key word is 'his'. Only men have rights. Anything else is not consistent with the history of this country and the original intent. Also because God said so.
To deny agency over their bodies to adolescents who become sexual before the age of 18 should be viewed as the cruel and unusual punishment it is. I have to wonder if this pearl-clutching rush of concern over parental rights with respect to healthcare extends to providing their sons with condoms as well, or if it only applies to their girl children? In an ideal world, decisions to have sex might include parents for purposes of contraception but that isn’t realistic for many and this is another example of trying to control female bodies. I realize this is a legal column and this raises a question for me. What effect does this have on OTC sales of contraceptives such as condoms, or is that even legal in Texas? So much else isn’t.
It does not apply to the males, the son's - as always they are free to do whatever they want. Applies only the daughters, females. It's just more war on women. The "plantif" has 3 daughters.
Perhaps he should look into chastity belts instead. Lol
For those who oppose abortion, the best method to avoid the need for abortion is to give young people age-appropriate sex education, & to make available affordable and/or free birth control and affordable/free access to medical care. When an individual is sexually active, birth control is the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancy.
Except of course that's not the anti-abortion movement's agenda at all. It's to establish full control of female bodies in a manner consistent with their interpretation of their bible.
It’s obvious to me that adding barriers to contraception has nothing to do with public health or a girl’s well being. I’m the parent of a 15yo girl. My daughter is a competitive swimmer. I just want to add that contraception can also help make for more even hormones, a lighter cycle and improve acne. A teen monthly cycle can be awful. Cramps and headaches can make it hard to focus in class. There are still toxic teachers that don’t excuse kids to use the restroom. A teen might need this access to this medication for many reasons.
This plaintiff has 3 daughters, if he had sons needing condoms there would be no case because he wouldn't care.
This is ALL about creating deliberate barriers to access and hiding behind "parental rights".
It's just more Christian Taliban bullshit.
All females should be home reading the bible and making quilts for our hope chest for when we marry a christian nationalist man that we are subjugated to.
This case is litmus case that apparently has succeeded, we will now see more of this.
Oh, yes. Originally I wanted to get more into Kacsmaryk’s decision. He had a real doozy of a footnote regarding that issue. Go look it up, then, likely, scream.
"The correctness of Carey's holding on blanket bans of contraceptives is also in doubt insofar as it relies on Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972), and Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). See Dobbs, 142 S. Ct. at 2301 (Thomas, J., concurring) (urging the Court to reconsider Griswold because it is "demonstrably erroneous")."
Religion has no place in government. The church needs to be taxed but that’s another discussion. How is it not a violation of the separation of church and state when the judicial and legislative branches call upon their “Christian principles” to vote/decide on key issues? Be a Christian, if such a thing exists in this Apartheid Republic of America, but to use your Christian beliefs to be the basis for legal interpretation is wrong. Hell want to be puritanical and Christian rapists used to receive the death penalty, but todays Christian movement finds that the man shouldn’t be punished, and the woman is responsible for inviting assault and must bear the consequences (child birth). The moral compass of these conservative Christian’s is so misguided it’s a miracle they can shove their heads up their asses that far.
I'm not so sure it's that simple. People find moral guidance from all sorts of diverse sources; why should we grant more legitimacy to someone who learned about courage and kindness from The Lord of the Rings than to someone who learned from The Chronicles of Narnia?
I’m saying though the ones who make these decisions are repeatedly part of the American Christian Taliban movement….thats a problem. Find guidance from the shire or Hogwarts, I find them more realistic than Republican Jesus, but leaders can solely vote based on that. It’s still wrong to vote no when your constituents say overwhelmingly yes simply because you’re a legislator in the Christian Taliban who wants to bomb hogwarts and round up everyone from the shire for a concentration camp…the law is the law, why does the judge get to say well yea that’s what it says but my fancy bible of BS says eat camel shit so judge overrules….thats a problem area. The religious guidance is sticking its nose in law and government where it has no business.
At least one story I saw on this said that Deandra's kids had not tried to get contraception. So I gather from what you said that standing is based on the simple possibility that a child might ignore a parent's teaching and IF that happens to be a religious teaching then that parent can sue to make sure that they have to be told IF the kid tries to get contraception and so does everyone else because the state can require it such permission because of lack of federal pre-emption? But if a non-religious person had objected to the same rule, it would never have gotten to court?
Even if the "injury in fact" is a law that threatens some right, the threat has to be imminent. Judge K correctly recites the bit about standing being able to be prospective if the danger is imminent. So I guess that means that the court recognizes that there is an imminent danger that kids will not pay attention to their parent's religious teachings. After this ruling, that is likely to become more and more true, I'd guess.
You are right. Escher and the 5th Circuit are best buddies.
All of these cases are partisan politically motivated i.e., the idea is to create the impression on persons in their "formative years" that being abused is part of life and the tradition must be carried on and continued otherwise the republican faction will lose its majority and then everyone will realize that their brethren to the left of the hyphen share the same epistemology. This is the old ADA solution, choose the lesser evil. All of these Judges were allowed to be such by the US Senate and this adds to the vote left of the hyphen or else this is what happens. So without such things happening, there is no urgency nor really any reason to vote for anyone left of the hyphen. All of which is corroborated by the fact that no one in the Senate has ever made the foregoing argument nor has anyone at the USSCt. or any other court because lawyers get huge payouts and fawn judges with what they think they want to hear or their staff attorneys want to read rather than addressing human mortal reality,
Decisions get appealed until they reach the supreme court or the supreme court declines to take the case. No one oversees the supreme court, other than that a future administration could just ignore its rulings (which the next Republican administration will do as soon as it gets a ruling it doesn't like). If this system sounds broken to you you're right.
sad but true. If the Extremes correctly decide that there is no immunity for doing things outside the official duties of the president, I suspect he will then (if he wins) try to dissolve the court. Or maybe seize the justices' assets to pay for the attorney fees he had to spend. So long, Thomasian motor home.
I just want to point out- imagine you are a teenage girl and your dad randomly decides to go to federal court to assert his ultimate authority over your body, specifically your uterus.
Very glad to see so many folks commenting so quickly regarding this, as I think it’s a really important decision. As I said on social media, there is so much that is extremely troubling about the ruling. These are just some of the key concerns it raises for me. Ultimately, I decided best to keep this piece — which had to explain the law, case, and ruling in addition to concerns — to under 2,000 words (and barely made it) so that it would remain somewhat more accessible to a broad audience.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/611453/state-reproductive-policies-important-enrollment-decisions.aspx
So deeply disturbed and concerned about this march toward "natural"(conservative Xian law based on their biblical interpretation) law and away from secular law. So deeply concerned. Thanks for your reporting.
I would love for Amarillo Mike to explain how there is a “fundamental right to control and direct the upbringing of his minor children” under the 14th Amendment but no right for women to control and direct the usage of their own uteruses.
And no right for a parent to help their transgender child to get the medical treatment they need.
The key word is 'his'. Only men have rights. Anything else is not consistent with the history of this country and the original intent. Also because God said so.
To deny agency over their bodies to adolescents who become sexual before the age of 18 should be viewed as the cruel and unusual punishment it is. I have to wonder if this pearl-clutching rush of concern over parental rights with respect to healthcare extends to providing their sons with condoms as well, or if it only applies to their girl children? In an ideal world, decisions to have sex might include parents for purposes of contraception but that isn’t realistic for many and this is another example of trying to control female bodies. I realize this is a legal column and this raises a question for me. What effect does this have on OTC sales of contraceptives such as condoms, or is that even legal in Texas? So much else isn’t.
It does not apply to the males, the son's - as always they are free to do whatever they want. Applies only the daughters, females. It's just more war on women. The "plantif" has 3 daughters.
Perhaps he should look into chastity belts instead. Lol
Look at the age of consent for that answer.
For those who oppose abortion, the best method to avoid the need for abortion is to give young people age-appropriate sex education, & to make available affordable and/or free birth control and affordable/free access to medical care. When an individual is sexually active, birth control is the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancy.
Except of course that's not the anti-abortion movement's agenda at all. It's to establish full control of female bodies in a manner consistent with their interpretation of their bible.
Agree it’s all about control. The same as control of a woman’s ability to make choices about her body.
It also makes me wonder if a parent could force an abortion here under this ruling.
Good point. It is all about control.
They couldn't because the court could just not recognize that parent as sufficiently religious.
It’s obvious to me that adding barriers to contraception has nothing to do with public health or a girl’s well being. I’m the parent of a 15yo girl. My daughter is a competitive swimmer. I just want to add that contraception can also help make for more even hormones, a lighter cycle and improve acne. A teen monthly cycle can be awful. Cramps and headaches can make it hard to focus in class. There are still toxic teachers that don’t excuse kids to use the restroom. A teen might need this access to this medication for many reasons.
This is all just part of the war on women!!
This plaintiff has 3 daughters, if he had sons needing condoms there would be no case because he wouldn't care.
This is ALL about creating deliberate barriers to access and hiding behind "parental rights".
It's just more Christian Taliban bullshit.
All females should be home reading the bible and making quilts for our hope chest for when we marry a christian nationalist man that we are subjugated to.
This case is litmus case that apparently has succeeded, we will now see more of this.
Christian Taliban Bullshit 😂🤣😂🤣 Definitely adding this to my vocabulary.
Adolescent access to contraceptives also has constitutional implications.
See, Carey v. Population Services, which protected the right of minors to have access to contraceptives.
Oh, yes. Originally I wanted to get more into Kacsmaryk’s decision. He had a real doozy of a footnote regarding that issue. Go look it up, then, likely, scream.
"The correctness of Carey's holding on blanket bans of contraceptives is also in doubt insofar as it relies on Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972), and Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). See Dobbs, 142 S. Ct. at 2301 (Thomas, J., concurring) (urging the Court to reconsider Griswold because it is "demonstrably erroneous")."
Yuppp. There it is.
say what Jack
Oh dear.
JFC
Religion has no place in government. The church needs to be taxed but that’s another discussion. How is it not a violation of the separation of church and state when the judicial and legislative branches call upon their “Christian principles” to vote/decide on key issues? Be a Christian, if such a thing exists in this Apartheid Republic of America, but to use your Christian beliefs to be the basis for legal interpretation is wrong. Hell want to be puritanical and Christian rapists used to receive the death penalty, but todays Christian movement finds that the man shouldn’t be punished, and the woman is responsible for inviting assault and must bear the consequences (child birth). The moral compass of these conservative Christian’s is so misguided it’s a miracle they can shove their heads up their asses that far.
I'm not so sure it's that simple. People find moral guidance from all sorts of diverse sources; why should we grant more legitimacy to someone who learned about courage and kindness from The Lord of the Rings than to someone who learned from The Chronicles of Narnia?
I’m saying though the ones who make these decisions are repeatedly part of the American Christian Taliban movement….thats a problem. Find guidance from the shire or Hogwarts, I find them more realistic than Republican Jesus, but leaders can solely vote based on that. It’s still wrong to vote no when your constituents say overwhelmingly yes simply because you’re a legislator in the Christian Taliban who wants to bomb hogwarts and round up everyone from the shire for a concentration camp…the law is the law, why does the judge get to say well yea that’s what it says but my fancy bible of BS says eat camel shit so judge overrules….thats a problem area. The religious guidance is sticking its nose in law and government where it has no business.
Parents rights for some but not others.
At least one story I saw on this said that Deandra's kids had not tried to get contraception. So I gather from what you said that standing is based on the simple possibility that a child might ignore a parent's teaching and IF that happens to be a religious teaching then that parent can sue to make sure that they have to be told IF the kid tries to get contraception and so does everyone else because the state can require it such permission because of lack of federal pre-emption? But if a non-religious person had objected to the same rule, it would never have gotten to court?
Even if the "injury in fact" is a law that threatens some right, the threat has to be imminent. Judge K correctly recites the bit about standing being able to be prospective if the danger is imminent. So I guess that means that the court recognizes that there is an imminent danger that kids will not pay attention to their parent's religious teachings. After this ruling, that is likely to become more and more true, I'd guess.
You are right. Escher and the 5th Circuit are best buddies.
[ uh, Kafka has said he'd like a word here.....]
I'm seriously not okay with this😐
All of these cases are partisan politically motivated i.e., the idea is to create the impression on persons in their "formative years" that being abused is part of life and the tradition must be carried on and continued otherwise the republican faction will lose its majority and then everyone will realize that their brethren to the left of the hyphen share the same epistemology. This is the old ADA solution, choose the lesser evil. All of these Judges were allowed to be such by the US Senate and this adds to the vote left of the hyphen or else this is what happens. So without such things happening, there is no urgency nor really any reason to vote for anyone left of the hyphen. All of which is corroborated by the fact that no one in the Senate has ever made the foregoing argument nor has anyone at the USSCt. or any other court because lawyers get huge payouts and fawn judges with what they think they want to hear or their staff attorneys want to read rather than addressing human mortal reality,
I have 2 questions Chris.
Is the Constitution not clear
enough in its original format
and its amendments, concerning the separation of
church and state, its infringement of one religious
belief over another?
Does. this not include the judicial branches in the states
and their judge's rulings?
Ok...I have another question.😁 Who or what oversees all
these different circuit court
judges for their impartiality
in decisions while serving?
Some are just so blatantly
out of line, it's hard to believe
we have no one to complain
to but each other. The 5th
circuit is a disgrace.
Decisions get appealed until they reach the supreme court or the supreme court declines to take the case. No one oversees the supreme court, other than that a future administration could just ignore its rulings (which the next Republican administration will do as soon as it gets a ruling it doesn't like). If this system sounds broken to you you're right.
sad but true. If the Extremes correctly decide that there is no immunity for doing things outside the official duties of the president, I suspect he will then (if he wins) try to dissolve the court. Or maybe seize the justices' assets to pay for the attorney fees he had to spend. So long, Thomasian motor home.
Typical authoritarian moves.
I just want to point out- imagine you are a teenage girl and your dad randomly decides to go to federal court to assert his ultimate authority over your body, specifically your uterus.