7 Comments
User's avatar
Jean in Florida's avatar

Government is not not filled with medically trained doctors. They should not presume to make laws which interfere with the decisions made between a patient and their doctor.

Expand full comment
Susan Linehan's avatar

Let me get this straight. The Alliance Defending Freedom is arguing that there should not be a STATE-wide injunction of a law that may be unconstitutional, but are all in favor of a District Court issuing a NATION-wide injunction in the mifepristone case?

Expand full comment
𝓙𝓪𝓼𝓶𝓲𝓷𝓮 𝓦𝓸𝓵𝓯𝓮's avatar

The government should not be involved in anyone's medal treatment ever. Full fucking stop.

Expand full comment
Joe From the Bronx's avatar

The federal government (as discussed in the past here) has supported Supreme Court review in one or more trans related cases. I am wary about this Court deciding this overall issue. It will some day.

I am starting to see some libertarian "keep the government out of the regulation of medicine" comments. I don't think doing away with all licensing laws or regulations of medicine by the government is the way to go here. Medical malpractice, regulation of drugs, etc. is still good policy.

Expand full comment
Shelley Powers's avatar

If this was a normal, functioning SCOTUS we could be comfortable with the idea that SCOTUS would reject Idaho's request. After all, that would favor the status quo, and do the least harm. After all, denying medication that a child has been taking is harmful. By any measure.

But I give up on figuring out the courts anymore.

Expand full comment
Ree's avatar

People with invisible imaginary friends have absolutely no right in policing laws. Religion hasn’t any place interfering with or imposing laws upon the sane private sector.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Feb 20, 2024
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Deirdre Helfferich's avatar

Thanks for posting this link! It's a fascinating read.

Expand full comment