11 Comments
User's avatar
Sun's avatar

No gender-affirming care! Whoops, there goes Viagra for cis men.

Robert C. Parker's avatar

Thank you for the thorough explanation. I’m not a lawyer and sometimes these rulings are very difficult to understand.

It’s become clear that you must include the age and who appointed each judge to help explain these rulings….unfortunately.

ASB's avatar

I agree - and I really appreciate how Chris provides, in detail, the opposing opinion that throws water on the majority ruling. I can only imagine the only way these two MAGA judges sleep at night is clutching their Trump Bible.

TJ's avatar

I’m really hoping they seek en banc review!

Al Schlebecker's avatar

This is horrible but I hope if they can get en banc review it can be reversed.

David J. Sharp's avatar

Let ignorance reign? As a Californian, I am embarrassed by this Ninth Circuit atrocity.

M. A. Porter's avatar

Do we have more pressing matters for this administration's focus than to meddle in

private family medical decisions? Oh yes. Yes we do. But not in the fascistic, intolerant, theocratic Trumpworld. Evil, disgusting, hatemongers. May they rot in hell real soon.

TJ's avatar

How long to en banc requests usually take?

FlyOverZone's avatar

Thank you for staying with this. These are THE most vulnerable in our society. They deserve our protection. Not least because if we don't, there will be no one to protect the rest of us.

Martha Howell's avatar

I hate this timeline.