If most abortion clinics are located in blue states, aren’t those who physically attack them or those entering the clinic subject to state statutes? And if they are tried and convicted in state courts, they cannot be pardoned by any president. We need to encourage blue state AGs to vigorously prosecute those who attack clinics.
The "defending women from gender ideology extremism” headlines being parroted in the media needs to stop. Too many people don’t read any further (or at all) and certainly aren’t making the obvious connections regarding trans rights and women’s rights. This is how we got here in the first place. We need to take back the attention from the ground up. Both democrats and mainstream media have failed us. There is a lot of work to do!
Just want to drop a line here about how very much I appreciate the work you are doing, out here every single day. I'm truly inspired by you and so grateful for the relentless knowledge you are sharing.
Now that Musk has access to what essentially is the country's central bank, this disturbing though occurs: most federal employees have healthcare coverage as part of their compensation. What if they just decide to refuse reproductive coverage for the 2.3 million government employees?
I’m feeling pretty dense about the CDC pages and scrubbing of certain terms. Is there anyone who can explain it to me like I’m a fifth grader what are the ramifications?
I have not been able to find any information about how the Louisiana AG found out that the young woman had an abortion. Do any of you know how the AG was alerted?
Certiorari was granted Dec. 18, 2024 in Medina v. Planned Parenthood about whether state Medicaid programs will be allowed to exclude health care providers from their Medicaid program because of the other services (e.g., abortion) the providers furnish. I bet you can guess how I think the Supreme Court will rule. The upshot would be that Medicaid beneficiaries who get family planning services from a particular provider (typically, Planned Parenthood) might not be able to get Medicaid coverage for those visits. And if Planned Parenthood can't get Medicaid funding, it'll be in ever more financial trouble than it is now. See Kian Azimpoor, "The Supreme Court Puts Access to Medicaid Family Planning Care on the Line," healthaffairs.org (Feb. 2 2025), https://www.healthaffairs.org/content/forefront/supreme-court-puts-a[...].
The most likely explanation for the deletions is still the requirement that references to gender are replaced by references to biological sex across the government, which is not quite as straightforward as it would seem. Presumably that is the executive order being referred to, although with the rate and scope that they're issuing them, one can never be sure. The indispensable Chris Geidner at Law Dork had a post on this.
That said, the purpose of defining transgender people out of existence is to make it easier to insist on rigid sex roles as just some kind of reality of the species. (Note that when any of these people use the word 'natural', you should always be translating it in your mind to 'biblical', because that's what they mean. Andra Watkins is an expert on Christian Nationalism and has a substack on this). So, yes, in the end result they are coming for all women.
If new versions of these government documents do resurface, it will be instructive to compare with the old ones to see exactly what and how they've changed.
Gender is so important to medical research. And sex and gender are not interchangeable terms. They are also having to scrub anything about healthcare disparities and social determinants of health and healthcare. The really scary thing is how much aggregated data is disappearing. The emails that HHS scientists are getting from above are beyond Kafkaesque.
Yes, sex and gender are not interchangeable terms and it is significant that none of the language used in these changes use the term "sex", they all refer to gender. Biology once again is taking a back seat. Further evidence to me that, along with some personal experience, the whole sexual diversity front is a religious conservative agenda and not at all a reaction to the same. This religious community is very jealous of what it decides qualifies as behavior for men and women. And if you don't conform, you don't qualify and your anatomy and appetites don't qualify you. At one time you were punished if you slipped out of the models, but now they just squeeze you into one of the myriad pigeon holes of the sexual diversity pantheon and you have no other place to go. And it may require surgery on your genitals.
Yeah. The evidence demonstrating inequality in this country is overwhelming. So if you want to keep your privilege you destroy all the evidence I guess. While it won't necessarily turn out the same, this stage of MAGA and the early stages of Nazism are indistinguishable.
If most abortion clinics are located in blue states, aren’t those who physically attack them or those entering the clinic subject to state statutes? And if they are tried and convicted in state courts, they cannot be pardoned by any president. We need to encourage blue state AGs to vigorously prosecute those who attack clinics.
The "defending women from gender ideology extremism” headlines being parroted in the media needs to stop. Too many people don’t read any further (or at all) and certainly aren’t making the obvious connections regarding trans rights and women’s rights. This is how we got here in the first place. We need to take back the attention from the ground up. Both democrats and mainstream media have failed us. There is a lot of work to do!
Your work is so valuable. Keep it up.
Just want to drop a line here about how very much I appreciate the work you are doing, out here every single day. I'm truly inspired by you and so grateful for the relentless knowledge you are sharing.
I was coming here to say the same thing!
Now that Musk has access to what essentially is the country's central bank, this disturbing though occurs: most federal employees have healthcare coverage as part of their compensation. What if they just decide to refuse reproductive coverage for the 2.3 million government employees?
Love right back to you, Jessica
I’m feeling pretty dense about the CDC pages and scrubbing of certain terms. Is there anyone who can explain it to me like I’m a fifth grader what are the ramifications?
I have not been able to find any information about how the Louisiana AG found out that the young woman had an abortion. Do any of you know how the AG was alerted?
Certiorari was granted Dec. 18, 2024 in Medina v. Planned Parenthood about whether state Medicaid programs will be allowed to exclude health care providers from their Medicaid program because of the other services (e.g., abortion) the providers furnish. I bet you can guess how I think the Supreme Court will rule. The upshot would be that Medicaid beneficiaries who get family planning services from a particular provider (typically, Planned Parenthood) might not be able to get Medicaid coverage for those visits. And if Planned Parenthood can't get Medicaid funding, it'll be in ever more financial trouble than it is now. See Kian Azimpoor, "The Supreme Court Puts Access to Medicaid Family Planning Care on the Line," healthaffairs.org (Feb. 2 2025), https://www.healthaffairs.org/content/forefront/supreme-court-puts-a[...].
The most likely explanation for the deletions is still the requirement that references to gender are replaced by references to biological sex across the government, which is not quite as straightforward as it would seem. Presumably that is the executive order being referred to, although with the rate and scope that they're issuing them, one can never be sure. The indispensable Chris Geidner at Law Dork had a post on this.
That said, the purpose of defining transgender people out of existence is to make it easier to insist on rigid sex roles as just some kind of reality of the species. (Note that when any of these people use the word 'natural', you should always be translating it in your mind to 'biblical', because that's what they mean. Andra Watkins is an expert on Christian Nationalism and has a substack on this). So, yes, in the end result they are coming for all women.
If new versions of these government documents do resurface, it will be instructive to compare with the old ones to see exactly what and how they've changed.
Gender is so important to medical research. And sex and gender are not interchangeable terms. They are also having to scrub anything about healthcare disparities and social determinants of health and healthcare. The really scary thing is how much aggregated data is disappearing. The emails that HHS scientists are getting from above are beyond Kafkaesque.
Yes, sex and gender are not interchangeable terms and it is significant that none of the language used in these changes use the term "sex", they all refer to gender. Biology once again is taking a back seat. Further evidence to me that, along with some personal experience, the whole sexual diversity front is a religious conservative agenda and not at all a reaction to the same. This religious community is very jealous of what it decides qualifies as behavior for men and women. And if you don't conform, you don't qualify and your anatomy and appetites don't qualify you. At one time you were punished if you slipped out of the models, but now they just squeeze you into one of the myriad pigeon holes of the sexual diversity pantheon and you have no other place to go. And it may require surgery on your genitals.
Yeah. The evidence demonstrating inequality in this country is overwhelming. So if you want to keep your privilege you destroy all the evidence I guess. While it won't necessarily turn out the same, this stage of MAGA and the early stages of Nazism are indistinguishable.