Federal judge stops transgender, abortion-related Obamacare protections
It’d the same judge who halted President Obama’s transgender guidance for schools.
Click here for reuse options!A federal judge in Texas on Saturday issued a nationwide injunction halting enforcement of Obama administration protections for transgender and abortion-related healthcare services just one day before they were due to go into effect.
The lawsuit — brought by Texas, a handful of other states, and some religiously affiliated nonprofit medical groups — challenges a regulation implementing the sex nondiscrimination requirement found in the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
The Health and Human Services (HHS) regulation “forbids discriminating on the basis of ‘gender identity’ and ‘termination of pregnancy’” under Obamacare, as US District Court Judge Reed O’Connor wrote in his opinion halting enforcement of those provisions in the rule.
Explaining the lawsuit, O’Connor wrote, “Plaintiffs claim the Rule’s interpretation of sex discrimination pressures doctors to deliver healthcare in a manner that violates their religious freedom and thwarts their independent medical judgment and will require burdensome changes to their health insurance plans on January 1, 2017.”
…The White House defended the administration’s policies on Saturday night.
“Today’s decision is a setback, but hopefully a temporary one, since all Americans — regardless of their sex, gender identity or sexual orientation — should have access to quality, affordable health care free from discrimination,” White House spokesperson Katie Hill told BuzzFeed News.
Copyright 2017 Liberaland
47 responses to Federal judge stops transgender, abortion-related Obamacare protections
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
mea_mark January 1st, 2017 at 08:46
I am getting really tired of theses theocratic government officials trying to subjugate people based on their religious interpretation of things, it’s so anti-American. We really need to put a stop to this before they start trying to subjugate everybody that doesn’t agree with their mythology.
Buford2k11 January 1st, 2017 at 08:50
ok, mark, think about this…Trump gets sworn in…after two or three days/weeks, we invoke the 25th amendment…That leaves us with the real Theocrat…so, we are in a real dilemma…
mea_mark January 1st, 2017 at 08:55
Civil war and revolution are looking more and more like the probable outcome of the events we are going through now. We have strayed too far from the basic tenants of what are country was founded upon. We are entering a period of great instability, change is coming. The chances for a peaceful orderly change seem to have all but vanished, leaving behind only chaos and uncertainty.
Foundryman January 1st, 2017 at 12:19
Hundreds of thousands maybe more, of far right wing nuts have been preparing for a revolution for decades. They are convinced the “leftist commies” are their enemy and will kill. We can’t underestimate radical fanaticism.
mea_mark January 1st, 2017 at 12:31
Especially now, the Ass-in-Chief is activating them.
KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker January 1st, 2017 at 20:04
That sounds silly and irrational.
Perhaps left leaning ideologues should’ve voted against Trump rather than squander their opportunity and then foolishly call for civil war.
Nonsense!
mea_mark January 2nd, 2017 at 09:09
I’m calling it as I see it. Peaceful revolution is still possible through cooperation in not cooperating with the government and that is what I’m pushing for.
jayseedub January 1st, 2017 at 12:36
I do agree with you that the “religious freedom” argument is a weak one, and a slippery slope for the Conservative side. It’s a fine line to walk, and I don’t think the Conservatives always think about how it can/could be applied to the radical-Muslim bogeyman “we” so fear.
oldfart January 2nd, 2017 at 09:37
What they are trying to accomplish is installing
their own interpretation of “sharia law” upon a free and open society.
jybarz January 1st, 2017 at 08:49
The mean-spirited Christians in name but not in deeds continue their Unchristian ways.
Suzanne McFly January 1st, 2017 at 09:32
Well if they want to pick and choose which federal laws to follow, I wish we could choose which states receive federal funding.
labman57 January 1st, 2017 at 09:46
Doctors in Texas have replaced the Hippocratic Oath with the Hypocritical Oath.
Caroleccullen January 2nd, 2017 at 06:21
Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj232d:
On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
!mj232d:
➽➽
➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash232ShopNewGetPay$97Hour… ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!mj232d:….,……
jayseedub January 1st, 2017 at 10:21
Finally, science and logic speak! Gender does not equal sex, and neither determines (or resolves) the other!
mea_mark January 1st, 2017 at 10:23
Is that justification for discrimination?
jayseedub January 1st, 2017 at 12:34
Thanks for the question. Is science and logic justification for discrimination? Yes, sometimes.
(As you likely know), discrimination is not always bad. And we must discriminate (make decisions, define boundaries, determine one course of action against another) in nearly every aspect of our daily life. I do think that science and logic are solid bases for that–yes.
In the case of the transgender, I find it difficult to argue that Person One can actually make a discriminatory action against Person Two for what even GLAAD *defines* as an “**INTERNAL** personal sense” of being a man or woman (emphasis mine, of course). How can I ever even know–and measure and verify–what is internal and personal to someone (and therefore how could I discriminate against it if it’s internal and personal)? In fact, if we use the current Left’s argument, gender is flexible, transitory, and unrelated to biological sex–so even if I did discriminate against someone on the basis of some unmeasurable, invisible, internal, personal “sense,” that “sense” might have changed or morphed the moment after I “discriminated” against them. Using another argument from the Left, external cues don’t define gender, either–so how would I know!?
It’s this absurdity that forces me to argue against conflating “sex” with “gender,” since it’s clear to me that they are separate things.
mea_mark January 1st, 2017 at 12:44
Sounds like you are saying it is ok to discriminate against transgender people because you aren’t sure if it is discrimination based on identity. That seems really messed up to me. Kinda like saying, I don’t understand you so I am discriminating against you for that reason. Which is really no reason, it’s just discrimination.
jayseedub January 1st, 2017 at 12:55
Thank you for asking for the clarification–let me first be clear–I think people who suffer from gender dysphoria, or who have thoughts that cause them stress and strife (about gender, about anything) are wholly lovable human beings, and treated with respect, kindness, and love. Entirely. Full stop.
What I don’t think society should succumb to, embrace, celebrate, encourage, or take action upon is what I think is a delusion. I have studied sexuality extensively, done scholarly reading of numerous sources of data and studies regarding the issue of the transgender (which come to conclusions that both confirm, challenge, and shape my view), and I can’t come to the conclusion (especially in children, but also beyond) that gender dysphoria is something that should be accommodated by through permanently-altering hormones or radical surgery.
That is the basis for my “discrimination.” Though the issues are different, it is similar to an anorexic asking me for a prescription for more diet pills (yes, I know the arguments that surround these differences). It is both kind and right for me to NOT prescribe medical interventions that accommodate their incorrect “internal, personal sense of being overweight,” and to try to treat them psychologically or psychiatrically for what is not a medical problem with a perfectly functional body–but how they think about that body.
mea_mark January 1st, 2017 at 13:10
I don’t think the judge ruled the way he did based on your line of thinking. In the context of the article in which you were commenting, your original comment did not make sense. The judge, more than likely, was making a ruling based on his religious beliefs. It sure looks like unconstitutional religious/judicial activism from the bench.
fahvel January 1st, 2017 at 13:19
why continue a dialogue with a high school philosophy mind? – it’s locked with no flexibility and no where to go.
jayseedub January 1st, 2017 at 16:16
I am committed to a point of view that I’ve researched and feel confident in, yes. I’m open to hearing your side and your justification, though, and arguing against it (if you dare challenge my “high school” mind!).
(Or is it just easier to cast aspersions against me, someone you don’t know, but disagree with on this one issue?)
In truth, as I’ve learned more, I have actually changed some of my approach and view of transgender issues, you’ll be happy to know! We don’t grow if we don’t learn and challenge our assumptions!
:-)
jayseedub January 1st, 2017 at 16:12
If you read the judge’s decision, the first reason given is that “sex” may not be defined as “gender,” since all the prior (and original) definitions of “sex” referred to “the immutable biological differences between males and females ‘as acknowledged at or before birth.'” That has nothing to do with religion, and in the decision references /Chevron/ in this respect, and is the primary basis for my original comment. Thanks for you ongoing civil engagement–I appreciate the back and forth!
Do you have a case to propose to support your view, that I could comment or ague against? I’m interested in your side/approach, as well. (As you see, I’m not too interested in supporting the “religious freedom” aspect of the argument–I think we agree there). I’m more interested in the scientific/logical/practical application of the orginal Title IX “guidance” issued by the Obama Administration, and what the arguments are for how it can practically be enforced.
Foundryman January 1st, 2017 at 13:48
You are confused as to what discrimination actually is. Society passes
laws, makes judicial rulings or enacts legislation to protect against
harm. Rulings that restrict what people think say or do that does no
harm to others, is discrimination. There is no reason to restrict how
people want to live there own lives as long as no one is harmed. There’s
a recent case of an eight year transgendered child being thrown out of
cub scouts because his birth certificate said ‘female’ yet he looked,
acted and sounded just like a little boy. All the other kids treated
him as equal, a regular kid. Who was harmed when that child was forced
to quit? If the child was born with female genitals but without a
uterus, ovaries and female hormones, is he just ‘pretending” to be a boy
that can be reversed through therapy or is there reason to suspect some
type of abnormality?
jayseedub January 1st, 2017 at 16:34
Thanks for the reply, Foundryman. Let me get the cub scout thing out of the way, first. The Boy Scouts are a private organization, and not subject to rules under discussion here–specifically which deal with the ACA (“Obamacare”) and possibly Title IX.
However, indulging your argument on its merits, the Boy Scouts are, by charter, for boys. The girl in question was not a boy, and so very simply is not eligible to join. Interestingly, the cub scout group I led, and which my boys attended did include girl siblings to participate alongside their siblings–but of course the girls didn’t wear the uniform, nor were they members. You are right that there is no obvious harm–but the girl was not a boy, and therefore did not comply with the rule. (A speeding ticket need not be issued only when an accident occurs–there may be an offense if a rule is broken, harm need not be present to enforce a rule).
I do think it’s interesting when the argument turns to external sex characteristics, as you’ve brought up above.
The argument from the Left seems at once to be that external sex characteristics (or internal, for that matter) don’t matter, and that it’s how one “feels” or “thinks of oneself” that is the important fact (hence, the desire to conflate “sex” with “gender”). Yet, the goal of the transgendered (and certainly in the case of the ACA and this particular case) is to obtain external genitalia to “align” with one’s “internal sense” of their sex.
So, indeed, external “genitalia” (in quotes, since surgically developed “genitalia” don’t actually perform the full sexual function it does in those chromosomally aligned with their actual genitalia) DO seem to matter to the Left, beyond the “internal sense of gender identity.” In fact, they’re seemingly essential!
By another argument, if it is so important to get surgery and hormones to augment one’s body with a surgically constructed “penis” or “breasts”–is it not frustrating to the recently-altered transgender person that the penis does not erect naturally (a pump is needed), that the “testicles” are just weighty silicone spheres, the “vagina” is a dry, terminal orifice, and that the “breasts” don’t produce milk? In fact, the surgical “genitalia” are simply symbols of what someone HOPES to appear as–it does not change what or who they are. Does that not also bring some lack of completeness (“discomfort” or anxiety, again) in the post-surgical transgender?
Foundryman January 1st, 2017 at 20:48
You said..”I do think it’s interesting when the argument turns to external sex characteristics, as you’ve brought up above.”
The argument doesn’t “turn” to external sex characteristics, it is THE argument!
If a person is born with a penis, along with a uterus, and ovaries and has a body that develops exactly like a girl by the time they are three in your world that person is male solely because of what you can see. Nevermind the genetic and biological evidence of everything else being female? Or vice-versa in the case of this little boy who wanted to be a cub scout. Because of what you can see, you believe you can discriminate against that person. Penis= boy, vagina=girl…period!
It is those like you on the right who believe the scientific or biological differences doesn’t matter, internal or external. You’re the one who believes these people can be “fixed” through therapy.
The desire for a surgical remedy falls solely on the person and their doctor, not you, not a judge and not an health insurance company. Why? Because it’s none of your damn business!
BTW…discrimination by a private org. is just as wrong as any other group or person or government entity.
jayseedub January 1st, 2017 at 21:42
[Let me start by making clear that “discriminating against” does not mean “mistreating” or “abusing.” Just as the “Curves” gym allows only women to be members, and just as the Congressional Black Caucus only allows blacks to be members, it does not mean others are being “discriminated” against. Or would you argue that these organizations are also discriminatory, and would you act to legally force them to open their membership to all?]
I’ll respond to each of your paragraphs:
Paragraph Two: You assert that it’s ALL about external genitalia. Actually, external genitalia (the Left tells us) mean nothing. The Left asserts that neither sex nor gender are reliant on or indicated by one’s external sex characteristica (“Girls” can have penises or not, “boys can have vaginas or not, is what the Left says.) I believe the argument being put forth by the ACA and the “guidance” for Title IX (upon which the ACA bases its definition of “sex”) is that “gender identity” is comparable with “sex.”
The Obama Administration asserts that “sex” and “gender” are one and the same (I quote–“The Departments treat a student’s gender identity as the student’s sex for the purpose of Title IX….” /Dear Colleague Letter on Transgender Students/ May 13, 2016, pg. 2).
If “gender identity” is defined (by the same Obama Administration letter, quoted above) as “an individual’s internal sense of gender,” (pg.1) then there is no reference to external sex characteristics. At all. Note the word “internal.” By a logical argument, if “sex” equals “gender,” than “sex” equals “an individual’s internal sense of gender.” This is the Obama (and the Left’s) logic. Sex is not determined by external genitalia. Do you disagree with the Obama Administration’s guidance in this case? (Of course, I think it’s absurd, but do you?)
Paragraph Three: In fact, the primary guiding scientific standard I hold when it comes to sex differentiation is chromosomes. XX is female. XY is male. Others are “intersex,” and not subject to this argument. Chromosomes are scientifically measurable, observable, and testable. They are definitive in ways that neither gender identity, gender roles, gender expression, or external genitalia are not. So, contrary to your assertion, external genitalia are NOT the standard by which I would determine that the girl in the Cub Scouts should not be there. It’s the fact that she’s a biological female that disallows her membership.
Paragraph Four: As you just read, in fact I do rely upon scientifically testable and observable chromosomes as the determinant for what sex you are. I do believe (supported by research) that therapy can be an effective intervention for people who have gender dysphoria. Disagreeing with this would put you outside of the medical/psychological/scientific field in their approach to gender dysphoria.
Paragraph Five: “Surgical remedy,” as you phrase it, does not “remedy” thoughts and beliefs of incongruity between the mind and body. Hormones and surgery may give a man “bumps” on his chest, but they are not milk-producing breasts. They may create a dry pocket of skin between the legs, but they cannot ever self-lubricate for sex, give birth to a baby or experience a menstrual cycle. A tube of skin constructed with pendulous silicone nuggets will not self-erect with sexual arousal, or ever ejaculate sperm. The surgical “remedy” simply provides symbolic external *representations* of what the transgender hopes to present to the world. They are not true genitals, and they are soon found out to be no remedy, once the person realizes that the surgery and hormones are only symbolic, and hold no sexual magic.
Where it does become my concern (and yours, and society’s) is when the government mandates that entirely functional, healthy, intact bodies must (upon a delusion) risk anesthesia, elective surgical intervention, permanent physical alteration and permanent sterility, and bear the cost (with government funding)–then it becomes an issue for my concern. If, as you argue, the decision is solely that of an individual and their doctor, then there should be no expectation that insurance should pay for it, nor that there be any laws that rein it in (or out). Of course, that’s not the position we’re in. It’s NOT just between a person and their doctor. The government, law, money, insurance, risk, and society are all involved. And the government is actively thrusting themselves into it via the ACA and the “Dear Colleague” guidance.
Paragraph Six: You are entitled to your conviction that discrimination by private organizations is “wrong,” but it is permitted, and legally protected (with some exceptions). You should petition to change laws so that no organization may deny membership to anyone for any reason (good luck!). Is that really your position and conviction, or upon what standard may someone be denied membership in some group?
oldfart January 1st, 2017 at 11:34
How quaint.
A reality denier.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3a955deadc2fa40de74f52ceb14676f24d08aaf19ceeabc8cb9af0c798f642f2.jpg
jayseedub January 1st, 2017 at 12:25
Thank you oldfart. Ad hominem statements may (sadly) build your ivory tower higher and give you the sense that you’ve both said something and learned something–but the failure to address the substance of my comment give me solace in the strength of my viewpoint! Thank you, again.
oldfart January 1st, 2017 at 12:57
You’re so welcome.
I appreciate your bloviating pontifications
proving my point on the substance of your comment.
Have a great day.
bpollen January 1st, 2017 at 16:54
Huh?
Please, what science and what logic are you referring to? Gender and sex are both relatively amorphous concepts. Gender, for instance, is defined: the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).” Now, in languages such as Spanish, inanimate objects are given male and female endings. (“Mesa” means table, the “a” at the end is the feminine ending.)
It’s a particularly ridiculous premise in light of the fact that the complaint doesn’t even MENTION what you say is speaking. It’s the religious freedom to discriminate being curtailed that is the SOLE issue… at least according to the judge who MADE the decision you redefine.
jayseedub January 1st, 2017 at 17:24
Actually they’re not really amorphous at all. Both Law and Science have very clear definitions of both “Sex” and “Gender.”
In fact, by definition, for science even to approach the topics of sex and gender the terms must be measurable and definable.
“Gender” in this legal case does not refer to the linguistic aspects of “gender”, as you suggest.
If you read the court decision, you’ll see that my statement is not rediculous, and that religious freedom is ONE of the aspects, but not the SOLE issue (as you assert).
The court decision rendered (I’ve read it) does indeed address the definitions of “sex” and “gender,” and the case does include RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act), but also includes and argument about the APA (Administrative Procedures Act), which IS relevant to my point. So “religious freedom” is not the SOLE issue on which this court decision was handed down (it actually also included the APA, as mentioned, as well as the First Amendment, specifically, freedom of speech).
Please read the decision, and thanks for giving me the opportunity to set your comment straight.
bpollen January 1st, 2017 at 18:03
Actually, science says of sex and gender “It’s complicated.”
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/sex-gender-and-sexuality-its-complicated/
It sure ain’t a binary choice. Is it genetics? Genetically, we can be XX, XY, XXY, XYY, and XO. Doesn’t sound clear to me. Is it gentalia? People can be born with genitalia for both sexes. Some conditions result in XY individuals being born sans penis. Some fish will change between functional male to functional female. That’s not clearly defined.
Pertinent quote in the article:
“Science has not been able to categorically distinguish a male from a female. There’s no one simple test to determine whether an individual is a woman or a man. It’s not an either/or dichotomy, but a multidimensional spectrum on several axes, from the biological to the social to the psychological. And science has not conclusively shown which characteristics are biologically determined. Nature and nurture interact and influence each other; it’s difficult to tease out the contributions of each. Each axis has its own continuum, with degrees of strength. A person can fall at the male end of the spectrum on some axes and at the female end of the spectrum on others.”
Legally? I could, should I go through sexual-reassignment surgery, get my gender changed on my driver’s license. And on my birth certificate. And, in DIRECT rebuttal to your “legally clearly defined” claim, not all states even require proof of sexual reassignment surgery Which means that M or F can be chosen by a court with NO physical reality on which to base it. And even in those that DO require proof, that M or F determination is made on the basis of SURGICAL CHANGES. “Not really clearly defined” obviously obtains here.
Amorphous – adj.- without a clearly defined shape or form; vague; ill-organized; unclassifiable; (of a group of people or an organization) lacking a clear structure or focus.
Than you for the opportunity to point out that you are NOT correct. Gender and sex are NOT clearly defined, your faux-erudite pronouncements to the contrary.
Feel free to show the body of scientific work that says that gender and sex are clearly categorized, and the legal framework under which gender and sex are clearly and universally defined across the country.
jayseedub January 1st, 2017 at 18:33
(First, you attacked me personally, so I wonder how you know I’m “faux-erudite?” Please be kind.)
You’re right–it can be complicated. But you also should concede that just because something is complicated, it doesn’t mean that it defies categorization or definition. Exceptions don’t necessarily define things, nor do they render definitions useless.
And it’s true, there can be multiple definitions or categorizations (see, I can concede some arguments!)–but that truth doesn’t mean that there can’t be clear definitions among them. Your point about legally changing your sex via sex reassignment surgery interestingly makes my point–there is a legal definition or distinction that needs to be met for such an action to be undertaken (it’s not arbitrary, nor random). Are there multiple legal definitions? Yes (I concede!).
Does that mean that we should ignore all the existing definitions? Does it mean that they hold no validity? Should we not challenge them? Should we not give them some substance? Should we not defend them, and seek further definition and clarity?
Would you argue that any exception to a definition or category renders it meaningless? I think it would be short-sighted to agree to that.
We can define “sex” in this legal case as what the law it references defines it as (see Title IX, which is referenced in respect to this legal case). That is the starting point of this particular argument. If your statement above is that the decision in question does not define “sex” or “gender,” then a reading of the decision will disabuse you of that assertion (it does!). If you *disagree* with the decision (and Title IX’s) clear language, you can put forth your disagreement, but it doesn’t change the letter and interpretation of the law.
Regarding science of sex and gender: If I wish to develop a scientific test of some sort that includes “sex” as an aspect of that experiment, I must first establish what I mean by “sex” (is it only XX and XY? Is it only external genitalia? Is it the ability to produce offspring? Each one is instructive, but each has it exceptions (Ha! I started typing “sexceptions!”). But each is a definition, and one that is substantive and defendable.
I suppose that we can make this an argument about what “sex” and “gender” are–but then I’d first ask you to define each term so that we can frame the discussion. If you’re unwilling/unable to do that, then we’ll just be talking past each other (if you wonder, I lean toward the chromosomal XX, XY, biological definition of sex).
If your assertion is that “sex” and “gender” are ultimately beyond definition, then any argument about them is meaningless, and we should discard any rules, structures, guidance, mention, or discussion of them at all (though the rest of the world will continue to recognize their own common definition).
(A quick Google search of academic studies relating to sex and gender will show you that many, many, many studies clearly outline their definition of each term).
I think you raise some good points, and appreciate the engagement!
bpollen January 1st, 2017 at 19:02
Sniff…. I hate when I force people to feign outrage over personal attacks that aren’t personal attacks.
So, you say that legally it’s clearly defined because it can be assigned via judicial fiat? A judge SAYS you are male, so obviously it’s clearly defined? So, one second BEFORE that judicial fiat, it was UNdefined? But, thanks to the wonders of modern jurisprudence, that CLEAR definition is CLEARLY defined on the decision of ONE person. Your quibble actually negates itself. If it is subject to the decision-making of a single solitary individual, then it is SUBJECTIVELY, not OBJECTIVELY, defined.
You say that science and logic spoke apparently based on your what you yourself say is subject to MULTIPLE definitions, to say that it’s clear both SCIENTIFICALLY and LEGALLY is pure, unadulterated not-Shinola. Science, according to science, does NOT have a clear definition of either, and the definitions are STILL being modified and updated as new data comes in. And to say that something is clearly defined when two separate jurists can choose your gender two different ways is scientifically, linguistically, and legalistically NOT clearly defined.
You obviously have your position staked out, but your arguments and pronouncements (faux-erudition or no) don’t support your position worth a damn. The word “set” has 464 definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary. Is THAT clearly defined? “Run” has 396, “go” has 343, “stand” has 334, “get” has 289. Are they “clearly defined?” If I can see the word all by its lonesome, and I have 3-or-400 possible choices of the definition, and even when put in CONTEXT, it might have multiple meanings, is THAT clearly defined?
So… you say multiple definitions (which are expanding in number and scope) equals a clear definition. Then, if multiple definitions is a CLEAR definition, tell me exactly what I mean when I say the word “go.”
jayseedub January 1st, 2017 at 19:05
That was unkind, and I withdraw from further conversation.
bpollen January 1st, 2017 at 19:33
Oh, gee, there I go getting people all verklempt by not showing proper contrition for their fragile ego damage.
I think you just can’t support your position and are just calling “you’re a meanie!” to avoid explaining how a SUBJECTIVE definition is a clearly defined definition (considering that the exact OPPOSITE subjective opinion could be rendered by another individual with the exact same facts offered.) Or how science says they aren’t sure of the definitions but science is wrong.
I said faux-erudition because your arguments were well worded (hey, he knows English!) but don’t stand up under the own weight in reality. If my calling a spade a spade hurts your delicate sensibilities, perhaps you should refrain from public discourse, particularly when proffering a bogus rationale to support a clearly incorrect statement.
whatthe46 January 2nd, 2017 at 09:43
it looks like someone ran to their safe place. LOL
oldfart January 2nd, 2017 at 09:48
I bet he’ll be back,
he’s a follower of wrong thinking one…
if not his evil twin…
It’s a pity his comment history doesn’t also contain the rebuttals
to his self-serving drivel.
bpollen January 2nd, 2017 at 14:42
That’s our whatthe… straight to the point!
whatthe46 January 2nd, 2017 at 14:52
hello bpollen!!!!
bpollen January 2nd, 2017 at 15:41
Hiya, sweetie!!!
Bunya January 3rd, 2017 at 14:13
You should know by now not to confuse the RWers with facts. Now, run along to your nearest catholic church and beg the pedophile for forgiveness for this evil sin.
bpollen January 3rd, 2017 at 15:39
It’ll have to wait until there’s a wedding or funeral in a Catlicker church. That’s the only reason I go to church.
oldfart January 1st, 2017 at 10:51
Leave it to a Federal judge from Texassistan,
to completely over look the constitution.
Foundryman January 1st, 2017 at 12:11
Anyone want to guess this judge is a religious fanatic?
bpollen January 1st, 2017 at 16:46
If you can’t do the job, get out of the biz. Practice yer friggin’ fairy-tale fan-club BS on your OWN damn time.
The bible also says that, in every seventh year, all debts should be cancelled. So does that mean I can stop my house-payments 23 years early? Can I sell your daughters into slavery? Roast your children for disobeying? Stone your philandering wife to death? And was she a virgin when you married her? That’s a death-penalty offense.I saw you mowing your lawn on Sunday. God says I should kill you. Cuz religious freedumb! Oh, and have you ever had pre-marital sex? That’s punishable by death too!
My religion says I am exempt from all taxes, fees, laws, and responsibilities. Can I get a RFRA for that?
amersham1046 January 1st, 2017 at 17:05
America, proudly stepping forward into 1951