A judge ordered Planned Parenthood to hand records of transgender care over to Andrew Bailey.
A St. Louis judge has ruled that Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey is entitled to Planned Parenthood’s transgender care records, ordering the nonprofit to turn over some of its most sensitive files to the man who has built his unelected political career on restricting health care access for trans people.
In his Thursday decision, Circuit Judge Michael Stelzer wrote that Bailey can collect documents under Missouri’s consumer protection statute that aren’t protected under federal mandate, namely the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, better known as HIPAA.
“It is clear from the statute that the Defendant has the broad investigative powers when the consumer is in possible need of protection and there is no dispute in this matter,” wrote Stelzer. “Therefore, the Defendant is entitled to some of the requested documents within his [Civil Investigative Demand].”
Bailey, who last year attempted to implement a ban on gender-affirming care for people of all ages, was quick to celebrate the decision, calling it a “big day” for the state.
Even better - Conservatives: show me your personal medical records, I need to know if you are doing something I want to be illegal.
Also conservatives: what do you mean you want to check my mental health background before I can purchase a gun? Outrageous.
The whole LGBT stuff is such bullshit since it should 100% easily fall under first amendment expression it is retarded that they have not been trounced are every turn.
Ah, but you see, there is no restrictions to owning a gun. Our forefathers believed so, even though at the time every gun was a single shot using black powder that wasn’t that accurate. They absolutely knew that one day people would have semi-automatic weapons able to fire off an obscene amount rounds in a minute, hitting a target accurately from a long distance.
Don’t forget that they were just coming out of a time of oppression and persistent existential fear, but were obviously clairvoyant enough to know that it would be a rule that held in what would be the absolute safest and most peaceful time the world has known in 200 years.
Do better, please.
I knew that would be the one thing someone would comment on. I am not referring to someone with cerebral palsy, downs syndrome, ADHD, or any other affect that would cause the slowing of mental capacity. I am referring to politisication of something that has a clear constitutional argument to be made. Also, I was using it as a double entandre, one as to call the lawmakers and judges who support this bullshit mentally deficient, but also to say that the whole thing impedes progress, which is the very definition of the verb ‘retard’.
If I had been using it derogatorily towards someone of actual diminished capacity, I would need to do better. These are supposedly competent elected and appointed officials. As long as they actively retard the growth of my country, I will freely and happily call them retarded.
Fair enough, I appreciate the well articulated response and agree with your usage, but you said it right here:
That’s the unfortunate state of things due to years of people using the word derogatorily. I applaud you trying to bring it back to proper usage, just be prepared that you will continue to get responses like mine and I doubt they’ll all be as considered as this was.
Thank you for your response anf kind acceptance.
It is actually a word that I have been endlessly frustrated with the changes socially to its use. When actually discussing mental deficiencies in a medical sense, the phrase “mentally retarded” is a rare apt terminology. It is “the state if being inhibited from further mental or cognitive progress”, which fits the definition of the verb “retard” perfectly. I understand that socially it was widely used abusively and historically it has a dubious past medically at best, but linguistically it is perfect. I guess that is what frustrates me, because so few things in this world have such a linguistic, well, not perfection, but something to that effect. I guess my failure in words goes to rhetorically illustrate my point.
Welcome. I wasn’t trying to stir the pot, just lookin’ out for a fellow linguaphile.
This attitude doesn’t really remove derogatory language, because idiots who want to be offensive just jump to stupid, new words, or else they turn words that we could previously use just fine into slurs.
/gestures the “ok” hand sign
Like that?
That would be an example, although I was thinking of something more relevant like people saying “accoustic” to insult autistic people.
That’s a thing? Ugh