- Joined
- Jun 18, 2018
- Messages
- 81,547
- Reaction score
- 86,535
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
"Dozens of mainstream medical societies, including the leading associations of pediatricians, filed amici briefs arguing against S.B.1. Apparently trying to find their footing, conservative justices asked about new regulations in the United Kingdom and Sweden. But those regulations were written by medical — not legislative — authorities, and they come nowhere near a total ban.
...The ease with which legislators overrule doctors, and the relatively small amount of attention this overreach received during the Supreme Court hearing, are symptoms of our times. Just in the last few years, more than half the states have passed legislation that limits access to gender-affirming care. Many of the laws are at least as restrictive as S.B.1 — despite the medical profession’s opposition to total bans. Defying medical consensus is becoming something of a national pastime. Childhood vaccination rates continue their precipitous decline. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., vaccine skeptic and raw-milk proponent, is our secretary of health and human services designee.
Rejection of genuine expertise is both a precondition and a function of autocracy. Joseph Stalin’s regime outlawed genetics as “pseudoscience,” while he himself was declared an expert in all fields, from linguistics to biology.
Contempt for expertise is not the only autocratic force at work in the case of S.B.1 and in similar laws. Another is the government’s intrusion into private lives — in this case, the shameless assumption that legislators can make decisions that rightfully belong with families and their physicians. The Federal District Court cited this issue as one of its reasons for overturning S.B.1. Parents have a “fundamental right to direct the medical care of their children,” the court wrote. That, however, is the part of the case the Supreme Court decided not even to consider.
A third force is the growing intolerance of minorities and, in particular, people who dare to challenge tradition. It’s a cliché to point out that the totalitarian governments of the 20th century jailed and killed freethinkers and outliers of every kind. But it’s a cliché that seems to need repeating, since contemporary autocrats do the same thing — and many of them start by targeting L.G.B.T.Q. people."
Link
One notes that while right-wing legislators and judges support determining medical issues, while ignoring the experts, they are doing a similar thing with 3dycatiin by forcing curriculum and policy on schools.
The author correctly refers to this as a sign if autocracy at the same time the country elects a president who, among other things, wants the senate to abdicate their power to the executive in the appointing of his cabinet.
...The ease with which legislators overrule doctors, and the relatively small amount of attention this overreach received during the Supreme Court hearing, are symptoms of our times. Just in the last few years, more than half the states have passed legislation that limits access to gender-affirming care. Many of the laws are at least as restrictive as S.B.1 — despite the medical profession’s opposition to total bans. Defying medical consensus is becoming something of a national pastime. Childhood vaccination rates continue their precipitous decline. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., vaccine skeptic and raw-milk proponent, is our secretary of health and human services designee.
Rejection of genuine expertise is both a precondition and a function of autocracy. Joseph Stalin’s regime outlawed genetics as “pseudoscience,” while he himself was declared an expert in all fields, from linguistics to biology.
Contempt for expertise is not the only autocratic force at work in the case of S.B.1 and in similar laws. Another is the government’s intrusion into private lives — in this case, the shameless assumption that legislators can make decisions that rightfully belong with families and their physicians. The Federal District Court cited this issue as one of its reasons for overturning S.B.1. Parents have a “fundamental right to direct the medical care of their children,” the court wrote. That, however, is the part of the case the Supreme Court decided not even to consider.
A third force is the growing intolerance of minorities and, in particular, people who dare to challenge tradition. It’s a cliché to point out that the totalitarian governments of the 20th century jailed and killed freethinkers and outliers of every kind. But it’s a cliché that seems to need repeating, since contemporary autocrats do the same thing — and many of them start by targeting L.G.B.T.Q. people."
Link
One notes that while right-wing legislators and judges support determining medical issues, while ignoring the experts, they are doing a similar thing with 3dycatiin by forcing curriculum and policy on schools.
The author correctly refers to this as a sign if autocracy at the same time the country elects a president who, among other things, wants the senate to abdicate their power to the executive in the appointing of his cabinet.