A notorious Trump judge just fired the first shot against birth control

[Nevilledog]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/12/13/23505459/supreme-court-birth-control-contraception-constitution-matthew-kacsmaryk-deanda-becerra

Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee to a federal court in Texas, spent much of his career trying to interfere with other people’s sexuality.

A former lawyer at a religious conservative litigation shop, Kacsmaryk denounced, in a 2015 article, a so-called “Sexual Revolution” that began in the 1960s and 1970s, and which “sought public affirmation of the lie that the human person is an autonomous blob of Silly Putty unconstrained by nature or biology, and that marriage, sexuality, gender identity, and even the unborn child must yield to the erotic desires of liberated adults.”

So, in retrospect, it’s unsurprising that Kacsmaryk would be the first federal judge to embrace a challenge to the federal right to birth control after the Supreme Court’s June decision eliminating the right to an abortion.

Last week, Kacsmaryk issued an opinion in Deanda v. Becerra that attacks Title X, a federal program that offers grants to health providers that fund voluntary and confidential family planning services to patients. Federal law requires the Title X program to include “services for adolescents,”

The plaintiff in Deanda is a father who says he is “raising each of his daughters in accordance with Christian teaching on matters of sexuality, which requires unmarried children to practice abstinence and refrain from sexual intercourse until marriage.” He claims that the program must cease all grants to health providers who do not require patients under age 18 to “obtain parental consent” before receiving Title X-funded medical care.

*snip*

[Irish_Dem]

1. Young women have no idea what their lives will be like with no birth control.

[snowybirdie]

8. And young

men. Who wants to go there?

[Irish_Dem]

9. There has been GOP talk about abolishing child support payments for men.

But yes, men have no idea what they are in store for now.

DNA testing means there will be no escaping responsibility.

[Caliman73]

2. He has every right as a citizen to raise his kids how he wants...

I think it is backwards and ineffective but that is my opinion.

What the GOVERNMENT does not have the right to do, is impose particular religious or religiously inspired moralism on people who do not share those ideas.

No one has argued seriously, that humans are autonomous blobs of silly putty unconstrained by nature or biology. In fact, we are highly motivated by nature and biology and have created social constructs in part to help deal with some of those naturalistic drivers.

Marriage, gender, sexuality (while this has basis in biology), identity, etc... are concepts and labels that we have agreed upon and constructed as part of our existence in society.

People have bodily autonomy and if people who can become pregnant do not want to carry the fetus to the point of viability and birth, then they have the bodily autonomy to make that decision. His only argument is based on his religious beliefs and as I sad up top, he doesn't get to (or shouldn't get to) impose his religion on the rest of us.

I know this goes without saying because he is a Trump appointee, but this man is not very intelligent sounding.

[dalton99a]

3. "The Fifth Circuit has a history of rubber-stamping decisions handed down by Kacsmaryk"

[Mad_Machine76]

4. They are going to unimaginable lengths

to turn "religious freedom" from a shield against unlawful religious persecution into a sword by which to convert the rest of the country to their belief system.

[Nevilledog]

6. They don't care about converting, just controlling.

Belief is beside the point.

[Mad_Machine76]

7. Well true

Feels the same to me.

[Solly Mack]

5. So he wants the government to also raise his kids by changing its policy to fit his

parenting decisions?

Oh, I know it's about their need to force everything and everyone around them to adhere to their beliefs so they can feel safe and in control, but he is still asking the government to help him raise his children as well as trying to impose his beliefs on everyone else.

And I'll wager he's one of those people who whine about parental control over what is taught in schools by banning books and subjects he disagrees with - and of course he is because he's one those people who can't exist in a world of choices and ideas that challenge his beliefs.

He obviously doesn't believe in free will. (and isn't that part of his religion? to have free will)

His daughters must be rejecting his teachings. Which is also a challenge to his authority - which he can't stand.

This is also yet another case brought simply to attempt to overturn an existing law. (Like the web designer in Colorado)

One more attack against a world that the narrow minded and bigoted can't abide because they can't control it.

And if they can't control it, they don't feel safe - not because they are in any danger, but because they resent the challenges to their thinking and their beliefs.

They figure if you take away choices, then people have no choice but to do as they are told.

It's about control - and punishment.

Which sums up their entire religious outlook too.

Obey or burn.

[area51]

10. "erotic desires"

I think he has some skeletons in his closet.