I have a long night of work ahead of me, so I don’t know what time it is.
1. Res ipsa loquitur. Oopsie! “Health company apologizes for falsely telling 600,000 US military members they were infected with coronavirus”
Tricare apologized for a poorly worded email that implied the recipient had been infected with the Wuhan virus.
I guess the writer was a Rutgers English major.
On the bright side, it is better to get a false positive than a false negative.
2. Schadenfreude Alert! Seattle radio host Paul Gallant mocked President Donald Trump last month for suggesting Seattle’s riots were violent. Then, last night, the “mostly peaceful” demonstrations got his Starbucks. HIS STARBUCKS!!!
“I feel like I need to buy a firearm, because clearly this is going to keep happening. Enough is enough,” Gallant he added.
It was enough a long time ago, you pathetic jerk.
3. Boy, when you can’t even trust the sports reporters…ESPN tweeted a video over the weekend of players from the WNBA’s New York Liberty and the Seattle Storm leaving the court, and wrote, “As the national anthem was played, the @nyliberty and @seattlestorm walked off the floor as part of the social justice initiative.” For this display, the women were roundly criticized.
Then ESPN tweeted “Correction: Players left the court before the national anthem was played, not during.” That’s what I call a material mistake.
Nevertheless, at last checking, the original misleading tweet is still up.
4. This is presumably justifiable because all cops in New Jersey are racists, as proven by the fact that a non-racist cop in Minneapolis killed a black man. Kevin Trejo, 21, of Westwood, New Jersey has been arrested for spitting into the coffee of a police officer at Starbucks. Police have evidence that Trejo had done this repeatedly with officers. Trejo claims to have only done it just once. Oh! Well that’s OK, then!
Question 1: Is this a violent offense?
Question 2: Why would any police officer chance ordering a beverage at Starbucks?
5. Gorsuch was still right, and so is the ACLU. In Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), the Civil Rights Act of 1964 extended to sexual orientation, this making discrimination against gay and transgender individuals illegal. Since such discrimination is unethical beyond a reasonable doubt, I regard the decision as one where the Court reasonably interprets the law according to ethical and practical enlightenment over time, as it did in Brown v. Bd. of Education.
Now conservative pundits are claiming that the parade of horribles predicted by anti-LGBTQ activists in the wake of this decision is coming to pass. In Hammons v. University of Maryland Medical System (UMMS), a biological female who identifies as a transgender man, Jesse Hammons, claims St. Joseph Medical Center unlawfully discriminated against “them” by refusing to perform a hysterectomy to remove the transitioning female’s healthy uterus. The lawsuit, critics say, aims to force Catholic hospitals to violate its interpretation of the Hippocratic Oath by removing a fully-functional organ and permanently sterilizing patients.
The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services established by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops directs that Catholic hospitals may not perform procedures that induce sterility unless “their direct effect is the cure or alleviation of a present and serious pathology and a simpler treatment is not available.” St. Joseph performs hysterectomies to treat serious medical conditions. Hammons and the ACLU argue that gender dysphoria (identifying with the gender opposite one’s birth sex) is a serious condition requiring hysterectomy, and thus the hysterectomy is a “medically necessary treatment relating to his [sic] diagnosis of gender dysphoria.” The hospital had scheduled the surgery, but canceled it after its ethics committee determined the surgery would violate the Hippocratic Oath.
Did canceling the surgery involved discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare)? The question comes down to whether or not transgender surgery is “medically necessary” or the infliction of harm. Catholic teaching holds fertility to be an essential bodily function, it regards elective sterility as immoral, an attack on God’s design for the human body. Transgender activists and pro-transgender health professionals regard transgender surgery as essential to alleviate the emotional distress of gender dysphoria.
I don’t see how this case properly involved sexual discrimination at all. The hospital refuses to remove all healthy uteruses, and it doesn’t matter what the patient “identifies as,” or why. It’s not as if the hospital will remove health male uteruses. It seems obvious to me that this is a fake lawsuit, much like some of the wedding cake suits. Hammons and the ACLU want to prevent Catholic hospitals from interpreting medical ethics through a religious lens. The appeal to Bostock is contrived and disingenuous, and I suspect it will fail.
If Hammons and the ACLU really want to win the case, they need only make the medically supportable argument that a uterus itself is a dangerous medical condition if one has no intention of conceiving. A woman having a hysterectomy reduces her chances of dying from cancer, perhaps significantly. That should be enough to get past the “do no harm” prohibition.