Share this page!

Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
Twitter logo
13 Apr, 5 tweets, 3 min read
By a 9–7 vote, the 6th Circuit lifts an injunction that had blocked an Ohio statute prohibiting doctors from terminating a pregnancy because of Down Syndrome. The decision effectively defies Roe by upholding a total ban on certain abortions pre-viability.
opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/2…
The dissenters have thoughts on the conservatives' opinions:

•"self-devouring and logically untenable"
•"perverse and deplorable"
•"overly simplified and grossly inaccurate"
•"simply analytically unsustainable"
•"enormous and terrible ramifications"
Several conservative judges accused women of participating in eugenics when they terminate a pregnancy due to Due Syndrome. In addition to being profoundly offensive (please do not compare abortion to the Holocaust), this claim badly botches history. theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
I recommend this amicus brief by mothers of children with Down Syndrome who oppose Ohio's ban on abortion because of Down Syndrome. It points out that the same Republicans who support Ohio's ban refuse to fund medical care for people with Down Syndrome.
aclu.org/sites/default/…
"If the legislature truly cared about the lives of Ohioans with Down syndrome, it would have enacted measures to care for these persons once they are born ... The support that Ohio currently provides these families is neither robust nor refined." aclu.org/sites/default/…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Mark Joseph Stern

Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @mjs_DC

Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
10 Apr
The Supreme Court uses an unsigned shadow docket opinion on Friday night to confirm that it has altered 3+ decades of precedent. This is not a plausible reading of Smith or Church of Lukumi. It’s a new rule—most-favored nation status for religion.
supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett have used the shadow docket to establish a new First Amendment rule: Whenever the government grants an accommodation to secular activities or establishments, it MUST give that same accommodation to churches and religious activity.
Anyway, these COVID orders strongly suggest that the Supreme Court will side with the anti-gay foster care agency in Fulton v. Philadelphia and force the city to fund it. The extreme sensitivity to alleged religious discrimination on display here does not bode well for Philly.
Read 5 tweets
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
5 Apr
The Supreme Court once again takes no action on Dobbs, the challenge to Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban, or the pending gun cases. It takes up one habeas case, Brown v. Davenport. Orders: supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…
🚨Clarence Thomas suggests that social media companies may NOT have a First Amendment right to regulate speech on their platforms, analogizing them to "common carriers" and "places of public accommodation." supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…
In other words, Clarence Thomas is inviting Congress to ban social media companies from engaging in content moderation by stripping them of their own First Amendment rights and transforming them, for legal purposes, into common carriers or public accommodations.
Read 10 tweets
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
31 Mar
Here are the official new Pentagon policies allowing military service and enlistment by openly transgender people, effective April 30, pursuant to Biden's executive order. They are fantastic. esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Doc…
Transgender people may enlist in the military and receive all necessary gender-related care. People currently serving in the military may come out as transgender, formally change their gender marker, and receive transition-related care. Anti-trans discrimination is prohibited.
The Pentagon's new trans-inclusive policies align with those in 20+ other countries that allow open trans military service. These countries' armed forces experienced no diminishment of unit cohesion or military readiness—nor did the U.S. military before Trump's ban took effect.
Read 4 tweets
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
31 Mar
Here is the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s 4–3 decision striking down Gov. Evers’ mask mandate, with all four Republican justices in the majority and all three Democrats dissenting. wpr.org/sites/default/… courtesy of @WPR
It’s 2021 and some journalists are still writing and tweeting about this decision without a link to the ruling ... you should ashamed of yourselves!!! 👿😾👎🤬💀
The first two pages of Justice Ann Walsh Bradley’s dissent are so concise and powerful. Some really strong legal writing. wpr.org/sites/default/…
Read 4 tweets
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
30 Mar
Obviously today's slate of nominees is the first of many, but it's remarkable how well the Biden White House threaded the needle here, balancing demands of different progressive groups by producing an ultra-diverse list that includes public defenders and prosecutors ...
... civil rights advocates and corporate attorneys, home-state favorites and well-known superstars. There's something for everybody, and all of the progressive court groups have reason to be extremely happy today, even if they have a few quibbles. It's an extremely strong start.
So with that in mind, here is MY quibble: I'd love to see members of the plaintiffs' bar, along with advocates for workers' and consumers' rights, in the next round of nominations. This list is a bit heavy on corporate representation. The White House can fix that next time.
Read 5 tweets
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
26 Mar
Two Trump judges, joined by a GWB judge, rule that a college violated a professor's free speech and free exercise rights by punishing him for refusing to use a trans student's preferred pronouns. They say the policy "stifles a professor’s viewpoint on a matter of public import."
It was inevitable that Trump judges would carve a "misgendering students" exception into Garcetti. The real question is: where's the line? The logic of today's opinion would seem to imperil all manner of non-discrimination rules at public schools, not just pronoun policies.
Can a white professor who repeatedly uses the n-word in class while expressing his views that Black people are intellectually inferior be punished under the 6th Circuit logic? I'd think not—racial equality is also "a hotly contested matter of public concern"! Really, what isn't?
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @mjs_DC has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @mjs_DC!

Read all threads by @mjs_DC