14 Comments
User's avatar
Sara's avatar

I will need excused for refusing to take medical advice from a man who took his grandchildren swimming in raw sewage.🤷‍♀️

Expand full comment
catsongs's avatar

Oh, ffs. What fresh hell is this?? It seems that--cosmically speaking--all the most maladjusted, miserable and vindictive people in the US have been magnetized to government at this time to make it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt just how utterly dysfunctional our systems have become.

Expand full comment
Glen's avatar

Junk science driven by project 2025.

Expand full comment
Brianna Amore's avatar

“We’re done with junk science driven by ideological pursuits" says the guy who does nothing BUT promote junk science driven by ideological pursuits. What a crock. Expect MANY lawsuits, RFK.

Expand full comment
RDB1172's avatar

Well they turned DEI into a shameful thing (how’s that working out Target?) and then moved on to the next buzzy words, trans, vaccines, and woke. When they fully eliminate all they can with those words, what comes next? Our president bellows, “transgender for all,” which is ridiculous. How about trans for trans people? While the Kennedy family made a group ick about RFK Jr, only Jack Schlossberg is bold enough to call him a fucking idiot. But he’s a fucking idiot.

Expand full comment
Jackson Marrs's avatar

Where does it make rules about clothes . That is coming but it will extend to cis women because that is project 2025. I was raised by a family like this . We could not wear anything except very strict sex specific clothes . Girls could not wear culottes even. Remember that ? No pants . Boys could not wear anything close to looking feminine. No one could wear make up or get pierces ears because “if god wanted you to look that way he would have made you that way”.

I’m so sick of this . I wish Canada weren’t so cold

Expand full comment
Sarah-Hope's avatar

Trans for trans people sounds like an excellent rallying cry.

Expand full comment
Sarah-Hope's avatar

Is there a federal rules change comment site for this new proposal or does it fall outside those requirements? If so, can it be shared? I would like to share this column with others, but would like to give them a link to a way of taking action if possible.

Expand full comment
Robin Elise's avatar

“Sex-rejecting?“ FFS. I think they mistyped — see also: brain worms — and what they’re actually referring to is the “humanity-rejecting“ syndrome they are all eat up with, bare to the bone.

Expand full comment
Tommy Lamont's avatar

Great reporting. The distinction between legislation and executive orders (or departmental decrees) matters.

Expand full comment
Mike Gelt's avatar

We must make our comments heard loud and clear not that I believe that any comments will prevent this mothers rules from going into effect This mother must be brought up for impeachment today not next week or next month. We need to contact and press our congressman and senators to make this happen.

Expand full comment
Myra Donnelley's avatar

See, says Bobby Jay, we gotta change the way we talk about weird and yucky things, we gotta change the words! (That's why I called it "feltching"!)

"Gender-affirming care", the Secretary continued, "sounds too positive and supportive and, well, nice! And it's too broad, er, "inclusive" as it sweeps up ciswomen that get breast implants and padded pushup bras and hair extensions and liposuction and rib removals and butt implants and cismen who get prescriptions and surgeries to preserve their hairlines and take steroids to look cut and who take blue pills and use penis pumps to get erections when the hair pills and steroids they took make them impotent and shrink their balls into tiny wrinkled McNuggets. All THAT stuff is also gender-affirming care and "not at all harmful or weird and yucky" SO WE CAN'T "BAN" THAT!

NO! Now medical care and hairdos and gender-neutral or the "wrong" "gender-specific" clothing for trans kids and people IS "SEX-DENYING"!!! (Yeah, when I said it out loud I heard how it sounds like HAVE SEX HAVE SEX! and the Fundagelicals will probably go batshit that we might somehow be saying something other than NO SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE EXCEPT WITH PASTOR when we say "NO SEX DENYING!")

WE MEAN: No more pantsuits and short hair for women, no more long hair and kilts for men, no more sex-denying drag queen story hours or cross-dressing as dudes and lady dudes at Halloween, no more "dresses" for non-lady Popes! NO MORE TUTUS FOR THE BALLET TROCADERO! THERE IS NOTHING RIDICULOUS ABOUT ANY OF THIS! STOP LAUGHING! I MEAN IT! STOP. LAUGHING.

Expand full comment
Susan Tuzzolino's avatar

Thanks for this; I needed this!

Expand full comment
Jane Valerie's avatar

Just pure cruelty on the part of the administration to be attacking kids healthcare during the holidays.

Expand full comment