Jaw-Dropping Opinion: Doctors’ Gratification Trumps Women’s Health

Apparently, a Republican-appointed judge believes a woman’s decision to have an abortion violates a doctor’s desire to see a woman experience pregnancy and childbirth. Yeah, ’cause all the world’s a stage—or some kind of peep show—and all the women are merely players, to bastardize Shakespeare. And the so-called “aesthetic injury” of not being able to realize the miracle of birth in every single female patient of child-bearing age has legal weight. Outrageous!

Look, the recent mifepristone ruling in 5th Circuit Court of Appeals is pretty damn alarming on its own. The majority opinion wants to ban tele-health access and shipping of the medication. Not to be outdone, Federal appeals court Judge James Ho’s dissenting opinion even seeks to invalidate the med’s approval. But, wait! There’s more! Women don’t really count as people; women are more akin to beautiful plants and animals. You know, part of the scenery, if you believe Judge Ho’s argument.

Ho’s stance prioritizes the inherent voyeurism, condescending attitudes toward female patients, and desires of misogynistic doctors who continue to exert control over women’s healthcare. In revealing his personal biases about abortion and women, Ho blatantly disregards maternal health stats. Gee, doesn’t this omission of important facts around maternal mortality and complications sound too familiar? It’s the same flawed approach to jurisprudence that empowered SCOTUS to sh!t-can Roe v. Wade. What a parade of putzes!

Judges who cherry-pick facts and bend them to the will of the anti-abortion movement need to get the F off the bench. The theory of law that led to recent oppressive opinions further highlights the underlying issues in protecting women’s rights. The sheer ridiculousness has me beyond words right now.