Matt Walsh

If the voters in a state pass a law that restricts doctors in some way in order to protect the public, then the doctors have to abide by that.

Doctors are subordinate to the ability of the state to keep the public safe.

And that's what she's saying.

It's a very broad principle.

As she says, it's a very traditional principle, and she opens her dissent with it.

And it's obviously not an unreasonable position by itself.

The problem is that in every other major case that's dealt with anything medical, Ketanji Brown Jackson has taken the exact opposite position.

She clearly does not actually believe the principle that state power or the will of the voters trumps the opinions of the doctors, always.

You know, when it comes to abortion, for example,

Jackson doesn't care about what the government or the voters want.

She thinks it should be available on demand.

The government shouldn't interfere with health care decisions.

I mean, this is the mantra trumpeted constantly for decades by Katanja Brown Jackson and her left-wing counterparts.

She definitely doesn't think that the state police power should override the woman's so-called right to murder her child.

Or maybe she does.

Maybe she's finally coming out in support of a total abortion ban.

Based on this decision, that's the only conclusion you could draw.

On top of that, Ketanji Brown Jackson just ruled in the Scrimetti case that people have no right to overrule the wisdom of doctors who want to sterilize and castrate children.

She agreed with Sonia Sotomayor, who said that the Tennessee's law against child castration would cause, quote, untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them.

And that was a different case with different issues.