Matt Walsh

But without a doubt, in Scrimeti, Contaja Brown Jackson did not endorse the principle that, quote, there is no right to practice medicine which is not subordinate to the police power of the state.

She didn't mention that principle at all.

She's never mentioned it.

So apparently with this so-called conversion ban case, we've stumbled on the one area of medicine that

where according to Jackson, the power of the state and the voters is really, really important.

In every other area, she doesn't care what the voters think or what lawmakers think.

Now, already this tells you that Katanja Brown Jackson is not a real judge.

She's an activist.

She doesn't make rulings based on principles.

She decides what outcome she wants, and then she works backwards from there.

It doesn't really matter if her opinion on one case gels with what she says on other cases.

It doesn't make a difference to her.

In this case, the outcome Jackson wanted is clear.

She wanted the state to have the ability to regulate speech and to force people to accept trans ideology.

And don't be fooled by the fact that this case is about therapy.

The First Amendment applies to everybody, not just therapists.

If Jackson can force a therapist to endorse gender ideology, it's only a matter of time before she writes an opinion forcing everyone else to do the same.

Let's put this section from her dissent up on the screen just to drive that point home.

Jackson writes, quote, though these prescriptions certainly promote a certain viewpoint in this context, that alone does not suffice to establish a First Amendment violation.

My colleagues' conclusions are puzzling for a standards-based health care scheme cannot function unless its regulators are permitted to choose sides.