A federal judge in Texas has issued what might be the worst legal ruling that we have seen
at least this month, which says a lot, because we did just have that Trump special master
ruling from south Florida.
But this federal judge in Texas, judge Reed, O'Connor appointed by George W. Bush issued
a ruling yesterday that says that the part of the affordable care act that covers prep
drugs for HIV at no cost, um, that's unconstitutional because that violates religious freedoms here
in the United States, the judge was brought, or it was filed by Jonathan Mitchell, former,
Texas, solicitor general, and a conservative activist on behalf of Braidwood management
run by a, uh, so-called Christian person who apparently missed the part of the Bible where
Jesus did not discriminate on healing, the sick, I guess he missed that day in Bible
school.
So nevertheless, this federal judge does say, Hey, if you're covering HIV totally against
this guy's religious Liberty.
So, you know, you can't do it.
I'm not kidding.
When I say that, that is one of the dumbest decisions on the dumbest grounds that I have
ever seen this in no way violates your religious liberties, but here's why they ruled this
way.
And here's why they even made the argument because they're still stuck in that, you know,
early 1980s belief that only gay people get aids.
That's what this is.
They're basing it off of that stereotype that, oh, well, if you have HIV, clearly you're
gay.
Even though we know that there are many other ways to get the disease.
So right on the right on the surface, this case should have been thrown out on the premise
alone.
But the judge didn't do that.
And here's the thing.
If your religion doesn't like gay people, then don't take the drugs that you think are
for gay people, right?
And if your religion says, no, you can't have HIV drugs, then you don't have to take HIV
drugs.
So how is it a violation of your religious Liberty?
If your religion says don't do it and you don't do it, but other people do, they have
religious Liberty too.
They have the Liberty to not be religious.
So banning this medication from coverage from the affordable care act, I would think is
somehow a violation of these people's religious Liberty, because they don't have religion
in their lives.
They're not governed by that work of fiction.
This is people will die.
People will die because of this decision.
And it's
All, all because of these hate filled bigoted conservatives who want everybody to live in
a three, a theocratic fascist state.
That is what they want.
That is what they are pushing us towards.
And they're not gonna stop until they're successful.
And they don't care how many dead bodies pile up along the way.
We have made amazing strides in HIV treatment here in this country.
And these prep drugs are a huge part of that.
And to ban the coverage of them force these people to probably pay thousands of dollars
per month for them, you're basically putting lifesaving medication out of their hands.
Like the pharmaceutical industry has done for so many other drugs, for millions of other
people.
They're just adding another one to the list because they always try to hide behind this
so-called religious Liberty, which shouldn't apply whatsoever.
In this particular case, you, you, you, the idiot business owner who claims to be a Christian,
you are not being forced to do anything outside of your religion.
You can still worship.
You can still praise.
You cannot take medications if you don't want the medications, but how dare you, how very
UN Christlike of you to take these medications, these life saving medications out of the hands
of the people who need them, their blood is on your hands.