Condolences to US Kiwis who may now find themselves unable to get abortions.
That said, I do now wish to use this as a stick to beat Tony with. As we've
discussed previously, Tony is obsessed with appeals to authority and having those in power validate his beliefs. I suspect that it is killing him that the highest court in the land has explicitly rejected his demands for "bodily autonomy" free from any kind of restriction:
Tony may have been a PhD candidate but his reading comprehension is seriously 99th-percentile dunce shit. He cites Thomas's concurrance as meaning that contraception and same-sex marriage are next, as if Thomas is riding one of horses of the apocalypse.

I can't and won't comment on the politics of the court, but the reason why Thomas says that is because:
- Those specific cases were cited in the case at hand;
- Thomas disagrees with the "due process" argument (and repeatedly cites himself saying that in the past).
That's all a bit abstract, but taking a step back: Thomas's argument about "due process" is that it has been used as an arbitrary shield to give the protection of the constitution to things that cannot possibly be construed as being protected by the constitution.
And another step back: previous rulings used this device inappropriately in their decisions, effectively legislating from the bench, and so those decisions should be reviewed.
So what? Well, this is exactly the reasoning of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales in overturning the High Court decision in
Bell v Tavistock. Tony loves to cite the appeal judgement in
Bell to, essentially, say: "The transphobes had a win but then some
better judges came along and agreed with the trans!"
What actually happened is that the Court of Appeal said that the High Court had effectively legislated from the bench, using the power of the court to intervene in ways that are entirely inappropriate.
Honestly it just boggles my mind that Tony has spent the last 18 years trying to make himself out to be a political expert but he cares so little for
actual politics. As in, changing things through majority support codified in new legislation, rather than relying on technocratic procedure.
Sorry, enough sperging from me, so picture time. He's making this stupid fucking argument still:
And the absolute brass neck of straight white man Tony "Erin" Reed, of the "Don't like pink? You must be a boy!" Party saying this:
