Back in February 2022, Nyad penned an opinion piece for the Washington Post claiming that although trans women are undoubtedly women, the “physical disparity” between trans women athletes “who have gone through male puberty” and cis women athletes “remains too great for true equal performance potential.” (Research indicates that trans women on hormone therapy do not have a significant athletic advantage over cis women.)
Nearly two years later, Nyad told Out that she is remorseful for what she said as well as the essay’s repercussions.
“I have come to understand that the science is far more complex than I thought, and there are clearly more educated experts than I who are creating policy to ensure that elite sports are both fair and inclusive of all women,” Nyad said. “I regret weighing in on that conversation and any harm I may have caused.”
Can someone remind me what happened with that TX law using civil suits to prevent people from helping with abortions. IIRC, that was going to the SC. Are we still waiting for a ruling on that? Did they uphold? I know that it doesn’t matter as much post-Dobbs, but I still would like to know how batshit things are.
The short(ish) answer is that it’s closer to B than A, but the state of the law is pretty dynamic at the moment because state and federal courts are having to figure out a lot of things that were left unresolved when Roe was overturned.
Parts of that specific Texas law were kinda reviewed by the US Supreme Court. But, because of the parties involved in the case and the way the case got to SCOTUS, the issue(s) in that case were mostly procedural (dealing with who might have standing to challenge the law and, how those challenges should be brought), so the ruling didn’t directly address the legality/illegality of the underlying mechanism of letting random individuals sue people for assisting in abortions.
Also, that ruling happened before the Mississippi case where SCOTUS overturned Roe, so that might change some of the analysis they did when they heard the Texas case the first time, especially because there are additional older Texas laws that would have been seen as unconstitutional under Roe, but are probably ok now that Roe has been overturned.
Yep the Texas government gets to wait out the clock and force women to leave the state. The state gets the added benefit that now the case is moot and thrown out so now they get to slow roll the next woman
Nah, first there’s nothing in the lawsuit that can harm her. They can’t tell her no you can’t get an abortion because she already got one. Second, they want to force women to go through life threatening births. The law says they should be able to get an abortion for life threatening pregnancies but the government has kept it intentionally vague in order to prevent any abortion. Clarification in either direction is bad for anti abortionists. If they say no actually no abortions even for life threatening pregnancies it means pro abortion people were right all along and get to campaign on it, and clarifying when women can get abortions means they lose the threat of prison on the edge cases.
Texas Supreme Court: Sure it might sound like the doctor is saying the patient is satisfying the requirement in the law to any normal person but actually the doctor needs to use the magical words. Denied.
Apparently in Gilead, all of these life-threatening complications are just magically resolved whenever they arise, without any women dying or having their lives irreparably harmed.
Journalist: Isn’t trying to push these abortion restrictions against the will of the people?
Anti-Abortion Dipshit: Yeah
Journalist: Well, isn’t that bad?
Anti-Abortion Dipshit: Not necessarily. After all, sometimes the majority does terrible things. That’s why we had slavery for so long.