In a previous post, Your Author wondered if trans could get any weirder.
Harvard hires drag queen named ‘LaWhore Vagistan’ as visiting professor
That’s a BIG YES.
As readers may know, on October 7, 2025, SCOTUS heard oral arguments in Chiles v. Salazar, a challenge to Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy” intended to change a child or adolescent’s sexual orientation or “gender identity.” SCOTUS’s decision is expected by summer.
Once again, trans extremists have usurped a serious LGB issue to make it all about them.
From SCOTUSblog:
The law at the center of the case is known as Minor Conversion Therapy Law. Passed in 2019, it prohibits mental health professions from providing clients under the age of 18 with conversion therapy, although that bar does not apply to someone who is “engaged in the practice of religious ministry.”
SCOTUSblog further reports that
In Chiles v. Salazar, a majority of the justices seemed to agree with the counselor, Kaley Chiles, that the ban discriminates against her based on the views that she expresses in her therapy. But several justices suggested that, rather than striking the law down outright, the court should send the case back to the lower courts for them to take a closer look at whether the law passes constitutional muster.
Other articles on Chiles v. Salazar include:
Can Conversion Therapy Be Banned? Colorado Faces Speech Test at Supreme Court (NYT paywalled.)
Conversion Therapy Reaches the Supreme Court
As Supreme Court weighs conversion therapy, conservative justices question medical authority (STAT requires free registration.)
How this week’s Supreme Court case on conversion therapy could impact the regulation of medicine (STAT requires free registration.)
The latter two articles argue that any “conversion therapy” ban has ramifications beyond psychotherapy:
… the arguments also suggested it could have implications for the ways in which medicine is regulated more broadly, and how medical consensus and standards of care are considered.
Never mind that psychotherapy is supposed to honestly, openly, and nonjudgmentally explore a patient’s emotions, life circumstances, screen for mental illnesses, and help a patient feel better about themselves. That’s why anyone seeks therapy. Any bans on doing real psychotherapy hurt patients, especially children and adolescents.
Mifepristone is also in the news.
FDA approves another generic abortion pill, prompting outrage from conservatives
Approval of generic drugs is typically a rote process at the FDA, with multiple copycat versions usually approved after the patent on the original drug expires. In most cases, generic drugmakers only need to show that their drug matches the ingredients and formula used in the original medication.
…
The FDA typically approves such applications within 10 months. But filing documents posted to the FDA’s website show that Evita Solutions filed its application to market mifepristone four years ago. [Emphases added.]
An article in the medical press, which sadly uses women-erasing language, states that:
Twenty-five years ago, the FDA made a decision that changed the course of reproductive health in America. By approving mifepristone (Mifeprex) for medication abortion, the agency gave [women]... one of the safest, most effective, and most studied medications in modern medicine.
…
Baseless claims, whether from fringe groups or government officials, don’t just mislead the public[. T]hey reinforce a broader wave of anti-science decision-making that undermines trust in the very institutions designed to protect our health.
This article describes some of the latest baseless claims about mifepristone:
Environmental scientists say there is no credible evidence that mifepristone (Mifeprex) or fetal tissue is contaminating U.S. water supplies at levels that would harm humans, animals, or the environment, despite claims from [anti-abortion] groups linking at-home abortions to water pollution.
…
“Most scientists would agree that there is no evidence that mifepristone pollution harms people, animals, or ecosystems,” Jack Vanden Heuvel, PhD, a professor of molecular toxicology at Pennsylvania State University in State College, told MedPage Today.
Tracey Woodruff, PhD, MPH, of the University of California San Francisco, who has studied estrogenic compounds and birth control hormones in water, also dismissed the claims. She called attempts to frame mifepristone contamination under the National Environmental Policy Act as “a very clever use of legal language.”
Here in Pennsylvania, HB 1845 uses nonsense like this to try to ban mifepristone. This is a pathetic attempt to deny women’s bodily autonomy disguised as science.
Here’s today’s palate cleanser.
