Lawyer, chronically ill, disabled, writer, public health nerd | Then: SSI. Now: data & policy, disability, healthcare. Opinions=mine. 🏳️‍🌈 they/them

Washington DC / Boston MA
Joined April 2011
“HHS has existing legal authority to update the Privacy Rule for this post-Roe hellscape Americans now find themselves in. They must do so. And I didn’t hear the Secretary today say anything that gives me confidence that they will,” @mattbc said. news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law…
2
43
3
69
Show this thread
Matthew Cortland JD #ProAbortionAdoptee retweeted
Newsweek is not a thing. It's like an animal that lives in the discarded shell of another animal.
7
10
1
145
Matthew Cortland JD #ProAbortionAdoptee retweeted
Newsweek has no print edition. It’s a broken shell of a once prestigious publication. That kids vaccine “cover” (not a cover! Just an image with a headline!) is intended to go viral on here.
49
555
51
3,958
Show this thread
I would really like it if the Biden @WhiteHouse decides today is the day to actually fight against the christo-fascist authoritarian seizure of the republic. Goodnight friends.
5
12
226
This is going to be nuanced, please read all of the 🧵 I do not know what will happen. Anything I say is speculation; the sort of guesswork I would've felt irresponsible to post pre-Dobbs. But given the path we may be heading down, I will share my thinking.
Replying to @mattbc
Legally, if I was married as a woman, still have F on my driver's license, but NB on my medical - can they anull my marriage to my husband? I was going to get X on my new passport, but now completely scared to, and wondering if I should have medical change it back to F.
1
22
2
62
This is going to be nuanced, please read all of the 🧵 Generally, the worldview that those who want to overturn Obergefell subscribe to is also hostile to the existence (and legal recognition) of non-binary people.
1
4
34
This is going to be nuanced, please read all of the 🧵 If Obergefell is reversed, if SCOTUS flips and rules that there is no right to same-sex marriage protected by the US Constitution, then (in that horrific scenario) what we'd expect to happen is a return to the states.
1
2
22
This is going to be nuanced, please read all of the 🧵 In 2003, the Massachusetts supreme court ruled in "Goodridge v Dept of Pub Hlth" that the MA Constitution required the legal recognition of same sex marriage It is a beautiful opinion masscases.com/cases/sjc/440/…
1
3
26
This is going to be nuanced, please read all of the 🧵 And bc of that state supreme court opinion, same sex couples could be legally wed in Massachusetts. And MA was required to recognize their marriage. But the federal gov't didn't, and other states weren't required to either.
1
1
18
This is going to be nuanced, please read all of the 🧵 A law called the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that Bill Clinton signed in 1996 said that if a state recognized a same-sex marriage, no other state had to + kept the fed gov't from doing so en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defens…
1
4
19
This is going to be nuanced, please read all of the 🧵 In US v Windsor (2013) SCOTUS said the federal gov't had to recognize same-sex marriages, striking down that part of DOMA. Obergefell made the rest of DOMA moot by requiring all states perform & recognize same sex marriages
1
3
26
nuanced, please read all of the 🧵 That's why I'm saying we'd expect, if SCOTUS reverses Obergefell, that marriage would 'return to the states' – it'd be a state by state issue again. (And that's a mess.)
1
2
26
nuanced, please read all of the 🧵 It is, in full-faith-and-credit kinds of ways, logistically easier for SCOTUS to reverse the constitutional recognition of the right to abortion, the right to contraception, even the right to same-sex-sex (Lawrence).
1
1
11
nuanced, please read all of the 🧵 There's much less case law on non-binary anything than on same-sex marriage Things I'd think about: do you live in a friendly or a hostile state? If your gender marker were to revert, would you be in an opposite-sex or same-sex marriage?
1
1
14
nuanced, please read all of the 🧵 Need to wrap this up for tonight, want to once again stress this is all speculation & guesswork. We don't know what's going to happen. I think we're still at the place where we can influence what path we go down.
1
17
Matthew Cortland JD #ProAbortionAdoptee retweeted
🧵4) Why donate to @yuhline before midnight eastern on 6/30 (secure.actblue.com/donate/bu…)? That's the fundraising reporting deadline; candidates have to report their totals to the FEC. Press use those numbers to write "who can win" pieces. nytimes.com/2022/06/23/nyreg…
3
11
15
Show this thread
Matthew Cortland JD #ProAbortionAdoptee retweeted
“Take a civics lesson.” Ok I did, when the President and Senate Majority leader don’t have the votes for something they really want to do, they whip the votes in backroom deals with both incentives and threats. It’s not happening bc they don’t care that much.
215
1,321
87
10,341
The US Constitution gives Congress a list of powers (we call them the "enumerated powers" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumer…) and if the thing Congress wants to do isn't covered by the list? Congress can't do it. 🧵
1
7
17
Before Dobbs, the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution gave the federal gov't (including fed. courts) power to prohibit states from banning abortion because SCOTUS ruled, in Roe, the "right to privacy" from the 14th Amendment protects the right to abortion (oversimplifying). 🧵
1
6
17
But SCOTUS flipped and said the U.S. Constitution no longer protects the right to abortion – the 14th Amendment no longer protects the right to abortion – and so Congress has lost its strongest "enumerated power" footing for a nationwide abortion guarantee law. 🧵
4
6
20
The Warren Court (SCOTUS from 1953 to 1969) often said Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce was a sufficient "enumerated power" for civil rights legislation, but the conservative FedSoc radicals have largely dismantled that idea. 🧵 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren…
1
4
13
Show this thread