The Red-naped Sapsucker is one of four species in the genus Sphyrapicus, the sapsuckers, which are a distinctive group of North American woodpeckers with a peculiar and unique foraging strategy. The sapsuckers are accurately named in that they do, in fact, drink sap, but not by sucking. Rather, these industrious birds create rows of small openings in the bark of specific trees to allow the sweet, nutritious sap to flow, much like a syrup maker tapping a maple tree. They then drink the sap directly from these wells, lapping it up with their specialized feathery tongues. Sapsuckers maintain these openings or “wells” throughout the breeding season, regularly expanding existing holes and opening new ones to take advantage of changes in sugar flow through the season. Their sign on trees is conspicuous: Neat grids of shallow holes that create rings around the trunks of thin-barked trees such as aspen, willow, alder, birch, lodgepole pine, and young Douglas-fir.
In creating these wells, Red-naped Sapsuckers also open an irresistible opportunity for other animals with a taste for sweets. Many birds, especially warblers and hummingbirds, are drawn to sapsucker wells. Researchers have also reported a range of mammals visiting wells, including chipmunks, squirrels, mice, deer, and even bears. Insects feed at these wells too, especially butterflies, moths, flies, wasps, and ants. In turn, the insect activity can attract additional birds that prey on insects, such as flycatchers. (snip-MORE)
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — A human smuggling case against Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whose mistaken deportation helped galvanize opposition to President Donald Trump’s immigration policies, was thrown out Friday.
Abrego Garcia’s deportation to El Salvador last year became an embarrassment for Trump officials when they were ordered to return him to the U.S. Abrego Garcia claimed that both the timing of the criminal charges and inflammatory statements about him by top Trump officials demonstrated that the prosecution was vindictive.
U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw, ruling from Nashville, granted Abrego Garcia’s motion to dismiss for “selective or vindictive prosecution.”
Without Abrego Garcia’s “successful lawsuit challenging his removal to El Salvador, the government would not have brought this prosecution,” said Crenshaw, dismissing claims of “new evidence” against him.
In earlier court filings, Crenshaw wrote he had found some evidence that the prosecution against Abrego Garcia “may be vindictive.” The judge said many statements by Trump administration officials “raise cause for concern.” He cited a statement by then-Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche that seemed to suggest the Justice Department charged Abrego Garcia because he won his wrongful-deportation case.
Over lunch a bit ago, I watched the finale of “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.” What a mix of happy and sad. Joy Reid gives us a good rundown on her Substack, along with pertinent history. I subscribe for free, so do give her a click to finish reading and watching; I promise you’ll be happy you did! And sad, too.
Late night TV is all but dead, anyway, right? Colbert made it into the lifeboats before the ship went down.
Viewership of the three major network offerings is down 70-80 percent in the “money demo” (18-49) and 9 percent overall versus the peak year for the genre, 2015; the year Colbert took over The Late Show from David Letterman, Jimmy Fallon succeeded Jay Leno and Jimmy Kimmel moved to 11:35 p.m. That said, Colbert was the highest rated late night show and still brought in an audience north of 2.4 million every night; a number CNN would kill for.
In reality, the declines in viewership really only account for the very much dying medium of network (and cable) television. The realty is, most people who watched Colbert, and still catch Kimmel, Fallon and Comedy Central’s The Daily Show, watch on YouTube or catch (and share) the clips on social media (well not the clips – since these geezer broadcast companies will ding any creator who posts their clips on a YouTube channel – as if sharing their content hurts them…) Or they subscribe to the app where John Oliver’s show runs. The real death of the genre has nothing to do with the talents of the hosts. It’s about the audience moving online (and the younger audience choosing streamers over everyone): (snip; skipping to a fun part, but seriously do go read and watch in the entirety!)
Still, for the Ellisons to unceremoniously end not just Colbert’s tenure on The Late Show, but to end the show altogether, is a sign. It’s a sign of the right wing billionaire stranglehold on our media — with the MAGA Zionist family in control of Paramount CBS and soon of Warner Bros and CNN, too, Jeff Bezos ruining the Washington Post, and the Murdochs controlling Fox, the New York Post and the Wall Street Journal. Between that and the rotten billionaire boys club that controls every social media app, we live in a MAGA hellscape that answers the question: what would happen if old time South African apartheid went global?
And the number of CBS employees who are now unemployed because a Zionist family and their MAGA claque wants to give a weak, whiny president who can’t take a joke comfort TV to watch as he drools himself to sleep in his gold-covered Barcalounger every night is both sad and infuriating. (snip-skipping again)
My next appearance, and the first time we met in person was in July 20 2021:
(snip-skipping again)
But beyond the personal, I think it’s important to recall that Colbert has been, alongside people like Jimmy Kimmel, Seth Myers and others outside the very white, male confines of network late night — a brave voice of resistance against Trumpism and autocracy. And that voice will be missed. Silencing Stephen was clearly the Ellisons’ goal. But in this new world of independent media, silencing people isn’t so easy.
Good reads:
This throwback piece on the initial Colbert announcement is great, and not just because it also mentions me. And I love the title:
They have to pay retired cop Larry Bushart $835,000 for sharing a post disparaging Donald Trump after Charlie Kirk’s assassination, which it turns out is not illegal.
We’re hearing a lot this week about how the DOJ is going to take over a billion dollars of our tax money and give it to those whose feelings were, like, really hurt when they got in trouble just for doing a little insurrection and maybe pooping on Nancy Pelosi’s desk. So you know what we need? We need a palate cleanser. And, thankfully, the state of Tennessee has deigned to provide us with one. Rejoice!
Officials in the state will have to pay 61-year-old retired police officer Larry Bushart $835,000 in restitution after having imprisoned him for 37 days over a meme he shared to Facebook following the death of Charlie Kirk — which caused him to lose his job and miss both his wedding anniversary and the birth of his granddaughter.
Bushart was arrested back in September after he refused to take down a bunch of posts disparaging Kirk after his assassination, specifically over one that actually just criticized Donald Trump. Because, reportedly, people in his community thought it meant he was threatening to shoot up a school, as I guess they are not very good at reading comprehension.
The post he shared in the Perry County, Tennessee, community Facebook page was a meme that existed long before Kirk was assassinated and featured a picture of Donald Trump along the famous words of comfort he shared after the 2024 school shooting in Perry, Iowa: “We have to get over it.”
Yes, just one day after 17-year-old Dylan Butler shot eight people, injuring six and ultimately killing two (a sixth-grader died the day of, the school principal died 10 days later from his injuries), Donald Trump said to Iowans at a campaign event in Sioux Center, “It’s just horrible — so surprising to see it here. But we have to get over it. We have to move forward.”
You know, because godforbid we start thinking that gun control might be a good idea.
Anyway, the aforementioned not-very-good-at-reading-comprehension people saw the meme and thought that this was Larry Bushart threatening a mass shooting at Perry High School in Tennessee. Or at least claimed that they did.
Perry County Sheriff Nick Weems told The Tennessean in September that participants on the page were planning to host a Charlie Kirk vigil in Linden, Tennessee on Sept. 23.
Bushart posted multiple photos in the comments referencing Charlie Kirk’s death, which Weems called “hate memes,” but stated were “not against the law and would be recognized as free speech.” […]
Weems said Bushart posted the picture “to indicate or make the audience think it was referencing our Perry High School.”
“This led teachers, parents and students to conclude he was talking about a hypothetical shooting at our school,” he said. “Numerous reached out in concern.”
According to the statement, “investigators believe Bushart was fully aware of the fear his post would cause and intentionally sought to create hysteria within the community.”
Yeah, I’m pretty certain that was not at all the point of posting that meme. It seems fairly clear that Bushart had the same reason for sharing it as the millions of other people who shared it that week had — to point out how very callous Trump has been when people who are not his rabid supporters are killed. Nevertheless, Bushart was arrested, held on $2 million bail and imprisoned for over a month.
Weirdly enough, however, the Constitution does not actually have any kind of clauses specifying that the First Amendment can be thrown out the window in cases involving the hurting of Republican feelings, so now the officials involved with his arrest have to pay.
“It’s in times of turmoil and heightened tensions that our national commitment to free speech is tested the most,” said Bushart’s attorney, Cary Davis of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. “When government officials fail that test, the Constitution exists to hold them accountable. Our hope is that Larry’s settlement sends a message to law enforcement across the country: Respect the First Amendment today, or be prepared to pay the price tomorrow.”
Yes, and while many conservatives believe that the First Amendment only exists to keep other people from calling them assholes on social media or kicking them off social media sites for being assholes, it’s actually meant to keep the government from punishing people for speech — which is why these government officials now owe Larry Bushart almost one million dollars. Whoops!
Eric Trump is threatening to sue Jen Psaki for a segment on her MS NOW show.
Psaki questioned on her show, The Briefing with Jen Psaki, if there’s a conflict of interest by Eric joining his father on his trip to China. She cited an article by the Financial Times that reported that Alt5 Sigma, a company with ties to Eric Trump, was pursuing a deal to build data centers in the US with a Chinese chipmaker that American lawmakers have warned is connected to the ruling Communist Party.
Presidents usually put a blind trust in charge of their finances while they are in office, but not Donald Trump. Instead of a blind trust, he has put Eric in charge of the family business. That does not prevent Donald from controlling his money, and in fact, he has been making a lot of trades and investments lately himself. Psaki pointed out that this arrangement with Eric was supposed to prevent conflicts of interest, “but there he is.” (snip-MORE)
Usually, when someone tells you about a news item you may not have heard about yet, they’ll leave out some pertinent facts. When I first heard that California had banned the Kars4Kids jingle, the most annoying song in the world, they did not tell me why. I thought to myself that California couldn’t do that because of the First Amendment. Right? No one has banned Nickelback yet.
As it turns out, the supposed nonprofit group, Kars4Kids, has to stop airing its jingle in California because the judge found that it violated the state’s false advertising and unfair competition laws. (snip-MORE)
The $1.8 billion slush fund that the Justice Department is awarding to Donald Trump’s criminal allies is so blatantly corrupt that even Republicans can’t defend it. Some Republicans are so upset that they’re actually speaking out publicly against it.
Referring to acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, and the fact that J6 terrorists are eligible for the so-called “anti-weaponization fund,” Mitch McConnell said, “So the nation’s top law enforcement official is asking for a slush fund to pay people who assault cops? Utterly stupid, morally wrong – take your pick.”
Senate Republicans derailed a massive immigration enforcement bill and left town until early today, despite Donald Trump ordering them to pass the $7o billion bill before June 1. How disgusting do you have to be to sicken sycophantic MAGAt Republicans? (snip-MORE)
Some news about No Labels from my state; what’s happening with parties in your state? And great news regarding suicide prevention efforts aimed at LGBTQ+. I bet my state isn’t the only one!
No Labels Kansas is no more as a political party, despite bizarre bid to hijack the organization
Party didn’t fulfill plan to nominate candidates for president, vice president
TOPEKA — Demise of the No Labels Kansas political party was inevitable after it neglected to fulfill the organization’s central objective when formed in January 2024 to nominate candidates for U.S. president and vice president.
The failure of No Labels Kansas to field candidates for any type of statewide office or to win at least 1% of the total votes cast for that office in a general election meant the organization would eventually lose its standing in Kansas among the state’s five political parties. Instead of leaving Kansans to speculate when that might occur in 2026, No Labels Kansas secretary and treasurer Shane Mathis requested May 15 the termination of state recognition of the political party.
“Because No Labels Kansas declined to nominate candidates for those offices in 2024 and has no intention of doing so in the future, its central organizational purpose no longer exists,” Mathis said.
Secretary of State Scott Schwab complied Monday with the request and notified county election clerks and commissioners of state law requiring voter registration records be amended so 5,955 people registered with No Labels Kansas would be reclassified as unaffiliated.
In Kansas, the Republican Party dominates with 897,000 registered voters compared with the 575,000 unaffiliated and 495,000 Democratic Party registrants.
While founders of No Labels Kansas didn’t make a dent in Kansas elections, the existence of its organizational shell led a pair of longtime Republican operatives to attempt a hijacking of No Labels Kansas so it might be transformed into an organization with a broader mission that included nomination of candidates for state offices. (snip-MORE)
TOPEKA — A Wichita organization created an online training program for suicide prevention and mental health education to improve the care that LGBTQ+ Kansans receive when reaching out to crisis resources, including the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline.
The organization, Center of Daring, focuses on inclusivity and leadership training. Its 10-part training program takes nine hours to complete and is available for free on the center’s website, according to an April 28 press release announcing the program.
“We believe this training series will fill a deep need here at a time when many LGBTQ+ Kansans don’t feel safe in our state,” said Liz Hamor, the Center of Daring founder, in the release.
Through learning activities, videos and surveys, the training covers trauma-informed intervention, intersectionality and promoting equity within a crisis response organization. The training was designed with input from LGBTQ+ residents and Kansas crisis care providers, according to the press release.
The 988 helpline is a mental health crisis resource available 24/7. It went nationwide in 2022. Kansas’ line received more than 34,000 calls, 12,000 texts and 9,000 chats in 2025, according to a state-mandated annual report.
The 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline is a free, confidential hotline available 24/7 for individuals in crisis or those looking to help someone else. To speak with a certified listener, call or text 988 or visit 988lifeline.org.
Every day, hair salons sweep countless hair clippings off their floors and toss them into the trash without much thought. But in parts of France, Belgium, and Luxembourg, those discarded strands are finding an entirely different purpose: helping forests grow.
French recycling company Capillum has developed a surprisingly effective way to reuse human hair by turning it into biodegradable mulch that protects young trees from hungry deer. The company collects hair from participating salons and transforms it into flattened fiber sheets that can be wrapped around vulnerable saplings.
What sounds unusual at first actually solves several environmental problems at once.
A second life for salon clippings
Hair salons generate an enormous amount of waste each year. Most clippings are simply thrown away, even though human hair is remarkably durable because it is made largely from keratin, a fibrous protein that breaks down slowly over time.
Capillum saw potential in a material most people never think twice about. The company accepts hair regardless of texture, length, color, or whether it has been dyed. Once gathered, the hair is fed into a machine that minces everything together into dense fiber sheets that can be laid around the base of trees. The process transforms something typically viewed as garbage into a practical tool for conservation efforts.
Why young trees need protection
Many forests depend on saplings surviving long enough to mature and replenish the ecosystem. However, young trees often struggle in areas with large deer populations. Deer are known to chew on bark, especially during seasons when food is scarce. Because saplings have thin bark and delicate trunks, even small amounts of damage can stunt their growth or kill them entirely.
Foresters have historically relied on plastic fencing and tree guards to keep deer away. While those barriers can work well, they also create waste and require maintenance over time.
Capillum’s recycled hair mats offer another approach. The scent of human hair naturally discourages deer from getting too close to the trees, steering them toward other vegetation instead. The method protects saplings without harming wildlife.
A biodegradable alternative to plastic
Unlike plastic guards, the hair fibers gradually decompose and return nutrients to the soil. As the keratin breaks down, it releases nitrogen and amino acids that can support plant growth. That nutrient-rich quality is one reason some gardeners have long experimented with placing hair into compost piles or using it directly in garden beds. Knowing this, Capillum sells its eco-friendly hair mulch to home gardeners interested in more sustainable growing methods.
Human hair is more useful than most people realize(snip-MORE)
Surely there are people here in the US, in our profit-driven society, who could do this recycling, as well.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Barney Frank, the longtime Democratic congressman and leading liberal who brought new visibility to gay rights and crafted the most significant reforms to the financial system in a generation, has died. He was 86.
Frank died late Tuesday, according to Jim Segel, Frank’s former campaign manager and close friend.
After representing broad swaths of Boston’s suburbs in Congress for 32 years, Frank and his husband moved to Ogunquit, Maine. He entered hospice there in April with congestive heart failure and is survived by his husband, Jim Ready, and sisters, the longtime Democratic strategist Ann Lewis and Doris Breay, along with brother David Frank.
A self-described “left-handed gay Jew,” Frank was known for his acerbic wit, combative style and focus on marginalized communities. He represented the party’s left wing while keeping close with Democratic leaders who sometimes frustrated progressives.
He is best known as a pioneer for LGBT rights. After decades of grappling with his sexuality, he publicly came out as gay in 1987, the first member of Congress to do so voluntarily. With his 2012 marriage to Ready, he became the first incumbent lawmaker on Capitol Hill to marry someone of the same sex.
And why judges should never be elected, but should be nominated by those who practice law, then confirmed by elected legislators and governors. All should be public so we the people know what and when it’s happening. When judges have to run for the bench, politics overtakes and minimizes law, tainting decisions.
This weekend, a Kansas judge issued a scathing 117-page rebuke of the state’s ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth—and in doing so, methodically dismantled the case against that care. In his ruling, Judge Carl Folsom III worked through the testimony of the state’s witnesses one by one, finding that its anti-transgender “experts”—routinely paraded by groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom, SEGM, and Genspect—offered opinions built on “cherry-picked information, conjecture, and research taken out of context,” and granting their testimony little to no weight. He then laid out 349 individual findings of fact, drawn from scientific evidence and the testimony of credible medical experts, documenting the safety and efficacy of gender-affirming care. He ultimately found that the ban likely violates the Kansas Constitution—which guarantees broader protections than its federal counterpart. That distinction matters enormously: because the ruling rests on state constitutional grounds, it is largely insulated from the U.S. Supreme Court and its decision in Skrmetti, which closed the federal courthouse door to these challenges but left the state one wide open.
“Allowing a transgender adolescent with gender dysphoria to experience their endogenous puberty when puberty blockers are medically indicated according to the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline is highly likely to result in irreversible physical changes that create enormous short- and long-term distress and gender dysphoria,” Folsom wrote. “Thus, there was substantial evidence that S.B. 63 not only fails to protect minors, but also endangers them, by prohibiting the use of GnRH agonists when medically indicated.”
Before weighing the evidence, the judge first had to determine who could credibly be considered an expert. Republican Attorney General Kris Kobach brought forward a litany of anti-trans witnesses familiar from litigation defending these bans. Among them was James Cantor, a Toronto psychologist who has built a career testifying for states defending care bans despite no clinical experience treating transgender minors—and who was once quietly dropped from a Florida Board of Medicine hearing after it emerged he had served on the advisory council of the Prostasia Foundation, a group that has worked to destigmatize pedophilia. Folsom wrote that Cantor “has not conducted any original scientific research on the efficacy or safety of gender dysphoria treatments,” and noted he is not licensed to treat anyone under 16 and has never diagnosed a minor with gender dysphoria. The judge then catalogued a record of self-contradiction: Cantor “stated that ‘peer-review is the line between acceptable and not’ but himself relied on non-peer reviewed sources,” cited systematic reviews while ignoring that “the authors of those reviews stated that their work should not be used to prevent the provision of gender-affirming medical care,” and “makes several statements which have no scientific support,” including that gender dysphoria might be a misdiagnosis of borderline personality disorder. “The Court gives Dr. Cantor’s testimony little weight,” Folsom concluded.
The judge turned next to Farr Curlin, a Duke University doctor and theologian who was an author of the Trump administration’s HHS report on pediatric gender dysphoria—a document authored anonymously by a roster of hate-group affiliates and career anti-trans activists, and which deadnames Christine Jorgensen, one of the first Americans to get gender affirming surgery. Curlin, Folsom noted, “is not a pediatrician, nor is he a psychiatrist or endocrinologist,” and “has never treated anyone for gender dysphoria.” Curlin testified that gender-affirming care is “ethically problematic”—but under questioning, the breadth of what Curlin considers unethical became clear. He believes that prescribing birth control for contraception is also “ethically problematic,” because “blocking the capacity for reproduction seems contrary to the purposes of health.” He believes in vitro fertilization is “ethically problematic” as well. He testified that when gender-affirming care reduces fertility, it “prevents the realization of the basic good of marriage, since sexual capacities make possible the one flesh union of marriage.” By his own admission, Folsom noted, Curlin’s views are “radically counter to current medical orthodoxy.” The judge found his opinions “appear motivated by his personal views as opposed to a methodology applicable in the field of medical ethics,” and gave his testimony “little-to-no weight.”
The judge also had pointed words for the state’s roster of prominent anti-trans activists. Chloe Cole, the country’s most prominent anti-trans detransitioner, testified about receiving care as a minor in California—but Folsom noted that Cole “admittedly did not receive care in Kansas,” and that the plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Angela Turpin testified the care Cole described “would not have occurred in Kansas” and would have been inconsistent with the clinical guidelines Kansas providers actually follow. Her testimony was given “less weight.” Corinna Cohn, another anti-trans detransitioner who has testified for care bans across the country and who has publicly denied that transgender people existed before 1939 or were victims of the Holocaust, did not appear at the hearing at all. The judge noted that Cohn’s affidavit described “care accessed as an adult” and treatment “in Wisconsin”—nothing to do with minors, or with Kansas—and gave it “little weight.” And then there was Jamie Reed, the self-styled “whistleblower” who built a national profile on lurid, largely unsubstantiated accusations against a St. Louis gender clinic and who has gone on Fox News to describe being transgender as a delusion. Reed also did not testify and could not be cross-examined. Folsom gave her affidavit “little weight,” and had scathing remarks towards her lack of expertise:
“The Court gives thus Jamie Reed’s affidavit little weight, given that she is not a medical provider or mental-health professional. In addition, her affidavit primarily addresses her experiences with a clinic operating outside of Kansas—thus, it does not rebut or refute the credible, uncontroverted testimony about clinical practice within the state of Kansas,” read the order.
Folsom then turned to set the record straight on the care banned by Kansas. Working through the testimony of the credible medical experts, he set out 349 separate numbered findings of fact, each documenting some component of what the science actually shows about gender-affirming care. Among them: that “the currently available body of medical research, as a whole, shows that gender-affirming medical care is effective at improving mental-health outcomes for adolescents with gender dysphoria,” supported by “over 20 scientific studies” finding the treatments “effective at alleviating gender dysphoria and improving a variety of mental-health outcomes, including anxiety, depression, and suicidality.” Folsom found that “for many adolescents, gender-affirming medical care provides significant relief from gender dysphoria and decreases depression, anxiety, suicidality, and thoughts of self-harm.” On the question of regret, the talking point most relied upon by the law’s defenders, the court found, based on the Kansas clinic’s own long-term follow-up data, that 99.2% of patients who received gender-affirming care “continue to identify as transgender into adulthood,” and that of the remaining 0.8%, “most did not regret the medical treatment they received.”
Folsom reserved some of his sharpest fact-finding for the Cass Review and claims over European care. The state’s experts pointed to systematic reviews from the United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland, Germany, and Norway as “proof” the science had turned. Folsom found otherwise. “None of these systematic reviews recommend categorically banning gender-affirming medical care for adolescents,” he wrote, and “the United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland, Germany, and Norway have not categorically prohibited gender-affirming medical care for minors”—as Kansas had. On the Cass Review specifically, Folsom found that its authors “changed their methodology from the methodology they said they would use in their preregistration, which is a deviation from standard academic publishing practices designed to minimize bias,” and “used idiosyncratic standards in scoring and thus excluded studies that had made important contributions to the field.” Far from recommending a ban, the court found, the Cass Report “reaches conclusions that are similar to those in the Endocrine Society Guideline and WPATH Standards of Care” and “concludes that there are young people who absolutely benefit from gender-affirming care.” On Germany, the state had the facts backwards: Folsom found that “Germany’s recent guideline endorses the provision of gender-affirming medical care”—a reference to the 2025 guidelines from 26 medical organizations across Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, the largest European medical consensus on transgender youth care ever produced.
The judge’s ruling rested on the Kansas constitution. Folsom found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on the claim that SB 63 violates the fundamental right of parents, guaranteed by Section 1 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights, to make medical decisions for their children. Section 1, he wrote, quoting the Kansas Supreme Court, “protects the core right of personal autonomy—which includes the ability to control one’s own body, to assert bodily integrity, and to exercise self-determination” and “allows Kansans to make their own decisions regarding their bodies, their health, their family formation, and their family life.” Because SB 63 strips parents of that right, Folsom applied strict scrutiny, the most demanding standard in constitutional law, and found the state had failed to meet it. That reasoning was used recently before in Kansas politics for another issue. The same Section is what protects abortion rights in the state. In previous abortion-related decisions, the Kansas Supreme Court held that Section 1 secures “an inalienable natural right of personal autonomy”—language the court used to strike down abortion restrictions, and that Kansas voters chose to keep in 2022 when they rejected a constitutional amendment that would have stripped it away.
For now, gender-affirming care is legal again in Kansas. The injunction is temporary, blocking SB 63 while the case is litigated, and Attorney General Kris Kobach has said he will appeal, calling the ruling “a stark example of judicial activism.” But the appeal faces a structural problem. Because the decision rests entirely on the Kansas Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court and its ruling in Skrmetti have no power to disturb it—a state’s highest court is the final word on its own constitution. And the Kansas Supreme Court, where the case is ultimately likely to land, has five of seven justices appointed by Democratic governors and has repeatedly upheld the same Section 1 personal-autonomy right that Folsom relied on here.
Scottie's Playtime 