295
American Academy of Pediatrics loses government funding after criticizing RFK Jr
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2025
295 points (98.0% liked)
Health - Resources and discussion for everything health-related
3768 readers
179 users here now
Health: physical and mental, individual and public.
Discussions, issues, resources, news, everything.
See the pinned post for a long list of other communities dedicated to health or specific diagnoses. The list is continuously updated.
Nothing here shall be taken as medical or any other kind of professional advice.
Commercial advertising is considered spam and not allowed. If you're not sure, contact mods to ask beforehand.
Linked videos without original description context by OP to initiate healthy, constructive discussions will be removed.
Regular rules of lemmy.world apply. Be civil.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Unfortunately it's not that simple since he packed the courts with his sycophants.
It's a big ask to have them toss the actual Constitution out the window. Legally speaking, they don't have that authority. They can get away with grey area "interpretations"...but to overturn the Bill of Rights, is civil war level fuckery.
It may be civil war fuckery, but they very much have the authority to decide how they want. They're the final arbiter of constitutionality and the way things are written they wouldn't be overturning the bill of rights but just telling us what it actually means. There's no one to correct them. No further appeal inside the law.
Except that nullifying the 1st amendment isn't exactly just a reinterpretation...it would be a complete reversal of its core meaning. That's why I said it's "civil war level fuckery". This was literally what the Founders started the war of independence over...the right to criticize the government, among other things detailed in the Bill of Rights. It's a pretty foundational concept.
If the Supreme Court just decides the 1st amendment doesn't mean that anymore, then the 2nd amendment should be invoked.
Oh, I entirely agree with the severity and the "they are not supposed to do that"-ness of it. It's far from right.
I'm just saying that there's nothing in the law or constitution that says they can't.
In this case they'd just say something about the government having an overriding interest in financial management, and without direct evidence that funding was pulled as retaliation the claim doesn't pass the threshold for consideration.
The court has used related reasoning to say that removal of books is speech by the government, and so you have no recourse when the government censors information in libraries.
Or "ice needs to be racist to do their job, and that's more important than equal protection under the law".
It's a fucked situation, but it's not new, and it's not illegal.
A big ask? That is what their supreme court has being doing for quite som time now.
Yeah I don’t get how people have convinced themselves despite all evidence that the US is still based on “laws” as the final authority, (not just laws as a tool of power).
The US is based on class not laws. When you realize rich people don't have to follow the laws your eyes start to open to the truth.
It's like watching someone in an abusive relationship.
"Don't worry guys, they'll follow the rules this time. Did they say they'll change? Well no, but I just know this time will be different."
So true, the US government has become an abusive partner we can't leave and will likely kill us if we try.