The Trumpscum Catholic Fascist Judiciary Corruption (2): Matthew Kacsmaryk's Crusade Against Women's Rights
David Shasha
The worst federal judge in America now has a name
By: Ruth Marcus
Congratulations are in order for Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk. The competition is fierce and will remain so, but for now he holds the title: worst federal judge in America.
Not simply for the poor quality of his judicial reasoning, although more, much more, on this in a bit. What really distinguishes Kacsmaryk is the loaded content of his rhetoric — not the language of a sober-minded, impartial jurist but of a zealot, committed more to promoting a cause than applying the law.
Kacsmaryk is the Texas-based judge handpicked by antiabortion advocates — he is the sole jurist who sits in the Amarillo division of the Northern District of Texas — to hear their challenge to the legality of antiabortion medication.
And so he did, ruling exactly as expected. In an opinion released Friday, Kacsmaryk invalidated the Food and Drug Administration’s 23-year-old approval of the abortion drug mifepristone and, for good measure, found that antiabortion medications cannot be sent by mail or other delivery service under the terms of an 1873 anti-vice law.
Even in states where abortion remains legal. Even though study after study has shown the drug to be safe and effective — far safer, for instance, than over-the-counter Tylenol. Even though — or perhaps precisely because — more than half of abortions in the United States today are performed with abortion medication.
My fury here is not because I fear that Kacsmaryk’s ruling will stand. I don’t think it will, not even with this Supreme Court. Indeed, another federal district judge, just hours after Kacsmaryk’s Good Friday ruling — issued a competing order, instructing the FDA to maintain the existing rules making mifepristone available. Even Kacsmaryk put his ruling on hold for a week; the Justice Department has already filed a notice of appeal; and the dispute is hurtling its way to the Supreme Court. (Nice work getting yourselves out of the business of deciding abortion cases, your honors.)
No, my beef is with ideologues in robes. That Kacsmaryk fits the description is no surprise. Before being nominated to the federal bench by President Donald Trump in 2017, Kacsmaryk served as deputy general counsel at the conservative First Liberty Institute. He argued against same-sex marriage, civil rights protections for gay and transgender individuals, the contraceptive mandate and, of course, Roe v. Wade.
At his confirmation hearings, Kacsmaryk testified that federal judges are bound “to read the law as it is written and not read into it any policy preference that they might have had before they were judges.”
So, let’s look what he did Friday. Given the nationwide attention to the case, you might have thought that Kacsmaryk would have taken pains to appear as judicious as possible. But no: A dozen sentences into the opinion, his personal views about abortion become unmistakable. Mifepristone, Kacsmaryk writes, “is a synthetic steroid that blocks the hormone progesterone, halts nutrition, and ultimately starves the unborn human until death.”
He then drops a footnote defending this inflammatory word choice as necessary for scientific accuracy. “Jurists often use the word ‘fetus’ to inaccurately identify unborn humans in unscientific ways. The word ‘fetus’ refers to a specific gestational stage of development, as opposed to the zygote, blastocyst, or embryo stages. … Because other jurists use the terms ‘unborn human’ or ‘unborn child’ interchangeably, and because both terms are inclusive of the multiple gestational stages relevant to the FDA Approval … this Court uses ‘unborn human’ or ‘unborn child’ terminology throughout this Order, as appropriate.”
Not appropriate — not even close. Unborn human and unborn child are loaded terms — and Kacsmaryk goes on to use those phrases multiple times, as in “the unborn humans extinguished by mifepriston” and “expelling the aborted human.” This does not demonstrate the judge’s scientific bona fides; it reveals his bias.
Even the majority in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization — “other jurists” who are Kacsmaryk’s actual superiors — understood this. The Dobbs opinion opens with the recognition that some “believe fervently that a human person comes into being at conception and that abortion ends an innocent life” while others “feel just as strongly that any regulation of abortion invades a woman’s right to control her own body and prevents women from achieving full equality.” Somehow, “fetus” was an accurate enough term for them.
But Kacsmaryk is more advocate than judge. His second footnote launches into supposed ties between abortion rights advocates and the eugenics movement. He describes physicians who perform that procedure with the label “abortionist,” as in this doozy of a sentence: “Unlike abortionists suing on behalf of women seeking abortions, here there are no potential conflicts of interest between the Plaintiff physicians and their patients.”
He veers out of his way to raise, sympathetically, the tangential question of “fetal personhood” — the argument that the Constitution protects fetal life from the moment of conception and therefore precludes states from allowing abortion. This man really can’t help himself. He is a true believer, miscast in a judicial role.
Kacsmaryk’s legal reasoning is as irresponsible as his rhetoric. He breezes past every barrier to getting to the merits of the case. The physicians’ group concocted to bring the lawsuit has standing “because they allege adverse events from chemical abortion drugs can overwhelm the medical system and place ‘enormous pressure and stress’ on doctors during emergencies and complications.” (There is no such evidence.)
He cites, as supposedly objective sources, studies conducted by antiabortion activists, to support his belief that “women who have aborted a child — especially through chemical abortion drugs that necessitate the woman seeing her aborted child once it passes — often experience shame, regret, anxiety, depression, drug abuse, and suicidal thoughts because of the abortion.” The evidence for this claim? A study by David C. Reardon, an “associate scholar” with the Charlotte Lozier Institute, which says it “advises and leads the pro-life movement with groundbreaking scientific, statistical, and medical research.”
I could keep going, but you get the point: This is a judge who knows what conclusion he wants to reach and is going to do what he must to get there — facts, fairness and law be damned.
From The Washington Post, April 8, 2023
Texas Judge in Abortion Pill Case Was Shaped by Conservative Causes
By: Abbie VanSickle
It was 2006 and a searing, formative experience for Judge Kacsmaryk, then a lawyer at the prominent Texas firm Baker Botts. He became involved in and later served on the board of a Texas Christian organization that provides housing and adoption services to women with unplanned pregnancies as an alternative to abortion.
“Matthew and Shelly’s first child was stillborn, and I think that contributed to his interest in wanting to support women in all kinds of ways, but most especially when they are pregnant,” said Sherri Statler, the president and chief executive of the group, Christian Homes & Family Services in Abilene. “They often feel pressured into getting an abortion until they find out there is an organization that will support them through their pregnancy.”
Judge Kacsmaryk, now a federal judge in Amarillo, Texas, issued a preliminary ruling on Friday evening invalidating the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of a widely available abortion drug in one of the most-watched court cases since the Supreme Court overturned the right to an abortion. A coalition of anti-abortion groups and doctors have sued the Food and Drug Administration, seeking to void the agency’s approval of the drug mifepristone.
His ruling clashed with that of another federal court, setting up a legal standoff that is likely to escalate to the Supreme Court.
The case has put a spotlight on Judge Kacsmaryk, 45, a Trump appointee whose conservative views have prompted accusations that anti-abortion groups judge-shopped to find a sympathetic jurist to limit access to medication abortion — allegations that lawyers for the plaintiffs have denied. The focus only intensified after the judge, in a highly unusual move, asked lawyers in the case not to publicize a hearing. He cited death threats, harassing calls and concerns of a “circuslike atmosphere.”
Judge Kacsmaryk rose to the federal bench after years litigating at a conservative religious freedom firm, First Liberty Institute. Democrats opposed his 2019 confirmation based on his history of opposing L.G.B.T.Q. rights. Last fall, he found that the Biden administration’s guidelines for protections for L.G.B.T.Q. workers went too far. He also recently ruled that a federal program aimed at giving teenagers access to confidential contraception violated the U.S. Constitution and state law.
Activists have demonstrated in front of the federal court building in downtown Amarillo, voicing their fears that this case could prove another devastating blow to women seeking abortions. They worry the judge will bring his personal views to the case, pointing to his previous rulings in other hot-button issues.
“He’s advocating a political perspective from his perch on the bench,” said Rachel O’Leary Carmona, the executive director of the Women’s March, an advocacy group. She lives in Amarillo and has been helping to organize protests around the case.
Judge Kacsmaryk did not respond to requests for comment for this article, but several longtime friends and former co-workers described an experienced courtroom litigator shaped by his religious upbringing and faith. They rejected the idea that the judge would let personal views influence a decision.
“He’s a real by-the-book stickler,” said Hiram Sasser, executive general counsel for First Liberty Institute.
Born in Florida in 1977, Judge Kacsmaryk moved to Texas when he was a child. His father worked in the defense industry, and he grew up dreaming of working for the C.I.A., said Ephraim Wernick, a law school friend.
In an email, Mr. Wernick said he felt news media coverage of Judge Kacsmaryk unfairly painted him as an ideologue.
“Matt understands the properly limited role of a judge in our constitutional system,” he said. “I am confident that any decisions he makes from the bench will be grounded in careful study of law, facts and precedent.”
Judge Kacsmaryk attended Abilene Christian University, a private college, then the University of Texas law school in Austin.
After graduating in 2003, he joined Baker Botts, stayed for five years, became a federal prosecutor and in 2014 joined First Liberty Institute.
Mike Berry, the vice president of external affairs for First Liberty Institute, said he often sought Judge Kacsmaryk’s advice.
“He was a very serious litigator, and he’d been in a lot of courtroom battles,” Mr. Berry said. “He knew his stuff. I could go to him and just trust that he had that instant credibility.”
Mr. Berry recalled a conversation with Judge Kacsmaryk about their shared opinion that great attorneys can separate personal emotions from their client’s best interest. The conversation then turned to judges.
“A good judge will sometimes reach decisions or conclusions that they don’t feel they personally would want but what the law requires,” Mr. Berry said. “We both believe that’s true.”
Although Judge Kacsmaryk’s family members, including his parents, did not respond to requests for comment, records and interviews with friends suggest his conservative views have remained a major part of his identity, both in his professional and personal life. He lists himself in his profile for the federal courts as a current member of the Federalist Society and the Philadelphia Society, a national conservative organization.
He served on the board of Ms. Statler’s organization, Christian Homes & Family Services, from 2016 until he became a judge. He and his wife remain donors, Ms. Statler said.
His experience with her group runs deep, she said. Judge Kacsmaryk’s sister used Christian Homes & Family Services years ago to put up her son for adoption. Ms. Statler said she could say no more for privacy reasons, and Judge Kacsmaryk’s sister, Jennifer Griffith, did not respond to multiple requests for comment from The New York Times.
But Ms. Griffith told The Washington Post earlier this year that her brother had come to support her when she was a pregnant 17-year-old and had fled to Christian Homes. He held her baby in his arms, she said, and that experience, along with leaving the infant with adoptive parents, solidified her brother’s belief that every pregnancy should be treasured.
“He’s very passionate about the fact that you can’t preach pro-life and do nothing,” Ms. Griffith told The Post.
Ms. Statler agreed about Judge Kacsmaryk. “I just know he just has a real tender spot for caring for women,” she told The Times, “and particularly women who are pregnant.”
Julie Tate contributed research.
From The New York Times, April 7, 2023