Disclaimer: I'm writing this with a headache, so I apologize if it's a bit "off" in its analysis.

A few months ago, I wrote about the case of the 13-year old who had been strip-searched by school officials looking for two ibuprofen.

Today, SCOTUS ruled that the school district had been wrong, and that the young woman's rights had been violated. They voted 8-1 on that decision. The dissenting vote? Clarence Thomas. Apparently, Justice Thomas has no problem with someone rifling through a 13-year old girl's panties. 

According to Justice Thomas,  the strip search of Savana Redding did not violate the Fourth Amendment. He asserted that the majority’s finding second-guesses the measures that educators take to maintain discipline “and ensure the health and safety of the students in their charge.”

If you remember the details of the case (which are in the link above), Savana was strip-searched because a classmate, who had a beef with her, reported to school officials that Savana was carrying ibuprofen on her. Savana denied it. She was strip-searched. Over ibuprofen. Which many, many young women use for the relief of menstrual cramps. 

The decision, available at the NYTimes web site, is in PDF format, and thus cannot be copied here. But, Thomas is essentially arguing that school officials have the right to prevent the distribution of drugs on campus; what is ridiculous is the slippery slope argument Thomas resorts to. Somehow, in his view, ibuprofen (which he insists was a "prescription-strength" dosage) is, in effect, a gateway drug. Allow students to bring ibuprofen for menstrual cramps, and the next thing you know, they're bringing other stuff. He actually refers to "medically induced highs." On ibuprofen? Are you kidding me?

I am happy that SCOTUS has agreed that strip-searching 13-year olds at school, without calling their parents, without allowing the child access to counsel, through what was, in effect, a case of institutional bullying, was unacceptable. But Thomas, once appointed head of the EEOC, refuses to see the common sense approach of the other justices. For him, ibuprofen today, Viagra tomorrow.

****

Ann Coulter has proven once again that she has no business speaking on television. She incites violence. She celebrates death and destruction. In this case, she is dancing on Dr. George Tiller's grave.

I wrote about the terrorist assassination of George Tiller when it happened. On June 22, when appearing on Bill O'Reilly's show, this is what that poor excuse for a human being had to say. "I don’t really like to think of it as a murder. It was terminating Tiller in the 203rd trimester." 

 If you're like me, her words are so sickening, I immediately went to NARAL and made a donation which you can do here. In exchange for your donation, you'll receive wrist bands that say simply, "TRUST WOMEN."

Trust women. What a simple concept.

Trust a 13-year old who tells you that she didn't bring any ibuprofen to school with her.

Trust a woman who needs to terminate her pregnancy.

But don't trust Ann Coulter. At this point, I believe she will say anything to attract attention. I believe in the First Amendment, but I also believe that inciting terrorism is akin to shouting fire in a crowded theatre, and is not protected speech.

I do not know why she has not been arrested.

I don't know why she wasn't arrested when she advocating killing Justice Stevens. 

Apparently, if you're a white female, you can say whatever the fuck you want on television and no one will call you on your bullshit. Why hasn't the FCC fined her? Jesus. We accidentally see a black woman's breast and the FCC goes ballistic, but a white woman advocates terror, and nothing happens.

So, today, I'm thinking, once again, about the bullshit that passes for discourse in our culture.

But I'm happy that Savana has been vindicated.