Thanks for posting. I read the headline originally, figured it was click-bait without much substance, and passed it by. But there was that tiny little gremlin in my brain nagging me — “I kind of do want to know what the paper thin slice of lunchmeat inside the B.S. sandwich was…”

Nobody will remember the actual story; people won’t pay for news anymore.

All that is necessary is to push the narrative and count on the rubes to bite.

I’m trying to decide whether it would be a net plus for the system if this bogus controversy at least created a mild disincentive for lower-court judges not to get carried away speculating in footnotes about potential alternative rationales for a decision. The footnote could just have said e.g. “defendants have pointed out that there are some circumstances in which certain women who have not recently been pregnant do in fact lactate and my law clerk’s googling has informed me that there are even some circumstances in which men lactate, but the legal consequences of those facts need not be resolved in this case.”