In a blatant act of retribution, Missouri House Republicans this week voted to completely defund the entire state’s public libraries, after librarians filed a lawsuit with the ACLU over a new law that they say violates their First Amendment rights.

Should the bill pass Missouri’s Republican-majority Senate and be signed into law by Missouri’s Trump-endorsed Republican governor, all 399 of the state’s public libraries would receive $0 in state funding, a cut of $4.5 million.

“Often when we tell the public about the things that are getting voted on in here, they think when we tell them what happened just today, that’s got to be partisan rhetoric and hyperbole,” lamented Missouri Democratic state Rep. Peter Merideth (video below), who is also an attorney. “It’s not. These are the things actually passing.”

“They actually took out all state aid from public libraries explicitly because librarians are suing over their First Amendment rights over a book ban,” he continued, rubbing his temples in exasperation.

READ MORE: Watch: McCarthy, Trying to Cut Federal Spending on Critical Social Safety Net Programs, Mocks President Biden’s Age

“I feel like we’re starting to live in a dystopian future from like 1984 or Fahrenheit 411 or whatever – 451 – where we’re talking about book bans from the government, and then the government being mad at librarians as the threat to our kids? And defunding public libraries. That’s the real world here today in Republican-led Missouri.”

VICE News confirms the GOP gutted all library funding in the House bill.

The $0 budget “comes after Republican House Budget Chairman Cody Smith proposed a $4.5 million cut to public libraries’ state aid last week in the initial House Budget Committee hearing, where Smith cited a lawsuit filed against Missouri by the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri (ACLU-MO) as the reason for the cut.”

The Associated Press adds that Rep. Smith “has said the state shouldn’t subsidize the lawsuit by giving public libraries money.”

Since last summer Missouri librarians have been faced with charges of up to one year in prison or $2000 in fines “for giving students access to books the state has deemed sexually explicit,” VICE explains. “The Missouri law defined explicit sexual material as images ‘showing human masturbation, deviate sexual intercourse,’ ‘sexual intercourse, direct physical stimulation of genitals, sadomasochistic abuse,’ or showing human genitals. The lawsuit claims that school districts have been pulling books from their shelves.”

READ MORE: Favoring Right Wing Christians, Texas Judge Voids ACA’s Mandate That Insurance Cover Full Cost of HIV Drugs Including PrEP

GOP Rep. Dirk Deaton says Republicans are doing it all for kids.

“It’s been said this is a book ban. This is not that,” Rep. Deaton said. “It is protecting innocent children.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

MO State Rep. Peter Merideth (D) on a just-passed GOP budget defunding libraries: “They actually took out all state aid for public libraries explicitly because librarians are suing over their First Amendment rights … We are starting to live in a dystopian future from 1984.” pic.twitter.com/fej8ywxbCf

— Heartland Signal (@HeartlandSignal) March 30, 2023

A Texas federal judge has voided Obamacare’s requirements that insurance companies cover the full costs of life-saving HIV prevention and treatment drugs, claiming requiring Christian employers to do so violates their rights under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

In that same ruling on Thursday, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor, who has a lengthy history of deciding against LGBTQ people and in favor of the far Christian right, also voided requirements insurance companies, under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), cover other life-saving medications and procedures including cancer screenings, mental health services, and diabetes treatments, although for reasons unrelated to religion.

“In September,” Reuters reports, “O’Connor held that the US Preventive Services Task Force, which determines what qualifies as a covered preventive measure under the ACA, can’t validly do so because its members aren’t subject to Senate confirmation and their recommendations aren’t reviewed by constitutionally appointed government officials.”

Thursday’s decision is an extension of Judge O’Connor’s September ruling, in the same case, Braidwood Mgmt., Inc. v. Becerra.

Slate’s legal expert Mark Joseph Stern calls Judge O’Connor’s ruling “nothing short of catastrophic to the U.S. health care system.”

READ MORE: New Poll Sends Trump Damning Message About 2024 if He’s Criminally Indicted

“Millions of Americans, including many pregnant women, will have to forgo basic care if it is upheld,” he adds.

The case was brought by Dr. Steven Hotze, a far-right Republican activist and religious extremist who has attacked the LGBTQ community for decades. Last fall The New York Times identified Braidwood Management’s owner as “Dr. Steven F. Hotze, a well-known Republican donor and doctor from Houston, has previously challenged the Affordable Care Act on other grounds.”

The Times reports in that September ruling in this same case, Judge O’Connor wrote: “The PrEP mandate substantially burdens the religious exercise of Braidwood’s owners.” O’Connor, The Times added, wrote “that Dr. Hotze believes that covering PrEP drugs ‘facilitates and encourages homosexual behavior, intravenous drug use and sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman.'”

HIV is not exclusive to people who engage in same-sex intimate relations, drug use, or sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman.

In 2015, Dr. Hotze compared same-sex marriage to the Holocaust and gay people to murderers, defending his belief that Texas should ignore the impending Supreme Court ruling that found same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marriage.

Just two weeks ago Dr. Hotze was “kicked out of a state senate session,” The Daily Beast reported, “after he called transgender people ‘pedophiles.'”

“Major medical and patient groups,” Bloomberg Law reported on Thursday, “had argued that a nationwide order would jeopardize health care for millions of Americans, leading to preventable deaths and higher costs for treating diseases that could have been detected earlier by free screenings.”

READ MORE: Here’s How Five Republicans in Congress Are Responding to the Mass Shooting of 3 Children and 3 Adults in Nashville (Video)

According to Forbes, Judge O’Connor’s ruling on Thursday also voids required coverage for other “preventive services,” including “screenings for such cancers as breast cancer, colorectal cancer, cervical cancer and lung cancer, diabetes screenings, various screenings and interventions for pregnant people, statin use to prevent cardiovascular disease, vision screening for children and more.”

And yet, Judge O’Connor’s decision tossed “other arguments that tried to invalidate the contraceptive mandate in the ACA, so coverage for contraception will remain unaffected by Thursday’s ruling.”

The Biden Administration is expected to appeal, and according to Forbes because insurance policies are generally in effect for a calendar year, it’s unlikely any possible changes would be implemented before January.

Meanwhile, Judge O’Connor in 2019 overturned protections written into ObamaCare for transgender people, ruling they violate the religious rights of healthcare providers who hold religious beliefs that oppose the existence of transgender people.

Three years earlier, in 2016, O’Connor – who at that point already had a record of opposing LGBT rights – handed down a 38-page order in a lawsuit brought by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on behalf of 13 states, blocking the Obama administration from enforcing its guidance that said public schools should allow transgender students to use restroom and locker rooms based on their gender identity.

Image: Judge Reed O’Connor

Legal experts are responding to bombshell reporting from The Washington Post revealing Ginni Thomas, the spouse of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, who had unprecedented access to the Trump White House and Oval Office, for years headed a secretive right-wing activist organization funded through a web of dark money groups, whose purpose was to wage a culture war against the left.

The Post reports the organization, Crowdsourcers for Culture and Liberty, took in nearly $600,000 in anonymous funds to fuel its efforts to battle “cultural Marxism,” as Ginni Thomas, who headed the group, called their mission.

Thomas had stepped away from her previous non-profit right-wing activist group “amid concerns that it created potential conflicts for her husband on hot-button issues before the court,” The Post says, and yet, she led Crowdsourcers for Culture and Liberty, which creates the same concerns. Where is the money coming from? What is the group doing with it? How much crossover is there between her activism and the group’s targets and efforts, and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ work?

According to The Post, in tax filings of its think tank sponsor, Crowdsourcers for Culture and Liberty is described as an “informal, unincorporated nonprofit association which serves as an incubator for ideas across a network of conservative leaders, cultural entrepreneurs, and cultural influences.”

READ MORE: ‘Heist’: Ginni Thomas Tells J6 Committee Election Was Stolen, Says She Never Discussed Efforts to Overturn With Spouse

It appears great efforts were made to ensure the donors to Thomas’ Crowdsourcers group would not be able to be publicly identified.

“In 2019, anonymous donors gave the think tank Capital Research Center, or CRC, $596,000 that was designated for Crowdsourcers, according to tax filings and audits the think tank submitted to state regulators. The majority of that money, $400,000, was routed through yet another nonprofit, Donors Trust, according to that organization’s tax filings. Donors Trust is a fund that receives money from wealthy donors whose identities are not disclosed and steers it toward conservative causes,” The Post explains.

Thomas, who is reportedly active in another secretive far-right wing group, the Council for National Policy, brought two well-known far-right wing activists from CNP into Crowdsourcers for Culture and Liberty: former Trump attorney, ally, and advisor Cleta Mitchell, and Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk.

The New York Times last year described the Council for National Policy as an organization that “brings together old-school Republican luminaries, Christian conservatives, Tea Party activists and MAGA operatives, with more than 400 members who include leaders of organizations like the Federalist Society, the National Rifle Association and the Family Research Council.”

But despite all the obvious red flags, an attorney for Ginni Thomas, Mark Paoletta, told The Washington Post she was “proud of the work she did with Crowdsourcers, which brought together conservative leaders to discuss amplifying conservative values with respect to the battle over culture.”

READ MORE: Ginni Thomas ‘Intertwined’ With ‘Vast’ Campaign Pressuring Supreme Court to Overturn Roe: Report

“She believes Crowdsourcers identified the Left’s dominance in most cultural lanes, while conservatives were mostly funding political organizations,” Paoletta also told The Post.

“There is no plausible conflict of interest issue with respect to Justice Thomas,” he claimed.

Others disagree.

U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), who is also an attorney, responded to The Post’s report by mocking Paoletta’s claim there is no conflict of interest.

“Donors Trust was central to the far-right Court-packing operation, and now they pass secret donor funds to a justice’s spouse, but ‘no plausible conflict of interest’? Please.”

Sen. Whitehouse went on to explain his additional concerns.

“Plus, remember that the secrecy conduits like Donors Trust keep the *public* from knowing what’s happening, but nothing prevents the secret donor from telling the spouse or the justice, ‘Hey, that money that secretly came through to you — that’s me.'”

Adam Smith, Vice President for Democracy Initiatives at the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), observed: “Seems like the spouse of a Supreme Court Justice shouldn’t be able to hide the source of huge donations that could be from people with business before the court.”

READ MORE: Ginni Thomas’ Attempts to Influence Overturn of Election Even Wider Than Previously Known

CREW’s President, Noah Bookbinder, a former federal corruption prosecutor, adds: “Hundreds of thousands in anonymous donations to an activist group led by Ginni Thomas, spouse of a Supreme Court justice, raises all kinds of troubling questions about who could be influencing decisions that affect all of us.”

Attorney and Slate Magazine senior writer covering courts and the law, Mark Joseph Stern, pushed back against any idea the nearly $600,000 funding came from small donations.

“Ginni Thomas’ various political ventures have never had any small/grassroots donors. They have ALWAYS been funded by a handful of ultra-wealthy individuals and organizations who are very obviously trying to curry favor with her husband,” Stern said.

Former White House aide and CNN commentator Keith Boykin, also an attorney, called for Justice Thomas to recuse from certain cases: “If Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson had to recuse herself from the Harvard affirmative action case, then Clarence Thomas should recuse himself from all the cases on right-wing issues in which his activist wife, Ginni Thomas, is involved.”