I'm always preaching about not letting the perfect being the enemy of the good, but the problem with so many of my peds brethren boarding this train is that people think this is a "doctor approved" method of vaccination. It is not. It's merely us being too fucking tired to fight with you about this anymore.

I am feeling so fucking good about my parenting choices right now and I say that as someone who accidentally kicked my sick child in the head yesterday (dark hallway, kid unexpectedly on floor just inside doorway, bygones). Thank you Heather Young. Thank you!

subpar does not mean what you think it means.

Voluntary intoxication can be a defense to specific intent crimes - it can negate the specific intent element. So if you have a crime like larceny, which is defined as the unlawful taking and carrying away of the property of another with the intent to steal it, and you are so drunk that you can't form an intent to…

I hate crying over something I cannot stand. But the biggest kid's book cry for me is Knuffle Bunny Free (which is still wonderful and I love it, but I usually have to skip the Epilogue).

Because they have to show damages. Saying "this wasnt what I bought when I paid for the sperm" would get you a refund. Saying "I have all these new expenses" is how you end up with punitive damages which can really put the hurt on the clinic and maybe make them buy a computer system so they can print out a label. As…

Not that I'm saying that I would read this (yes, I am) but could we get some links to Mormon Mommy blogs?

I pooped while pushing. Everyone was cool and pretended like it didn't happen.

As with most jez articles about legal developments, this one is entirely inaccurate and misleading. Can't jez get a law student or something to write these posts?

This is why nobody takes Jezebel seriously. While you're sitting here clutching your pearls at this ruling, you decide to also take a pot-shot at the Massachusetts ruling from earlier this year. Yet you UTTERLY FAIL to mention in any way that the judge in that case stated that the law, as it was written left his…

I know I will stay way at the bottom in the grays but still. Gawker media really needs to hire someone with a legal background to consult on these. The article is so misleading (as gawker articles re legal decisions usually are). This was a terribly written law and I don't think the most liberal of judges could have…

These same problems arose last time with the Massachusetts decision. You guys really need to get a legal correspondent who understands the issues. Describing a verdict that 90% of knowledgeable lawyers would agree with as full of "bullshit" seems like a poor way to report on complex issues.

Can't anyone read on this site. Look at how the law is written and it's clearly unconstitutional. It would ban any type of picture because any picture could be considered to be taken for sexual gratification. Come on, get a grip. This is a horribly written law. Just because you're trying to stop an bad thing, don't…

Whoa: Don't lump Massachusetts in with Texas. The Supreme Court of MA ruled that there existed no law banning upskirts, specifically stating that one could be passed. That's the OPPOSITE of what happened here, where there was a law, and they threw it out.

Sometimes I don't understand you guys. This was clearly the right legal decision by the Texas Courts. The purpose of the Courts is to determine whether the law is Constitutional, not whether it's a good/useful/practical law. And the law is clearly too broad to be Constitutional. This shouldn't be controversial. And it…

producing blatantly incorrect content like this makes people who read it dumber and drives educated people away from this site.

The writer of this article is either as dumb as a bag of rocks, or should be ashamed of herself. This entire article is premised on a basic(willful?) misunderstanding of what the issue here was and what the intent was. Disgraceful. But I guess it's ok if you're on the right side right?

I said the same thing above. Jezebel desperately needs someone who can write coherently about legal issues. Its getting downright embarrassing at this point.

The problem is not with the Judges, but the way the law was written. The quoted section from the law in this article would make it a criminal offense for you to take any picture that was subsequently used as masturbation material by a third-party. That's ridiculous.

Good call on putting the actual reason the law was thrown out at the very bottom of your article, below several paragraphs of hyperbole.