US supreme court upholds Tennessee ban on youth gender-affirming care | Transgender | The Guardian
By: Joe Biden (the Guardian)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Ruling is devastating loss for trans rights supporters in case that could set precedent for dozens of other lawsuits
A Tennessee state law banning gender-affirming care for minors can stand, the US supreme court has ruled, a devastating loss for trans rights supporters in a case that could set a precedent for dozens of other lawsuits involving the rights of transgender children.
The case, United States v Skrmetti, was filed last year by three families of trans children and a provider of gender-affirming care. In oral arguments, the plaintiffs - as well as the US government, then helmed by Joe Biden - argued that Tennessee's law constituted sex-based discrimination and thus violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Under Tennessee's law, someone assigned female at birth could not be prescribed testosterone, but someone assigned male at birth could receive those drugs.
Tennessee, meanwhile, has argued that the ban is necessary to protect children from what it termed "experimental" medical treatment. During arguments, the conservative justices seemed sympathetic to that concern, although every major medical and mental health organization in the US has found that gender-affirming care can be evidence-based and medically necessary. These groups also oppose political bans on such care.
All six of the supreme court's conservative justices joined in at least part of the decision to uphold the law, although several also wrote their own concurring opinions. In his majority decision, Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized that the ruling primarily rested on the justices' finding that the law did not violate the equal protection clause, rather than on an ideological opposition to trans rights.
"This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound," Roberts wrote. He added: "We leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process."
In recent years, the question of transgender children and their rights has consumed an outsized amount of rightwing political discourse. Since 2021,26 states have passed bans on gender-affirming care for minors, affecting nearly 40% of trans youth in the US. Twenty-six states have also outlawed trans kids from playing on sports teams that correspond with their gender identity.
Many of these restrictions have been paused by court challenges, but the supreme court's decision could have vast implications for those lawsuits' futures. A study by the Trevor Project, a mental health nonprofit that aims to help LGBTQ+ kids, found that anti-trans laws are linked to a 72% increase of suicide attempts among trans and nonbinary youth.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the majority opinion, alongside Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan. Because the law discriminates on the basis of sex, Sotomayor argued in her dissent, it should face higher legal scrutiny than the majority decided to give it.
"Male (but not female) adolescents can receive medicines that help them look like boys, and female (but not male) adolescents can receive medicines that help them look like girls," Sotomayor wrote. "By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent."
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off-topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, respond to themselves, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) you are replying to preserve the continuity of this seed. Posting debunked lies will be subject to deletion
No Fascism References, Source Dissing.
Tags
Who is online
123 visitors
What can I say except it is what it is. And that is a good thing.
Morning Jim ... so does this ruling put Amy Coney Barrett back on the 'good' side?
Was never on the bad side. None of the SCOTUS benchwarmers are on my bad side.
It was not a personal question. It related to Trump being unhappy with The Federalist's recommendations.
You can't win them all, as they say.
It is the first of many to be issued today.
The Court's last big day of rulings for a while.
Hard to believe this is such an issue in the US as to make it to the supreme court. Just another 80/20 issue the left is on the wrong side of.
This has implications for the entire country.
Maybe the parents can now invest in mental health care for their children.
And protect their children from monsters who sterilize them and remove healthy body parts
I can't help but wonder how many of these children are the victims of their parents ideologies. A Munchausen by Proxy situation.
Joe wants to play with a Barbie doll? He must want to be a girl. Lets get his junk cut off this weekend at the drive through "Chop it Off".
To put is simply, if you are over 18 and have a penis and dress up and act like a woman, you have a mental illness, if you are under 18 and dress up and act like a woman your parents have a mental illness.
Having a trans kid seems a mandatory accessory for hollywood progressives. Some even have more than one, which is really insane.
Well, something had to replace the purse dog.
Common sense prevails.
2 years later Honey is calling mommy, Moron Boo Boo.