Alabama cites Supreme Court abortion decision in transgender youth case | Reuters
By: Steve Gorman (Reuters)
Just days after the U.S. Supreme Court abolished women's constitutional right to abortion, Alabama has cited that ruling in a bid to outlaw parents from obtaining puberty blockers and certain other medical treatment for their transgender children.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
June 30 (Reuters) - Just days after the U.S. Supreme Court abolished women's constitutional right to abortion, Alabama has cited that ruling in a bid to outlaw parents from obtaining puberty blockers and certain other medical treatment for their transgender children.
The citation came in an appeal by Alabama's attorney general seeking to lift a federal court injunction that partially blocked enforcement of a newly enacted state ban on medical interventions for youth whose gender identity is at odds with their birth sex.
The appeal is believed to mark the first time a state has expressly invoked the recent Supreme Court opinion overturning its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion and applied the same reasoning to a separate issue bearing on other rights.
Echoing the high court's language in striking down Roe, the Alabama appeal filed on Monday argued that the state has the authority to outlaw puberty-blocking hormones and other therapies for transgender minors in part because they are not "deeply rooted in our history or traditions."
The appeal also asserted that such treatments are dangerous and experimental, contrary to broad agreement among mainstream medical and mental health professionals that such gender-affirming care saves lives by reducing the risk of depression and suicide.
Last Friday's 5-4 decision from the Supreme Court's conservative majority immediately paved the way …
visit seeded article for remaining content
Tags
Who is online
641 visitors
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, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed.
And so it begins...
Don't worry, they won't use the ruling in other cases...
Don't worry, they won't use it in cases outside this one...
You do realize this is Alabama and not SCotUS I hope.
And that has what to do with what?
The narrative last week was that SCotUS was going to use it (Clarence Thomas' remarks). Perhaps you were not a party to that same line of thinking. If not, my apologies.
My narrative is now all courts will use it.
SCOTUS cannot "use it" until a case comes before them that can relate to their decision. However, after Thomas' remarks, you just know certain red states are looking for cases to escalate that will allow them to take away more rights from those they disagree with.
There is a republican down here just two days or so ago that wants to bring a suit against gay marriage. Saying it wasn't decided correctly.
In order to bring suit, wouldn't he have to show how gay marriage adversely effects him?
I would think. Haha
You would think I would get use to them spouting off, but no.
So he needs to get the state to ban gay marriage. Then hope a federal judge and appellate justices try to overrule the Supreme Court making his appeal worth even hearing. And hope at the end of the line at least 5 of the 8 Supreme Justices contradict their opinions in Dobbs and allow states to decide gay marriage.
Good luck with that.
Your reasoning is stunningly reminiscent of all the assurances and derision you rightwingers dished out whenever predictions were made about the court's intention to overturn Roe...
A textbook example of how media manipulates the uninformed for clicks.
All the lawyer did was update the citation to Dobbs for the Glickman test, a 25 year old precedent.
The lawyer did not citing Dobbs for anything other than that. The lawyer would have made the exact same argument if the Dobbs case never existed.
This happens every time the Supreme Court issues a ruling. Lawyers then cite to the most recent application of a principle.
Update? They cited part of the ruling....
They are using it.
Yes, exactly. The lawyer cited the Glickman portion of the ruling. If Dobbs never happened the lawyer would have cited the last case to use the Glickman test to make the exact same argument. It's a simple citation (the brief will undoubtedly have dozens of them) and will have no influence on how the case is ultimately decided.
Do you think using something like, it is not embedded in our history, makes zero point or has zero bearing?
They did use this and I bet they will use it in other cases. You are only saying that it is now going to be used as a general cite.
No, of course not. Which is why I said they they will be arguing over a 25 year old precedent that employed that language. The language would be used with or without Dobbs. There's nothing new here.
and I bet they will use it in other cases.
Of course. It will be cited in any other case that applies the Gluckman test, since it's the most recent one. Until the Court issues another judgment applying it, and then it will be cited in every case.
Kids shouldn't be given puberty blockers on the vague un-diagnosed notion that they are transgender
They aren't mature enough to drink beer, vote or a drive a car. But damnit, they can cut off body parts.
We are not getting into a trans discussion. It is about a ruling.
This isn't a ruling. It's a citation in a argument.
And I would say the citations in the argument will be used in the ruling...
Yes, whether the Court decides for Alabama or against it, the Court will cite Dobbs since it is the most recent Supreme Court case touching upon Glickman.
To be honest I am not understanding the Glickman ruling. Somehow about free speech, yet about economics and the department of agriculture. So far I don't see similarities to the new ruling.
So far I don't see similarities to the new ruling.
That's entirely my fault. I was going by memory and didn't bother to look it up. It's Glucksburg, not Glickman.
Here's the case. Sorry for the confusion
.
Ok, that makes a lot more sense. Haha
Reading now.
If we go with that flawed line of thinking, it's a ruling about TRANS people. There is no splitting hairs.
It is about a court case. This is not going to be some hate fest about what people do or don't do in their private lives.
I am thinking you are going by this.
Which yes, is basically what they cited above.
Though assisted suicide is legal in several states.
That deals with the Trans community.
And we are going to talk about the case and not the community. Case closed.
According to who? You?
It just keeps getting worse & I can feel my rage building again.
Now parents cannot decide what is important for their children, the state gets to tell them? Funny - my niece's daughter has spina-bifida & she is beginning puberty. Their pediatrician recommended hormone blockers. Wonder if Alabama state government would have a problem with that? OR is is OK if you are a heterosexual, non-transgender person?
Seems to be the way they are going.
it's the christo-fascist version of lebensborn, again...
“…the state gets to tell them?”
It is no longer a question.
The only ones to profit from this are the trial lawyers and certainly not the citizenry…nothing new under the sun.