The Biden administration had asked the justices to take up the case, United States v. Skrmetti, arguing that the measure outlaws treatment for gender dysphoria in youths and “frames that prohibition in explicitly sex-based terms.”
In the government’s petition to the court, Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar wrote that the law bans transgender medical care but that it “leaves the same treatments entirely unrestricted if they are prescribed for any other purpose.”...
June 24, 2024
"Supreme Court Will Hear Challenge to Tennessee Law Banning Transition Care for Minors."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
92 comments:
This will be a victory for conservatives.
The State of TN has a compelling interest to protect children from mutilation due to the bad judgement of their parents and the evil intent of the doctors at Vandy Medical Center.
THIS is THE HILL that the Democrat party decides to die on?
If i'm a parent, and i decide that I HATE DICKS, can i chop off my son's dick? If so, WHY?
If i'm a parent, and i decide that I HATE DICKS, can i chop off my daughter's dick? If so, WHY?
"Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar wrote that the law bans transgender medical care but that it “leaves the same treatments entirely unrestricted if they are prescribed for any other purpose...."
What's to stop unscrupulous doctors from using a different diagnosis as the basis for treatment?
Everyone ought to hear this podcast: why Chloe cole detransitioned. Some day we will be prosecuting practitioners of “gender affirming care” for ruining the lives of children.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pints-with-aquinas/id1097862282?i=1000657528901
This trend is a catastrophic abomination.
It bans certain elective procedures for minors while allowing those same procedures for medically necessary surgeries? Regardless of the sexual nature of the ban, I don't think it will be hard to defend this. There's nothing unusual about having different rules for necessary versus elective procedures.
Ince again, the Democrats are making the Republican's campaign commercials for them.
So is it the Federal Government's position that if a state doesn't prohibit doctors from amputating a limb in cases where there is a severe infection which will likely progress to the rest of the body then that state can also not prohibit amputation in cases of body integrity identity disorder, where an otherwise healthy patient strongly feels that their leg doesn't belong to them and wants it removed?
This is the slipperiest of slopes. I really do not want the government to have the power to intercede in health care decisions.
I would much rather filter society for parents and "activists" that are willing to do this to children. We didn't need to have a law for this before. I think we should be focusing on the reason we probably need this law.
The United States made pedophilia taboo. This is almost unique in the world.
In my opinion we need to reinforce that taboo and start suppressing people that sexualize children rather than create a precedent that allows government to have this power.
So this is how you energize the base of the Democratic Party?
Dave Begley said...
This will be a victory for conservatives.
The State of TN has a compelling interest to protect children from mutilation due to the bad judgement of their parents and the evil intent of the doctors at Vandy Medical Center.
This is not a victory.
You will win the battle to stop these twisted perverts and freaks from mutilating children.
You will lose the war by giving the government a power those same freaks and perverts will use against us in the future.
Just like they did with marriage.
Blogger Oh Yea said...
So this is how you energize the base of the Democratic Party?
I don't know. It is my sense that most trans issues are deeply divisive on the left, especially anything related to transitioning children. And if you don't hear more disagreement on the left over the positions of the Trans advocates, it is isn't because of agreement or acceptance it is because of a desire to avoid infighting or just a fear of being othered and canceled by their side.
And another thing I absolutely detest is that the Supreme Court is going to decide this issue one way or another.
It does not matter if they come up with the "Right" answer.
It is fucking detestable that 7 robed pharisees and 2 decent judges are going to decide whether or not twisted perverts and freaks are allowed to mutilate children.
Our Republic was never meant to operate in this fashion.
Well yes but were here
Look for 3 liberals, Goresuch and either roberts or Kavanaugh to discover a new constitutional right to a transgender surgery!
What standing does the U.S. government have to sue to block a state law? How is the U.S. government harmed by this law? By what power do they intervene in a medical issue?
Blogger tim maguire said...
It bans certain elective procedures for minors while allowing those same procedures for medically necessary surgeries? Regardless of the sexual nature of the ban, I don't think it will be hard to defend this. There's nothing unusual about having different rules for necessary versus elective procedures.
I share similar thoughts. Personally, my problem with Texas statewide ban on Abortion is that it needlessly complicates certain medically necessary surgeries. I understand why progressives want to muddy these waters and conservatives want a clear line. But I think the same reason we have clear lines for all sorts of activities for minors, this line is easy for me to draw.
Biden Administration: You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want the government on that scalpel. You need the government on that scalpel.
I am glad they decided to take this up
Because doing so is the only way to get Dem District Court "judges" to stop interfering with these laws
Yes, I'm sure that the 5 Justices who recently voted to nuke Roe, are now going to turn around and "discover" that there's a right to cut your kids penis / breasts offs, and destroy their puberty.
That's sarcasm, in case you're too stupid to figure that out.
There's not a single Appeals court that has found in favor of such "right", because it's obvious bullshit. Add the Case Report, and the inability of ANY of teh "professional medical associations" to provide actual scientific research supporting their positions?
"Gender Affirming Care" is going to go down in a flaming pile
Lance:
Equal protection under the constitution and Medicaid is how the federal government gets involved.
Blogger Lance said...
What standing does the U.S. government have to sue to block a state law? How is the U.S. government harmed by this law? By what power do they intervene in a medical issue?
Them bringing up sex makes me think they are arguing it is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. And the 14th amendment specifically gives the ability for the Federal government to intervene and prevent certain state actions. However the Federal Government being able to intervene under the 14th amendment is also why the US Supreme Court has struck down certain state and local prohibitions against gun ownership.
MadTownGuy said...
"Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar wrote that the law bans transgender medical care but that it “leaves the same treatments entirely unrestricted if they are prescribed for any other purpose...."
That's because if you have puberty starting at age 5, it SHOUDL be delayed, you psychotic monster.
What's to stop unscrupulous doctors from using a different diagnosis as the basis for treatment?
The allowed diagnosis is "1: Are you having puberty start? 2: Are you below age X?" (Sorry, off the top of my head I don't know what counts as "too early")
Age is not fudgable. If you try to give puberty blockers to a 13 year old, you're not using them for their on label purpose
A more efficacious solution than this ban would be to make it easier for the children to sue the doctors and hospitals who perform these surgeries and hormonal treatments after they realize they and/or their parents made a mistake. Nothing clarifies the mind more than losing money.
Achilles said...
This is the slipperiest of slopes. I really do not want the government to have the power to intercede in health care decisions.
Well then, you need to start by getting rid of the FDA.
And legalizing ALL drugs, with the possibly exception of antibiotics, since your abuse of those harms other people.
Until you've done that, not only has the horse left the barn, it's left the county.
You want to get gov't out of health care? End the crackdown on prescribing pain medication. That's one that's an actual abuse, harming hundreds of thousands of people
Is "any other purpose" new lefty speak for "actual medically necessary care" vs. a mental phase/issue that should not be treated via surgery?
Asking for a friend...
Achilles said...
You will win the battle to stop these twisted perverts and freaks from mutilating children.
You will lose the war by giving the government a power those same freaks and perverts will use against us in the future.
You are starting from a false assumption: the idea that the Left requires some action by the rest of us before they will abuse power to do what they want.
See: the "nuclear option"
The GOP refrained in 2006
The Dems went whole hog with it in 2013, once filibusters got in their way
It doesn't matter what precedents you do or don't set, because the Democrats just don't care
So yes, let's create the precedent that parents aren't allowed to mutilate their children / addict them to drugs for the rest of their lives (you can't exit the "gender affirming medicine" without "detransitioning") in order to grab social credit with their friends.
Achilles said...
You will win the battle to stop these twisted perverts and freaks from mutilating children.
You will lose the war by giving the government a power those same freaks and perverts will use against us in the future.
You are starting from a false assumption: the idea that the Left requires some action by the rest of us before they will abuse power to do what they want.
See: the "nuclear option"
The GOP refrained in 2006
The Dems went whole hog with it in 2013, once filibusters got in their way
It doesn't matter what precedents you do or don't set, because the Democrats just don't care
So yes, let's create the precedent that parents aren't allowed to mutilate their children / addict them to drugs for the rest of their lives (you can't exit the "gender affirming medicine" without "detransitioning") in order to grab social credit with their friends.
"THIS is THE HILL that the Democrat party decides to die on?"
Kindasorta. It is very related to the actual hill democrats and the left will die on, which is unfettered legalized sexual access to children. They are linked.
They have, are, and will be coming for children from now on. They have said as much, and you can see as much. Believe them.
Dr. Yellowbeard...
"I'll kill anybody that gets in the way of me killing anybody".
Blogger Yancey Ward said...
A more efficacious solution than this ban would be to make it easier for the children to sue the doctors and hospitals who perform these surgeries and hormonal treatments after they realize they and/or their parents made a mistake.
This would also be met with a not-very-intense resistance from institutional Democrats, meaning politicians and their advisors. A private civil cause of action would mean some pretty big monetary awards, and the Plaintiff's Bar donates very heavily to Democrats. And the institutional Democrats and the Plaintiff's bar have a very mercenary attitude when it comes to politics. They would happily sell out their "trans allies" for a new stream of revenue, because in their mind the the Trans folks have no where else to go politically so they don't need to do anything to keep their support.
Fourteenth Amendment? The law bans medical transitions for everyone equally. Equal protection doesn't apply.
The Vault Dweller:
There is a case pending in Douglas County District Court captioned, "Luka Hein v. UNMC Physicians, et al." where a minor had her breasts chopped off. Puberty blockers applied. Only when the docs wanted to remove her uterus did her parents say no.
While NE has a med mal damages cap, there are a number of defendants and the plaintiff's attorney (a Federalist PI lawyer that I know) has added another cause of action for which there is no damages cap.
Luka Hein will get Big Bucks from her lawsuit. And I hope others follow.
The victims here are minors so they can sue for up to two years after they reach majority age in NE; majority age is 19. Big supply of potential plaintiffs.
I'm looking forward to the following question, probably from Alito:
So, Plaintiff Atty, what is the actual scientific evidence that these treatments improve patient outcomes? Teh Case Report says there's none. These studies found an increase in suicides among people who'd had "gender affirming care", when asked for studies proving that the proposed "standard of care" was correct, none of these "professional medical societies" can provide any.
So, on what scientific evidence do you base support for surgically and chemically castrating children?
Not a lawyer here, so I'm curious to hear from those who are. How much could the recent Cass Review that has so reshaped the UK responses be used in any Supreme Court ruling?
David French, LLR-democratical And Violent Homosexual Rage Rape Fantasist Chuck and the entire Pedophile Patrol at The Lincoln Pedophile Project hardest hit.
Only the Biden Administration would argue that removing a minor's healthly reproductive organs is health Care.
I'm looking forward to the following question, probably from Alito:
So, Plaintiff Atty, what is the actual scientific evidence that these treatments improve patient outcomes? Teh Case Report says there's none. These studies found an increase in suicides among people who'd had "gender affirming care", when asked for studies proving that the proposed "standard of care" was correct, none of these "professional medical societies" can provide any.
So, on what scientific evidence do you base support for surgically and chemically castrating children?
See: the "nuclear option"The Dems went whole hog with it in 2013, once filibusters got in their way. it doesn't matter what precedents you do or don't set, because the Democrats just don't care
The GOP refrained in 2006
The Democrats cried foul but then exercised the nuclear option in 2013 for all positions
except the Supreme Court.
The Republican's sat on the Garland nomination because it was Obama's last year.
The Republicans enacted a SUPERNUCLEAR OPTION so they could confirm Supreme Court justices.
Then, when it was Trump's last year in office they discover a rule nobody knew about before that when you are running for reelection, you CAN and SHOULD ram candidates through. It's different then.
There are no "good guys." There are definitely no "victims." When did the right become such fucking crybabies? I blame Trump. Fucking crybaby. Dish it out but can't take it. Even Mygyn Kylly gets under his skins. Pathetic.
The conservative movement need a rebrand.
Texas didn't ban abortions... reproductive... human rites. They restricted elective abortion past six weeks where a human life is legally viable (in all 50 states) or with probable cause to justify self-defence.
Levine's Dreams of Herr Mengele in a progressive revival of Diversity, human rites, and profit.
Dont think there is a constitional right for a mother to cut her son's nuts off. (Not even in the prenumbra)
D.D. Driver said...
The Republican's sat on the Garland nomination because it was Obama's last year.
No, the Republicans sat on teh Garland nomination because they had a majority, and the Bork precedent already established that a Senate majority is free to reject a nominee for any reason they want.
As opposed to filibuster abuse, which was about the minority blocking the majority.
The Republicans enacted a SUPERNUCLEAR OPTION so they could confirm Supreme Court justices.
You mean, the Republicans followed the already enacted "Bork Rule"
Then, when it was Trump's last year in office they discover a rule nobody knew about before that when you are running for reelection, you CAN and SHOULD ram candidates through. It's different then.
Oh, bullshit.
They followed the age old rule that the majority can vote on something, and pass it. That's what it MEANS to have the majority.
God you are pitiful, DD
The benefit of gender emulation through surgical, medical, and psychiatric corruption cannot be forecast, let alone predicted. The experiment fails in the great majority of victims, and produces forward-looking catastrophic consequences in a majority of survivors, albeit with sustainable revenue.
"The Democrats cried foul but then exercised the nuclear option in 2013 for all positions
except the Supreme Court."
And do you know why they didn't invoke it for SCOTUS nominees in 2013, D.D. Driver?
If Republicans had followed the ideals of D.D. Driver there would be at least a 6-3 progressive majority on the Supreme Court as I write this.
This is what rebranding looks like, D.D.- stop being the Washington Generals.
Being "transgender" is not some special status. Some people have a psychological problem and activists demand that the rest of society play along with the delusion. It's utter trash.
Mutilating children and pumping them full of hormones as elective measures falls outside of parental prerogatives and the state is well within its authority under the police power to ban such unnecessary and harmful procedures.
Save the children. [The adults (over 18) can do with their bodies whatever they wish as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.]
A brief history of the "rules" for judicial nominations:
1: Pre 1987: President gets his nominees
2: 1987: Dems change rule: Majority can reject any nominee, for any reason they want
3: 2003: Dems change rule: Minority can now filibuster any nominee, for any reason they want
4: 2013: Dems change rule: Minority can no longer filibuster non-SCOTUS nominees (because there were no SCOUTS nominees up)
5: 2017: GOP extend Dems' 2013 rule to SCOTUS
If you're sane, you dont' look at teh history, and say "there are no good guys here".
There is one Party that has consistently nuked the rules whenever they got in their way. Then there's the GOP, which has simply imposed on the Dems the rules the Dems already created
The LGB and Qs need to get a divorce ASAP from the Ts.
They come off as predators who are coming after your kids.
"The law also prohibits surgical procedures provided for the same purposes, but that prohibition is not at issue here."
- Prelogar
Beyond that single statement, I didn't see a rationale for excluding this aspect of the law from the Government's challenge. They only dispute the prohibitions on puberty blockers and hormone treatments.
Why stop there?
"You never go full retard" comes to mind.
I don't see how this is "sex-based discrimination." It does not apply only to men but not women, for example - it applies to everyone regardless of the gender of that person. It also does not preclude the provision of any specific medicines for one gender but not the other. The example cited in the petition is testosterone, but that is currently prescribed to women for a variety of reasons unrelated to gender transitioning and remains so under the Tennessee law.
The petition states "like every court to consider the issue, the district court held that a categorical ban on evidence-based treatments supported by the overwhelming consensus of the medical community cannot survive heightened scrutiny."
It is global warming all over again - "overwhelming consensus?"
The LGBTQ etc secular religion is strong in the Biden administration these days.
Gender Dysphoria is a mental disorder that requires psychiatric care. Genital mutilation for treatment is as bizarre as removing the head to solve the disorder.
"The LGBTQ etc secular religion is strong in the Biden administration these days."
It IS the Biden administration these days. There are more queers at the Whitehouse than Fire Island before Labor Day.
D.D.Driver: "The Republican's sat on the Garland nomination because it was Obama's last year."
LOL
Its called the "Biden Rule".
See if you can figure out why....
so just to make SURE that i'm following DD Driver's argument.
ANY Judge picked by a President that is a member of the Democrat party MUST BE accepted
A Judge picked by a President NOT a member of the Democrat party can be rejected if ANY Democrat objects
Do i have your argument right DD? Not trying to put words into your mouth
the law bans transgender medical care but that it “leaves the same treatments entirely unrestricted if they are prescribed for any other purpose
I don't think the treatments are entirely unrestricted, but anyway, an answer to that argument is:
Would you object to banning the amputation of limbs as a treatment for minors with Body Integrity Dysphoria even though amputation would remain legal for other purposes?
Anyone who can't understand the rational difference between a double mastectomy to remove cancerous tissue and a double mastectomy in an attempt to look like a guy is a friggin' moron or dangerously disingenuous.
Remember that slippery slope I posted months ago? We're way below it's bottom now.
I don't see how this is "sex-based discrimination."
Our con-law Prof hostess can probably explain this thoroughly, but my understanding is that in discrimination cases involving gay people, the fact that gay men were treated differently from straight men was a basis for a sex-discrimination claim, and those cases expressly rejected the argument that gay men and gay women had been treated the same.
those cases expressly rejected the argument that gay men and gay women had been treated the same
The codification of political congruence ("=") of persons in the transgender spectrum to the selective, opportunistic exclusion of others, related to Diversity (e.g. DEI, IED) based on color judgments and class bigotry. Case in point the "Respect for Marriage Act", albinophobic symbols and language, cultural appropriation, rent-a-wombs, grooming, etc.
Seems like Prelogar will argue treatments that would normally be banned should be approved only because they are sex-based.
“This is the slipperiest of slopes. I really do not want the government to have the power to intercede in health care decisions.”
Too late. We very much saw this with COVID-19. For example, the ModRNA vaccines were ineffective and killed people, but were pushed by governments, while Physicians were not allowed to prescribe and pharmacists not allowed to dispense safe effective drugs, like Ivermectin. Physician licenses were yanked just for questioning the government.
I am so disappointed with how the 21st century is turning out. Apparently we learned nothing at all from the lobotomy fiasco. It should be obvious to anyone with even a room temperature IQ that you can't cure mental illness with a scalpel.
Now add in the Case report, and the fact that most of Europe is on the same path as Tennessee given that there is no evidence these "treatments" lead to positive outcomes. Don't the feds have anything better to do?
Being pedantic but the report on transgender treatment in the UK was the CasS report, not the CasE report.
tommyesq said...
The petition states "like every court to consider the issue, the district court held that a categorical ban on evidence-based treatments supported by the overwhelming consensus of the medical community cannot survive heightened scrutiny."
It is global warming all over again - "overwhelming consensus?"
The problem they face is that the amicus briefs in the case are going to blow that claim up
1: The "overwhelming consensus of the medical community" is totally lacking any scientific backing.
2: The Case report shows that the evidence is against this
3: Recent studies have showing that "Gender affirming treatments" actually increase the suicide rate
Something to note:
SCOTUS took the case. But they did NOT restore the injunctions against KY and TN enforcing these laws.
If there were 5 Justices ready to pretend the plaintiffs are right, they would have re-imposed the injunctions.
They didn't, because what's happening here is there are 5 votes, at least, to say "get this crap out of our courts".
I don't see how this is "sex-based discrimination."
It's not. This is age based discrimination a la reproductive... human rites (i.e. the wicked solution, Pro-Choice ethical religion), where the former are aborted for lack of standing and life, and the latter are denied... delayed surgical, medical, and or psycho-atric corruption until after puberty, and until they reach the age of maturity and capable of offering informed consent.
Consensus is a social construct a la democratic/dictatorial duality.
I agree with whoever it was upthread who brought this up - how does the U.S. Government have standing to bring this suit (as opposed to a private individual who was denied this type of service)?
I don't see how this is "sex-based discrimination."
Our con-law Prof hostess can probably explain this thoroughly, but my understanding is that in discrimination cases involving gay people, the fact that gay men were treated differently from straight men was a basis for a sex-discrimination claim, and those cases expressly rejected the argument that gay men and gay women had been treated the same.
But here, gay men - and even trans-men - are treated the same as straight men (and women of whatever stripe) - no to /surgery for gender change purposes, yes to drugs/surgery for other purposes. It does not distinguish on the basis of either sex or "gender." It discriminates based on the purpose for obtaining the treatment, not on the basis of the sex/gender of the person receiving the treatment.
I know that it's the CASS report, that is what I typed, but it autocorrected to CASE and I failed to notice. I expect that's happening to many of the commenters.
@tommyesq, I guess the argument is that cis kids can get the drugs, but trans kids can't? I haven't read any of the papers.
Tom T. said...
I don't see how this is "sex-based discrimination."
Our con-law Prof hostess can probably explain this thoroughly, but my understanding is that in discrimination cases involving gay people, the fact that gay men were treated differently from straight men was a basis for a sex-discrimination claim, and those cases expressly rejected the argument that gay men and gay women had been treated the same.
In the end it boils down to "Because."
The 9th and 10th amendments could not be more clear about this issue.
You have to make shit up to get around them.
"In the government’s petition to the court, Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar wrote that the law bans transgender medical care but that it “leaves the same treatments entirely unrestricted if they are prescribed for any other purpose.”
The flaw in this argument is calling it transgender Medical care. As pointed out before, you can't cure mental illness with surgery. There are a very few people suffering from gender dysphoria and a much larger cohort of adolescents sucked into the current fad. Neither group can be helped by chopping off body parts and constructing ineffective simulacrum of the opposite sex's equipment. They may be helped by mental health care, although that has a spotty record of it's own. At least it doesn't actively harm most of it's participants.
The Mass legislature banned “conversion” talk therapy against licensed therapists.
This is more invasive treatment with no direct 1st Amendment abridgment.
@tommyesq, I guess the argument is that cis kids can get the drugs, but trans kids can't? I haven't read any of the papers.
I get that this is the likely argument, but here, cis and trans kids both can get the drugs for purposes unrelated to gender reassignment but cannot get the drugs for gender reassignment. They are treated the same. It is the underlying desire of the trans kids that is different.
may as well Mirandize medical graduates simultaneously when Hippocrates/hypochrities oaths
Look for 3 liberals, Goresuch and either roberts or Kavanaugh to discover a new constitutional right to a transgender surgery!
Are you kidding?
I'll bet a case of Belgian beer that it's at least 6 to 3 upholding the law.
You think the guys who overturned Roe are going to flip into pro-castration? No way.
And assisted suicide was 9 to 0, if I remember right. The Supreme Court has zero appetite for doing creative shit with the Constitution.
The thing that really - REALLY - bothers me is that the parents of these children support their mutilation. I've known "conventional" parents who had to accept that their child is gay/lesbian, and I know that's not easy, but it's necessary and loving. But I find it hard to imagine how a loving parent could support the physical mutilation of their child for supposed "gender dysphoria". I have to assume that in many (most?) cases, doctors or other authority figures have imposed the idea on them that this is the "right" thing to do for the child they love. Are these doctors just after a buck? Or do they actually have a professional conclusion that mutilating children is a reasonable treatment for dysphoria? Or are they as brain-washed as many ideological commentators seem to be?
Not a lawyer here, so I'm curious to hear from those who are. How much could the recent Cass Review that has so reshaped the UK responses be used in any Supreme Court ruling?
I'm not a practicing lawyer anymore, but the answer is 100%. The Court could use any social science it wanted to, from anywhere around the world. Brown v. Board was 100% social science (and not very strong social science, either).
I think they're far more likely to write about the Constitution and the law, as opposed to opinions about social science. They might reference Cass if they feel the need to justify their opinion to non-lawyers. But their job is not to determine who is right on the science. Their job is to determine what the Constitution allows the state to do.
Godfather, I feel the exact same way- flabbergasted at the parents. The doctors I understand since money corrupts everyone, but the parents mystify me.
Saint Croix, thanks for your helpful response. I don't think the Cass report is social science. It's science science (Dr. Cass is a previous head of the Royal College of Pediatrics), and involved 50 studies on puberty blockers and 53 on hormone treatments. Led her to call for “extreme caution” in treating gender distressed kids. Which is to say that it put any such treatment into a category of likely causing harm. I would think that a state would have the right to prevent treatment that causes harm, and that would be something the Constitution allows the state to do, even if there's other reasons for such surgeries.
Making it so this isn't a neutral philosophical/ethical/social issue about whether people should transition, the Cass report has radically affected policies in the UK and elsewhere that Tennessee is matching. Of course what Europe does isn't a Constitutional issue, but it seems that why Europe does something reframes the discussion about what Tennessee has done differently than what the Biden admin is arguing.
But you are certainly right, the Supreme Court doesn't need to discuss the science (even biological science) to argue the law. I was just curious if how the law is perceived is affected by how the science of the treatment argued for is understood.
"flabbergasted at the parents."
In big ways and small ways, many parents use (and abuse) their kids for the sake of their own ego and emotional needs. Some are socially positive, like sports, but even that can get fairly dysfunctional. Or religion, or...
People find their identity in all kinds of places, most just aren't as permanently physically destructive for those in their care.
I'm not convinced "medical care" is the correct term.
There are many medically sound reasons to amputate limbs, and a law that forbade such amputations if done as a treatment for body dysphoria would probably face no serious opposition.
It all depends upon whether Neil "too slick for his own good" Gorsuch has learned his lesson from the last trans case.
Does the Court really want another Roe?
""Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar wrote that the law bans transgender medical care but that it “leaves the same treatments entirely unrestricted if they are prescribed for any other purpose....""
This argument by the SG shows a profoundly disturbing lack of any level of thought. There are plenty of things legal in one aspect and not in another.
If somebody breaks into my house and threatens me, I can shoot them. If I enter their house and threaten them, I cannot.
I do not get why they seem to have difficulties with the concept of legality never being an absolute.
Saint Croix said...
I think they're far more likely to write about the Constitution and the law, as opposed to opinions about social science. They might reference Cass if they feel the need to justify their opinion to non-lawyers. But their job is not to determine who is right on the science. Their job is to determine what the Constitution allows the state to do.
Well, there's three questions:
1: Is "gender affirming medicine" "legitimate care"?
2: Do States have the power to block parents from subjecting their children to illegitimate care?
3: Do States have the power to block parents and doctors from subjecting children to care that might be legitimate, but the the State disapproves of?
The answer to the 1st question is "No, there's no actual scientific justification for 'gender affirming medicine'"
The answer to teh second question is "probably"
The answer to the third question is a huge can of worms, that SCOTUS would probably rather avoid
So for SCOTUS, having the Cass report, and proof that there's no actual science behind the WPATH "standard of care guidelines", will make the rest of their case much easier, because they can punt on the harder questions, and simply rule "in a case wlike this where there no actual scientific evidence supporting the treatments, there can be no Constitutional right to parents inflicting such treatments on their children, and therefore no blockage to States outlawing them."
"in a case wlike this where there no actual scientific evidence supporting the treatments, there can be no Constitutional right to parents inflicting such treatments on their children, and therefore no blockage to States outlawing them."
If clear scientific evidence needs to be shown for what parents choose and do to/for minors, that's a giant can of worms you just opened.
Seems like skipping or delaying vaccination, abstaining from HPV Vax and other things could easily be swept up in this, nevermind a myriad of other things.
Mark said...
"in a case wlike this where there no actual scientific evidence supporting the treatments, there can be no Constitutional right to parents inflicting such treatments on their children, and therefore no blockage to States outlawing them."
If clear scientific evidence needs to be shown for what parents choose and do to/for minors, that's a giant can of worms you just opened.
If you're going to claim that it's legitimate for parents to do X because teh "scientific community" supports doing X, then the lack of actual scientific research defending your position is rather conclusive that your position is crap
As is the case here
Mark said...
Seems like skipping or delaying vaccination, abstaining from HPV Vax and other things could easily be swept up in this, nevermind a myriad of other things.
States routinely pass laws forcing you to get certain vaccinations if you want your kids to go to public school
Post a Comment