Supreme Court upholds Tennessee law that bars gender-affirming care for minors - You mean kids will be able to keep their healthy bodies and not be mangled experiments? Are you daft?!

1750257277403.webp
The U.S. Supreme Court
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

In a decision that plunged the Supreme Court into yet another culture war feud, the justices on Wednesday upheld a Tennessee law banning all gender affirming care for minors. In the last few years, fully half the states have adopted similar bans, leaving the other half, so far, allowing gender affirming care in the form of at minimum, hormone treatments prior to a teenager turning 18.


The vote was 6-to-3, along conservative/liberal lines.


Supporters of the bill were predictably elated over the win. As state Sen. Jack Johnson, the sponsor or the bill, put it in an interview with NPR late last year, the state bars minors from getting tattoos, or smoking, or drinking and, as he observed, "We regulate a number of different types of [medical] procedures, and we felt like this was the best public policy to prevent kids from suffering from irreversible consequences, things that cannot be undone."


The court fight over access to puberty blockers and other treatments for gender dysphoria was brought by three teenagers and their parents in Tennessee. They claimed that the ban on these treatments violated the constitutional guarantee to equal protection of the law by barring certain treatments only for kids who want to transition from their sex assigned at birth, while at the same time allowing the same medications to treat minors suffering from other conditions, everything from endometriosis to delaying the early onset of puberty.


The ACLU, which represented the challengers in the case, countered that the treatments that were at issue in Wednesday's case were endorsed as appropriate for teenagers by the major medical associations that deal with gender dysphoria, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology, and the American Psychological Association.


But state Sen. Johnson points out that many countries in Western Europe have been dealing with this issue for much longer than the United States, and many of them in recent years have pulled back "because they're seeing that the adverse effects of some of these medications far outweigh any benefit they have."


Wednesday's Supreme Court decision was a big win for Tennessee and 24 other states, but there are many questions that remain unanswered. Can doctors continue previous treatments if taking kids off the medications is deemed too risky? And what about all the issues that have roiled institutions ranging from school boards to team sports. None of those has been resolved, so far anyway. Nor has the court yet tackled the question of parental rights to determine treatments for their kids.

Article.
 
Ostatnio edytowane przez moderatora:
Surprise, the three stooges of shitlib jurisprudence are in dissent against common sense once again.

Sotomayer is as mad as she is retarded. She's simply just too stupid to understand that a law doesn't discriminate based on sex if it bans both sexes from doing it.
 
Sotomayer is as mad as she is retarded. She's simply just too stupid to understand that a law doesn't discriminate based on sex if it bans both sexes from doing it.
I once again remind the viewing audience, she tried to punt on COVID forever-lockdowns being against the 5th Amendment because "it's a health issue, not a legal one" .
 
ACB's concurring opinion is very interesting read. Quite persuasively argues that transgenders should not constitute a suspect or quasi-suspect class for EPC purposes.
Kind of sad the Court didn't tackle the question head on in it's opinion, but I suspect they may not have been able to get the votes for such an opinion.

As a side note, how much of the opinion has to grapple with Bostock just shows how bad an opinion it was. The Court really should just bite the bullet and overrule it, it's going to have to at some point.
 
Wonder if this will stop Californians from flooding the state like they've done to Texas
I hope so too, but let's be honest, it's gonna cause them to double down to try to change their laws. Meanwhile the common boomer is gonna be twice as retarded and only up the price on the shit they're selling (land, cars) because they know those Calicucks will still buy it.
 
Thomas destroyed the "experts" in his concurrence:
Sotomayer is as mad as she is retarded. She's simply just too stupid to understand that a law doesn't discriminate based on sex if it bans both sexes from doing it.

That bitch tried to invoke Loving v. Virginia (the 1967 decision that struck down bans on interracial marriage).

Indeed, judicial scrutiny has long played an essential role in guarding against legislative efforts to impose upon individuals the State’s views about how people of a particular sex (or race) should live or look or act. Women, it was once thought, were not suited to attend military schools with men. Virginia, 518 U. S., at 520–523, 540–541. Men and women, others said, should not marry those of a different race. Loving, 388 U. S., at 4. Those laws, too, posed politically fraught and contested questions about race, sex, and biology. In a passage that sounds hauntingly familiar to readers of Tennessee’s brief, Virginia argued in Loving that, should this Court intervene, it would find itself in a “bog of conflicting scientific opinion upon the effects of interracial marriage, and the desirability of preventing such alliances, from the physical, biological, genetic, anthropological, cultural, psychological, and sociological point of view.” Brief for Appellee in Loving v. Virginia, O. T. 1966,No. 395, p. 7. “In such a situation,” Virginia continued, “it is the exclusive province of the Legislature of each State to make the determination for its citizens as to the desirability of a policy of permitting or preventing such [interracial] alliances—a province which the judiciary may not constitutionally invade.” Id., at 7–8.

This Court, famously, rejected the States’ invitation in Loving to “defer to the wisdom of the state legislature” based on assertions that “the scientific evidence is substantially in doubt.” 388 U. S., at 8. In considering the constitutionality of Virginia’s male-only military academy, too, the Court itself assessed the “opinions of Virginia’s expert witnesses” that “‘[m]ales tend to need an atmosphere of adversativeness,’” while “‘[f]emales tend to thrive in a cooperative atmosphere.’” 518 U. S., at 541. What the Court once recognized as an imperative check against discrimination, it today abandons.

Bolding mine. What a moron.

I'm actually moderately disappointed that they didn't let Jackson write her own dissent for this one, because that would have been fucking comedy gold. Probably ten solid pages of "I don't underSTAND the majority's opinion here" from the person who can't define what a woman is because she's "not a biologist" (we must never, ever, ever let her or the rest of the world forget about that, by the way).
 
He also cited the Cass Review (which will cause immense troon seethe):
Another good thing about this opinion is that it heavily references the Cass Review, so it will piss off British troons, too.
I remember listening to the oral arguments for this case and the pro-troon lawyer would squirm whenever it was brought up by the justices since it completely undermined their argument of “trust the experts bro”. I knew for certain that the Supreme Court wasn’t going to rule in their favor after that.
 
I'm actually moderately disappointed that they didn't let Jackson write her own dissent for this one, because that would have been fucking comedy gold. Probably ten solid pages of "I don't underSTAND the majority's opinion here" from the person who can't define what a woman is because she's "not a biologist" (we must never, ever, ever let her or the rest of the world forget about that, by the way).
also the person who let actual pedophiles get off with a slap on the wrist because "they were only on those sites for 15 minutes".
 
Reminder that by gender affirming care they mean such wonderful and life saving interventions as chemically castrating children, ensuring a lifetime of misery and chronic health problems and performing double mastectomies on ~13 year old girls.

Whenever someone in your life defends "gender affirming care" for children don't let the sanitized, kosher language fool you.
ALSO:

* Posting OPEN and BLATANT child pornography RIGHT ON THE CLEARNET, consequence free.
* Couched in words like: Educational. Inspiring. Stunning and brave.

This needs to be repeated early, OFTEN, and CONSTANT.
 
The Ts shouldn't be too upset by this. After all, they have been screaming to anyone who would listen that minors don't get surgery and any suggestion they do is nazi lies. They have been saying this for years, insisting on it even. They definitely shouldn't be upset that something they themselves insist isn't happening, is now banned.
 
This is awesome, and will set a great precedent. It likely has no future impact on how states like CA & NY run things (hopefully this is wrong) but take the wins where you can get them.
 
Wstecz
Top Na dole