Advocates for transgenderism fear the U.S. Supreme Court will allow elected officials to protect children from experimental treatments promoted by for-profit clinics and their progressive allies. I am concerned that this may not be the case.
On Wednesday, Dec. 4, five of the nine justices ruled that Tennessee's child protection law violates an earlier court's ruling that prohibits treating men and women differently. Concerns exploded when the state announced its intention to embrace the Tennessee Child Protection Act.
“This debate had dire consequences for transgender Americans, as many of the justices proposed creating a carve-out from the normal constitutional rules that limit all kinds of gender discrimination.” I wrote Ian Millhiser is a legal reporter for the left-wing website Vox.com. He added:
For example, Chief Justice John Roberts proposed giving the government broad powers to engage in such discrimination in health care…
If the court adopts Roberts' approach, which it likely will, it would not only be a devastating blow to transgender youth and their families. This is also a major change in the court's approach to sex discrimination of all kinds.
“In two hours of prejudice disguised as a public hearing, it became clear that the conservative majority was almost certain to support Tennessee's law banning gender-affirming care.” article in nationa left-wing magazine.
Many of the transgender supporter Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of three progressive female justices on the court, echoed the comments. “I am concerned that the foundations of equal protection that we are built on are being undermined. [in sex discrimination] ” she said as she listened to questions from other judges.
“The argument that judges should intervene appears to be lost because Tennessee law draws constitutionally invalid lines based on gender,” one person said. post By Loyola Law School attorney Jessica Levinson on NYmag.com
However, the court may accept alternative arguments, she added. “Courts may be more likely to take action and protect them.” [access to transgender treatments] under the argument that the state law violates a parent's right to make decisions about their child's medical care. ”
Nine judges were reviewing the case. Court of Appeal Judgment In the Scumetti case, state legislatures agreed that they can place limits on transgender-related medical procedures for physically healthy children.
Progressives criticized the law for supporting transgenderism and forced a judge to strike it down, arguing that it treated girls differently than boys. I'm trying.
But behind the legal arguments, they are trying to convince judges to support transgenderism. Transgenderism opposes the cultural and legal domination of two equal, distinct, and complementary genders, male or female.
In contrast, supporters of the child protection law argue that the law provides similar treatment for both girls and boys, even though hospitals typically administer different transgender-related drugs and hormones to boys and girls. It claims to provide protection.
Additionally, the law's supporters say children, and even their parents, have a legal right to consumer-style protections. children I can't thank you of long term risks They claim that commercial clinics have agreed to medicalize their bodies' hormones, sexual function and appearance.
Advocates for transgenderism had hoped that libertarian-leaning Justice Neil Gorsuch would use the gender distinction argument to defend the transgender medical field. Towards 2020 bostock In his ruling, Gorsuch used that argument to fabricate a legal right for people to wear heterosexual clothing at work.
However, QVoicenews.com I was worried Gorsuch did not try to apply that sex discrimination argument to Wednesday's hearing on children's health care.
Of note is the author of this landmark, Justice Neil Gorsuch. Bostock v. Clayton County The opinion that transgender people should not be discriminated against in employment was not questioned during the hours-long session.
Many other progressive sites published damning reports after Wednesday's hearing, suggesting transgender advocates could lose by a 3-6 vote margin.
“Going into the discussion, the crucial question was whether Gorsuch would apply his reasoning as follows. bostock Regarding this matter,” he said. slate.com,addition:
But inexplicably, Mr. Gorsuch declined to take a single question Wednesday. His silence may indicate that he quietly joins anti-trans views that he ignores or suppresses bostock's logic has never explained itself, and it has retreated from its previous position now that the political environment has become more hostile to transgender equality.
“This lawsuit seeks to roll back a 50-year-old principle of sex discrimination based on distorted logic. Dobbs “On the infinite wisdom of the democratic process and the ineffable mysteries of medicine,” the article added. “Doing so opens the door to further discrimination against transgender people, women and other vulnerable groups.”
Transgender advocates also say they Hidden influence on judges This idea is fading as more Americans use mainstream media and social media to acknowledge that transgenderism is unpopular and dangerous.
The case is USA vs. ScumettiU.S. Supreme Court No. 23-477.
