Summary
The Supreme Court appeared likely to uphold Tennessee’s 2023 ban on gender-affirming care for minors, citing concerns about evolving medical research and deferring to state lawmakers.
The Biden administration and families argue the law discriminates based on sex and transgender status, violating the Equal Protection Clause. Conservative justices, however, questioned federal intervention in state policies.
The case focuses on whether Tennessee’s law should face heightened judicial scrutiny. A ruling could affect similar bans in 24 states.
A decision, expected by June, will shape the legal landscape for transgender rights and medical care nationwide.
I listened to the oral arguments on U.S. v. Skrmetti this morning.
I couldn’t express how deeply disappointed I was when Justice Kavanaugh verbally fretted about the “risks” of unintended outcomes as a result of the court’s ruling (either way) and the petitioners didn’t drill deeply into that concern.
If the court strikes down Tennessee’s SB1 law banning gender affirming care for children, there is a risk that a child could receive puberty blockers and later regret it… AFTER specifically requesting it… AFTER getting the consent of their parents… AFTER receiving psychological assessments to ensure that they’re aware of the risks and effects… and AFTER finding a medical doctor or endocrinologist willing to prescribe the medication.
If the court upholds the Tennessee law, there is a risk that EVERY child seeking gender affirming care in the state will be prevented from doing so, categorically, with ZERO recourse, regardless of their own wishes, the wishes of their parents, medical care team, and disregards the preponderance of non-biased research on the matter (the Cass Report doesn’t count, and the author even argues FOR puberty blockers) that points to overwhelming positive medical outcomes.
These degrees of risk are NOWHERE CLOSE to being equivalent and it’s ridiculous to have allowed that reasoning to slide by unaddressed.
Is there any scientific “policy argument” (even leaving alone strong and forceful) that says gender affirming care is incorrect?
What I’m wondering is what a child with precocious puberty is going to do in Tennessee. Are we going to see 5-year-old girls with breasts and 8-year-old boys with beards in Memphis?
To be fair, SB1 addresses medical function. Kids would be allowed to receive puberty blockers to address medical diagnosis of precocious puberty, but not to address gender dysphoria. The foundation of the state’s argument is that precocious puberty is a legitimate medical condition and gender dysphoria (which they repeatedly and dismissively refer to as “psychological stress”) is not.
Never mind that neither lawmakers or “the democratic process” is qualified to, or should be in the business of, determining what is and is not a legitimate medical condition.