By KIM JARRETT | THE CENTER SQUARE
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday began weighing its role in determining whether a Tennessee law banning medication to treat gender dysphoria for minors violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
The court heard oral arguments on the law passed by the Tennessee General Assembly in 2023 and signed by Gov. Bill Lee. The state is one of at least 26 with similar restrictions or bans and the first to have litigation against it reach the nation’s highest court.
The high court is split 6-3 with conservatives in the majority.
The U.S. Department of Justice, the American Civil Liberties Union and others argue the law violates the 14th Amendment. Tennessee law allows puberty blockers and hormone treatments for purposes other than treatment on minors.
The question before the court is what is its role, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said.
“If the constitution doesn’t take sides, if there’s strong, forceful, scientific policy arguments on both sides in a situation like this, why isn’t best to leave it to the democratic process?” Kavanaugh said.
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the Biden Administration, said she understood the state’s need to regulate and take into concerns about adolescent health.
“But when you look at how this law actually operates, what it is doing is denying individual plaintiffs the ability to access medications on the basis of their sex,” Prelogar said. “And that doesn’t mean that the states are disabled from taking into account the actual biological differences between males and females, but that has to be channeled to the highest scrutiny stage. And I think that there would be a real danger in this court saying, looking ahead essentially saying there might be benign justifications or we think states should have some ability in this regard to overlook the … sex classification in this statute.”
Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said it should be up to the General Assembly.
“Tennessee’s General Assembly reviewed the medical evidence, as well as the evidence-based decisions of European countries that restricted these procedures, and ultimately passed this bipartisan law prohibiting irreversible medical interventions,” Skrmetti said in a statement after oral arguments ended. “The plaintiffs in this case are asking the court to take the power to regulate the practice of medicine away from the people’s elected representatives and vest it in unaccountable judges.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor struck back against claims by Tennessee Solicitor General Michael Rice that the law is not tied to sex and that the treatments could cause harm to minors.
“There is always going to be a percentage of the population under any medical treatment that is going to suffer harm,” Sotomayor said. “So the question in my mind is not do policymakers decide whether one person’s life is more valuable than the millions of others who get relief from this treatment, the question is can you stop one sex from the other.”
Justice Samuel Alito referred to the United Kingdom and Sweden, which have instituted bans on puberty blockers in some situations.
“I, of course acknowledge, Justice Alito, that there is a lot of debate happening here and abroad about the proper model of deliver of this care and exactly when adolescents should receive it and how to identify the adolescents for whom it would be helpful,” Prelogar said. “But I stand by that there is a consensus that these treatments can be medically necessary for some adolescents and that shouldn’t matter what source you look at.”
Prelogar said the court could issue a narrow ruling, pointing the court to a West Virginia law that bans gender-affirming care for minors unless there is a suicide risk.
The decision from the court is not expected before summer.
We don’t allow minors to consume alcohol, tobacco products why should we allow them to take life altering drugs because one is confused or is being pushed by an adult. We have many restrictions and these people are arguing that we should just look the other way when it comes to these medications that will do irreversible harm to the youth of this country. True is the fact that the peoples representative who they have elected are the ones who should be passing the laws in their states. The Judicial system should not be the arbitrator because most of them are unelected and unaccountable to citizens.
Let the doctor and patient decide what’s best for them and not the government.
nor the schools nor the lgbt+ advocacy groups…
With your statement than the government should not be involved in any requirements for vaccinations schedules. There is a big difference between what is needed and what is elective. Giving a child medication that will cause harm later in life is not required medication.
Government should not get between a person and their health care provider.
And yet Obamacare came between nearly every provider and their patients.
Also, your statement is completely asinine.
I’d bet every dollar Biden lets me keep in my wallet that Frank fully supported 0bamacare.
You consistently support the idea that children can give consent. Do you think of having sex with children Frank?
Children can never give consent and any attempt to sexualize children smells of smoke and is from the pit of Hell.
You and those like you ought to be ashamed and failing that far worse. It is time we stopped tolerating the intolerable.
We wouldn’t have to if health providers actually followed the precept of first “do no harm,” embodied by the concept of non-maleficence foundational to the Hippocratic Oath and a cornerstone of medical ethics. The rest of the developed world is already abandoning this “pseudo-science” for what it actually is: child abuse and butchery.
If it wasn’t for government, your health care provider would not be able to practice. The government also can decide when that practice is a threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. Maybe you want Dr. Mengele as your child’s physician, but I would pass on that opportunity, if I were you.
Of course the DEI Supreme court hire would make such a ridiculous statement.
Well said Mr. Chappell, well said!
‘Sex change’ operations on children is barbaric mutilation. Any parent, medical professional, or individual who thinks such procedures are acceptable are as deranged, deluded and evil as Jeffery Dahmer.
The three women dunces on the US Supreme Court couldn’t muster a small collective brain fart if they tried. Just pathetic women. How did they get into law school, pass their classes, and take the bar exam? Was it Affirmative Action? Same question concerning Lisa Murkowski. Their law schools must be a joke.
One by her on omission could not define what is a woman. If you do not understand biological and scientific difference you should be a judge either especially a Supreme Court Justice. Hell we here it all the time trust the science than they try and say except what I want to push “I am the Science”
I am far more concerned with the grocery bill, the gas bill, the electricity bill, the heating bill, and, of course, the tax bill.
Sadly, nobody can see past their nose about how the tax bill and inflation, silent taxation, is killing us.
They focus on those first four and others, medical care, etc. and ignore –
High taxes and high inflation = high cost of living. Since our currency is legal tender for all debts public and private.
High cost of living – everything goes up.
greg greg where r u
All one needs to know is to watch the video of the lawyer arguing for the ACLU in support of mutilating minors. This person shows the mental illness of gender make-believism in a nutshell.
‘https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1864105115025625321
We need the court to tell us what design already knows: there are only two sexes. Please stop abusing and/or mutilating children.
So Stupid, The Parents need to tell everyone of those sick fks to go piss up a rope and leave my MINOR child alone
Comments are closed.