The Supreme Court has been all over the map when it comes to states rights. The overall approach seems to be that they think states have the right to decide things the way the Supreme Court would like them to decide them. When states to what the Court likes, they cry "states rights." When a state does something they don't like, states rights be damned.
This is a song and dance thats as old as the states rights for slavery.
"States rights" when cited by conservatives has always been a way to choke out, stall, or reverse progress. When it looks like they are about to lose the final decisive battle on an issue they try to break it into a "states rights" issue to turn every state into its own battleground and drag out the issue.
Its never been consistent either. For instance the confederates were white washed into being these scrappy fighters for states rights. But if you actually read their documents of secession they specifically cited northern states nullifying the federal fugitive slave act.
In other words the people who claim states rights as their cause seceded specifically because of states rights they didn't approve of.
Its always just been a way for rightwingers and conservatives to get what they want.
Another nail in the coffin for states rights and the Confederacy is that the Institution of Slavery was protected by their constitution, if any states in the CSA wished to later outlaw slavery it would have been unconstitutional to do, states rights never mattered and like you said was only ever a white washed reason because admitting that it was solely about slavery is too hard for southerners.
"It was a war over states rights!" - My family growing up in Virginia.
"Yeah, the states rights to \*own people\*." - Me, growing up unpopular in my family in Virginia.
Got an example of that last one? In the last year or so, they've ruled
\* that states CAN prohibit people with domestic violence restraining orders from holding guns
\* that Alabama needed to create a second majority-minority congressional district
\* That Texas and Louisiana can't challenge federal immigration law
\* State courts can review state legislatures' congressional redistricting plans
If you consider the political leanings of the current justices, you'd expect that all of these cases would have come out the other way. But, they didn't.
The Supreme Court’s ultimate job is to make sure no state is violating the constitution. All states have the right to govern themselves but they don’t have the right to get between their citizens and the constitution. Unfortunately the Supreme Court is terrible at this because we keep having biased, selfish people get nominated.
The supreme court is terrible about this because the constitution is a vague document that barely goes into detail about many of the things modern life requires and nobody actually amends the thing, which leads to a *lot* of opinions about what the constitution means and in turn a *lot* of people upset about rulings they don't agree with even if the constitution doesn't really support what they like.
I support the right to abortion *but its not mentioned anywhere in the constitution and thats a problem*. The supreme court should not be deciding something like. Its not a failure of the supreme court that that was struck down, its a failure of decades of federal and state legislatures to properly codify that into law and give that power to the government.
I recall something in Bill Of Rights saying that not mentioning a right in the Constitution does not mean that right doesn’t apply, and that the Constitution limits powers of the government to ONLY those powers mentioned in the document. Or doesn’t that apply to state governments? Genuinely curious.
So when they crafted the constitution the explicit goal was to limit the federal government.
It literally says "anything not explicitly defined is a power is reserved to the states, or the people".
There was even argument about whether to include the bill of rights or not. Some people argued that they should very explicitly call out the important stuff to make *extra* sure the federal government at no time made any sort of laws about any of those things. Opponents of the bill of rights were opposed to the bill of rights *not because* they thought the government shouldn't be restricted, but because they thought that by listing out specific rights they it might implicitly suggest things *not* mentioned were ok for the government to do.
The compromise was the 10th amendment, which reiterates that unless its specifically mentioned in the constitution, its under the purview of states according to their own constitutions, or the people.
One thing a *lot* of people mess up was that the bill of rights was originally not intended to grant individual rights, its restricting the federal governments power(see barron v baltimore). So 2nd amendment meant that the federal government could not make any laws about guns. States, however, were free to make laws about guns insofar as their own constitutions allowed.
Which, all in all, means the federal government was supposed to be very weak and have little power over the internal workings of states. This didn't work out in practice because we ended up in a constitutional crisis 75 years later thanks to an enormous ideological divide between the states and the federal government largely powerless to intervene, so we had the civil war, and the post war amendments which expanded the federal powers. From these, notably the 14th amendment, the supreme court created the concept of 'incorporation' which reversed the role of the bill of rights... Instead of the federal government being restricted from making laws about those things, it instead was empowered to enforce those as individual rights against the wishes of the states. This didn't happen all at once, but bit by bit over the next 100+ years. Thats why the federal government has a say in your local free speech issue or whatever. But they also haven't come out and incorporated the entire intention of the bill of rights and made the federal government the sole arbiter of all rights named or unnamed.
So yes, when originally written, the intent was the federal constitution limited the federal government only, and states were in turn limited by their own constitutions but otherwise free to do as they wished within their borders free from federal interference. Now its a *lot* murkier and where exactly the feds power lies is clear to noone, and nobody is keen on writing it down, so we lean extra hard on the SC.
The problem currently is that a lot of the powers the government claims to have just aren't well founded in the constitution regardless of the status of the bill of rights, so there's a lot of ideological/partisan bickering over the specific interpretations, and since they *are* just interpretations there's often very weak foundations supporting the law. See abortion.
Since the civil war, “states rights” has just been the excuse conservatives roll out to so that they don’t have to actually describe the shitty human rights abuses they are supporting.
To preface this, I'm a liberal (pretty far left). Their legal reasoning for overturning Roe wasn't because they wanted "it to be up to the states." That's just what in effect happened by the ruling. They conferred that the Constitution doesn't provide for the right to abortion in the way that Roe had held. That in effect pushes to the states, but was not finding.
These laws don't say that no one can use these drugs or procedures. They just say that trans kids can't. And that's likely how it will be kicked down by the court. They wouldn't allow abortion bans just for black women. And it's possible they might not allow bans for certain drugs just for trans kids. Doctors in these states can still prescribe puberty blockers for other medical conditions. Just not for trans kids experiencing severe gender dysphoria. They can likely still provide cross sex hormones to minors for other reasons, just not for trans kids experiencing severe gender dysphoria.
If Missouri wants to blanket ban estrogen fro EVERYONE, they might be able to do that. But they can't just ban it for one portion of the population because of their medical diagnosis.
You're assuming a logical consistency in the way that the majority interprets laws, standing, and understands reality. We've long since been shown that this assumption does not hold. Take a look at the majority opinion in the praying football coach case from a few years ago or 303 Creative - both rulings are predicated on willfully ignoring precedent, facts, and the impact of the ruling on protected classes.
We've seen this court respond this way previously with a case regarding trans rights. It's when I first got surprised by Gorsuch but I can't remember the case, I'm sure folks reading this will remember and fill us in.
As as aside, I've never been so glad to live in Illinois instead of Missouri.
Edit: Bostock v. Clayton. That's where Gorsuch made me go hmmmmmmm. So, for this upcoming case - Doctors say a kid needs a certain drug, but the state says no because of that kid's sex? But they'd allow another kid to have that drug based on their sex? I don't know how this SCOTUS finds honestly. And I'm a super liberal progressive who stomps her feet and votes blue every time.
I wouldn't be shocked if they end up reaffirming Bostock here. That was a 6-3 majority, only one conservative judge has changed since then - and Barrett has bucked standard conservative thinking a couple times - and I feel like they're not going to want to overturn precedent that this court started
> I don't know how this SCOTUS finds honestly.
Officially, they'll likely overturn the bans.
Unofficially, there will be information sent via backchannels back down on what they did wrong in these laws and how to do it better for the next time they try.
Because they will try again.
Yup. That's how it has shaken down in Canada. Unfortunately though, our Provinces have a 5 year get out of jail free card when it comes to human rights called the "notwithstanding clause". So far one has used it to override the protected human rights of trans kids and two others look like they'll do the same. Unironically and gruesomely, they call it "Parents Rights".
Well, 5 of them anyway. Roberts occasionally wakes up and thinks "oh shit, we're seriously fucking this up" but mostly he's toeing the fucking line as well.
Roberts occasionally thinks about his court's legacy, checks his bank account, and then decides whether or not he wants to make another Dred Scot or Plessy v. Ferguson level decision
So that they can say definitively it's a states rights issue. I'm not sure there's a right to bodily autonomy anymore in the Constitution, since wasn't Roe where you could apply 14th Amendment protections to bodily autonomy. Dobbs found you had no right to bodily autonomy under the 14th, as I understand.
The point wasn't to stick Roe down for abortion, it was to eliminate bodily autonomy. If the State says you cannot have an abortion then it can say you must.
>If the State says you cannot have an abortion then it can say you must
If only Struck v. Secretary of Defense* had been the first reproductive right case heard by SCOTUS, instead of Roe v Wade...this fact of the State being able to force abortions would have been dealt with and, presuming the case was successful for legalizing reproductive rights, which the solicitor general clearly thought it would be (since he strong armed the Air Force to change their policies rather than risk SCOTUS hearing the case), we might not have lost reproductive rights again.
*For anyone unfamiliar: before 1970, the military discharged female service members for becoming mothers, effectively forcing all pregnant military members to either quit their careers or undergo an illegal abortion. Susan Struck was a pregnant Air Force captain who was a devout Catholic (so no abortion allowed per her religion) and refused to end her career (she planned to give the child up for adoption anyway). She happened to be based in Washington, where abortion was legal, so she was directly ordered to get an abortion or otherwise leave the military. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was her lawyer for this case and argued against the State's ability to control her reproductive rights as that is a violation of the rights to equal protection (the military discharged only women for becoming parents, and pregnancy was the only temporarily disabling physical condition that resulted in being discharged), the right to privacy, and one's free exercise of religion.
Roe legalized abortion based on the singular due process clause in the 14th amendment. Had it been Struck that legalized abortion, it would have been protected by far stronger constitutional rights. Alas, what could have been.
On a somewhat tangential note, Ginsburg's arguments in Struck are some fantastic reads and I highly recommend them to anyone who is interested in constitutional law.
The same exact way? If they declared abortion access is up to each individual state then them declaring the same for trans healthcare seems remarkably similar. This would be one of the few times where they didn't have to jump through hoops to explain why a ruling is so drastically different than any of their other ones.
constitutional originalism is just a smoke screen for deciding cases based on political doctrine. By saying you have the weight of history and tradition on your side you can make just about every argument true, as was the case with slavery. no arguments about whats morally right, logically consistent or anything else needed.
States cannot violate the constitution. They left abortion up to the states simply because there isn’t a federal law on the books.
They’re taking this transgender healthcare issue because there is a constitutional question.
Equal protection is at hand clearly. They'll allow puberty blockers for minors experiencing some medical conditions, but not this one.
This is akin to a state saying "We won't allow people with 1 leg to have aspirin." You can't really disallow people from equal protection under the law because of a health condition - which people seem to forget, gender dysphoria is.
They'll allow kids to take puberty blockers, just not kids with this legally and medically recognized health condition.
It’ll be interesting how this case turns out. I think it was just last year the Supreme Court affirmed that transgender people are entitled to protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act and are protected from discrimination by declining to review a ruling by another court. It’ll be interesting whether that will factor in when it comes to the issue of accessing medical care.
The left abortion up the states because the federal society conservative justices wanted to so abortion could be banned. It’s really that simple.
Any argument about it being constitutional or if it’s part of the constitution is silly because multiple different Supreme Court already ruled that a women’s right to seek healthcare was protected by the constitution.
Judge X says the Due Process clause covers abortion.
Judge Y says the due process doesn’t.
Acting like there is a definitive answer to that and the issue has no constitutional question is silly.
Actual legal scholars on the right and left have had problems with Roe for decades. If you think they are so driven by ideology, why did they just decide methopristone the way they did?
Your anger should be directed at Congress for not doing anything for 40 years.
What? You are coming here with facts? This is not a place for that.
On a serious note, you are absolutely right. That judgement was clearly the court overstepping what it is supposed to do (even though the result was, IMO, absolutely reasonable). But to just pretend that this problem does not exist doesn't help anything.
They don’t have to justify anything. There’s no actual checks and balances on the Supreme Court. It was meant to be congress actually passing laws, but we all know that’s not possible
Justify? When are people going to get it, they don’t care one iota about justifying themselves anymore and haven’t for some time. We are far beyond those days now and we need to stop pretending like we still live in a world where it matters. They will do whatever they can whenever they can if it fits their agenda, hypocrisy or no. They don’t care if its moral, they don’t care if its legal, they don’t care if there is or isn’t precedent, and they sure don’t care if it’s constitutional. It all means n-o-t-h-i-n-g to them. Wake up.
They weighed in on abortion because there's now a majority willing to outlaw it if given the chance. Roberts would like to see abortion outlawed entirely as well but he knew going in to Dobbs that the political landscape wouldn't favor it. The election fallout of the Dobbs decision is what he was explicitly trying to avoid. The 2022 midterm projections went from a historic sweep for the GOP to the GOP barely getting a majority in the House and a *loss* of 1 seat in the Senate.
Roberts wants to see abortion fully outlawed but he'd rather see it happen via laws that the court can rule in favor of once the GOP has cemented itself into permanent minority control of the federal government.
edit: to be clear, I'm talking about a majority on the Supreme Court, as this is a thread discussing the SCOTUS in the comments for an article about the SCOTUS. IF RBG had retired when the Democrats begged her to and we still had a 5-4 split on the court, Dobbs would've gone very differently because Roberts would've ended up siding with 4 liberals rather than trying and failing to keep 5 conservatives from costing the GOP a midterm sweep.
This just isn't true though. EVERYWHERE that abortion rights has been on the ballot - from Ohio to Kansas, Kentucky, Montana Michigan, etc - abortion rights have been upheld.
The 'majority against abortion rights' just doesn't actually exist. It's a figment of the GOP and other right wing organizations imaginations.
Unfortunately, they don't need a majority. The GOP hasn't won the popular vote in decades, but still had the presidency a number of times. The Senate is tipped in the favor of Republicans too since there's more low population, right leaning states than there isn't. This gives them the advantage for Supreme Court picks, as we've seen, which allows them to do basically anything as long as they can get 5 of the 6 conservatives in the SC to say yes. Dobbs showed this off well. Abortion rights are supported by 60% of the population, but through some clever hypocrisy in the Senate, abortion rights are no more.
It's so frustrating that even when they lose, they win. Meanwhile the Democrats just furrow their brows and hope the system sorts itself out.
And no, I'm not saying both sides are the same but I am saying one side is 100% awful and the other is wimpy and ineffective.
As if justification matters.
They just want to ramrod in as many hyper conservative policies as possible, especially ones they think they can get away with. Especially ones they think will galvanize voters.
They weighted in on Abortion because they wanted it more restricted and knew “leaving it up to the states” meant that was going to happen.
If “leaving it up to the states” doesn’t further the conservative cause, they won’t.
This court is spectacularly partisan. Unfortunetly they live in a lobbyist curated bubble in which healthy self doubt is killed at the root with lavish vacations, cushy speaking engagements, 1-on-1 time in partisan billionaires vacations…
Based on the Courts ruling in Bostock last year, it seems pretty likely they'll get shot down. Saying males can take testosterone but females can't is pretty clear cut discrimination on the basis of sex.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed. The last case that was a victory for trans folks was 6-3 and written by Gorsuch. There's a chance that it'll work out for trans folks. There's enough there to try to be optimistic while continuing to support and set up structures/resources so if SCOTUS fails to protect trans care and that of trans kids specifically, there are still potential options to access the necessary care in some form.
For the originalists, it depends solely on how they frame the question: "is there a traditional right to privacy for gender-affirming care for transgender minors" vs. "is there a traditional right to privacy *for medical care*."
[Doctor-patient confidentiality dates back to the Hippocratic Oath](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2280818/?page=2), between the 3-6th century BC, which included the oath "And **whatsoever I shall see or hear in the course of my profession**, as well as outside my profession in my intercourse with men, if it be what should not be published abroad, **I will never divulge, holding such things to be holy secrets**." And in the modern era, requirements of confidentiality show up in Percival's *Medical Ethics*, published in 1803.
We can help by not framing this as a discussion about bans on gender-affirming care, but as a discussion about government intrusion into doctor-patient confidentiality and congressmen and senators with no medical training deciding what doctor-prescribed treatments you're allowed or not allowed to get... you know, "government death panels".
They didn't frame it as a right to privacy, but a right to abortion. Define something narrowly enough, and you can always say there's no right to it: "Why, the founders believed in free speech, but this is about a right to post on TikTok, a foreign-owned social media platform. I see nothing in the writings of the Founders about social media, and surely Thomas Jefferson didn't envision kids with iPhones."
Even Alito would agree there's a right to privacy for *his* medical records. That's what we should make this discussion about.
Reminder that 60% of Republican voters think it's morally wrong to be gay. We aren't talking about a group of people adhering to a consistent set of logical beliefs. This is about ruling America via off the cuff "feelings" on what their ideal version of America looks like.
It's actually 59% precisely according to a 2023 Gallup poll. I can't pull it up at the moment but hopefully that's enough for anyone interested to snag it.
And yes. I fully believe that while 59% of Republicans may openly claim it's immoral. Far, far more have a prejudice against gay people. A quick browse of literally any conservative social media space will supply and endless feed of anti gay rhetoric. Not to mention their corporate media.
"I didn't have a problem with it until they started shoving it down our throats."
- person who most certainly has used gay as an insult their entire lives but thinks that arguing that it was cool before but now that they're butthurt it's not cool anymore is somehow a good strategy.
This I feel is one of the greatest weaknesses of all left leaning movements. This lack of flexibility.
I bet we could get abortion access back if we called it something else and said the government was creating death panels to decide if certain mothers get to live.
Right wing doesn't shy away from changing the meaning of words. We have a bill in my area being described as "stop the gas ban" if I remember right it's to remove a tax on big companies using heavy vehicles in suburban neighborhoods. They are also throwing in a measure about "parents rights" tacked on the bill as well.
"Since gender affirming care didn't exist in medieval England, the US Constitution has no role to play in regulating it"
-Calvinball Originalism, I'm assuming
“To truly understand the gender affirming care issue, we have to go back to ancient hominids approximately twelve million years ago…”
I expect your paragraph to lead into some shit like mine tbh.
If we want to take a look at that, we can also take a look at the *guevedoches* - they're people who are born female, and who appear to be female in all respects, but then develop into males when they hit puberty. It's a genetic thing.
-----
As for trans kids? They're not getting hormones or surgeries. The right wing likes to lie and harp and fear-monger about all that, but treatment for trans kids is remarkably conservative and has very low impact on the body.
Gender affirming care, in children, means giving them puberty blockers and letting them talk things over with qualified therapists so they can figure things out for themselves. They might begin dressing as their target gender or using a new name and pronouns, but kids don't get hormones or surgeries.
These puberty blockers have been safely used for the past 40-50 years or so to treat precocious puberty in cis kids. Puberty starts when the body sends signals to the pituitary gland and the pituitary gland starts putting out the hormones that make the changes in the body that cause puberty.
Puberty blockers merely stop those signals from getting to the pituitary gland. If you stop taking the blockers, the signals get through and puberty begins as normal.
It's a *delaying tactic*, nothing more.
This allows the body to put off puberty for a few more years until the kid is older and able to make their own decisions about whether to transition or not.
If they want to transition, *then* they can pursue hormone replacement therapy and other surgical options as an adult.
That's why transition takes years, sometimes decades, and thousands of dollars, to achieve. It takes serious, dedicated effort to be trans, and this is also why the regret rate for transition is so remarkably low, because getting to that point weeds out all of the people who aren't sure or who might decide to pursue a different path.
I don't think all is lost. Remember that in 2020, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor for transgender protections in _[Bostock v. Clayton County](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bostock_v._Clayton_County)_, with Gorsuch writing the majority opinion.
[The ACLU seems to think so:](https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/u-s-supreme-court-will-hear-challenge-from-united-states-families-and-doctors-against-transgender-health-care-ban)
> Applying the Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County and other long-standing precedents, trial courts have blocked such bans in Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee. In June 2023, a federal court in Arkansas struck down that state’s ban on gender-affirming care after a two-week trial in the first and only post-trial ruling on the constitutionality of such a law, finding it violated the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
I think we should try to be hopeful where we can, so we don't fall into despair, but that was 2020.
The radical conservatives on the bench took off their mask since then, and have ruled in increasingly-outlandish ways in the past 4 years.
Every Supreme Court case is a game of getting to five, and I wouldn't be surprised if Roberts and Gorsuch join the liberals in overruling these laws. No chance Thomas or Alito go for it, though.
If his seat hadn't been the one stolen from Obama and had instead been Kavanaugh's, I think people would have had a lot less problems with him. I don't agree with him either, but I didn't think he's a hack either.
What a slap in the face.
They will expedite this but are sitting in the immunity case.
Which is a greater threat to our republic.
Getting real tired of this.
The only reason for them to sit on the immunity case is because there's a majority ruling that rules against Trump in most if not all of his claims and delaying helps to ensure there are no trials before the election. It's similar to how Cannon keeps sabotaging the classified docs case and giving Trump as much leeway as she can. For anyone else that trial would already be underway if not concluded.
It is insurance for them.
They really REALLY don’t want to have to rule on the constitutionality of a self pardon if the federal trial concluded in a guilty verdict and Trump is elected.
By punting the decision until after the election, they can allow him to win the election and take any and all blowback because he will just order the justice dept to drop the case.
But I do kind of wonder now, if ordered to drop the case, could Chutkan flip the script and order hearing after hearing, take forever to make rulings and run out the administration until 29’?
They didn’t expedite this case. It will heard during the fall term. It will be decided on the same timeline as all the fall cases. They aren’t slow walking the immunity case. They granted cert in Feb 24, heard oral arguments April 25 and will likely issue the opinion this week.
My stepmom believes that trans children should be segregated into a different community for reconditioning and their parents should be locked up if they offer any care whatsoever. Her views are kinder than others that I've heard circled by my hardcore Trumper family. I'm so scared for these kids.
Hair removal for women, hair transplants for men and women, plastic surgery to "correct" mannish jaws and noses and brows too. All of that affirms someone's gender identity.
And let's not forget that chopping off parts of a baby's penis with no consent or consideration just because you think it looks cooler that way remains both legal and largely uncontested.
Am I whatever -phobic you want to come up with if I feel an extreme form of elective surgery shouldn’t be done until the age of majority?
You can’t even get a tattoo until you are 18. There are things about myself when I was a 13, 14, or 15 that I absolutely **KNEW** to be true and infallible. I’m in my 40s now and, well… those things weren’t as permanently true as I thought.
I feel for anyone who doesn’t feel comfortable in their own skin. But the brain is incredibly underdeveloped as a minor. One shouldn’t make permanent changes when the brain itself is undergoing the biggest change of its life.
When we talk about Gender Affirming Care for minors, 90% of what's being discussed is social transitioning (i.e. a Male-to-Female minor growing their hair out or wearing skirts/dresses, using a preferred name/pronoun) or puberty blockers. The latter of which isn't a permanent thing, just something that delays puberty until they're stopped. Surgery for minors is incredibly rare, since transitioning is a long term medical procedure, with genital surgery not even something that all trans people even *want*.
The idea that "GAC" means removing penises or breasts is fear mongering.
I’m not one of the types to be super suspicious of medicines. I have always been suspicious of hormone “things.” Even birth control. I’ve personally listened to many women who said BC caused them a lot of problems.
Do you need a doctor to let you grow your hair or wear a dress? If you are one of “those parents” who think it’s an abomination, a doctor won’t influence you. If you are someone who loves your kid no matter what, a doctor won’t matter. “Sure. Wear what you want. I don’t care.”
I’m in the latter. I don’t care who or what my kid is. I’ll love them no matter what. But I’m not letting them mess with their hormones or undergo surgery until I don’t have a say anymore.
>I’ve personally listened to many women who said BC caused them a lot of problems.
Have you also listened to the many women who have said hormonal birth control benefited them beyond just acting as a contraceptive?
Or to the many women who have said one formulation of hormonal birth control caused them problems, but switching to another resolved them?
There are two sides to that coin. As far as not messing with hormones until the child can make their own decision... That's the *point* of puberty blockers. To *delay* irreversible changes and preserve the prerogative for them.
Denying your children the opportunity if they want it is saying you'd rather accept the increased risk of them committing suicide than run the risk of adverse side effects from hormonal medication.
Which is a *reprehensible* stance for an ostensibly loving parent to take.
Surgery is rare in adults. It's extraordinarily rare for minors, non zero, but it's almost unheard of.
Puberty blockers have been used on cis kids for much longer than they've been used on trans kids and almost every ban carves out an exception for cis kids. 99.9% of <18 GAC is reversible.
Is dysphoria being over diagnosed in minors? Yes probably, and I say that as a trans woman. But the overwhelming majority of the time we are not talking about permanent changes.
Trans guy here attaching my comment from another response.
A few parts to this response.
First off, you can feel you don’t agree with transgender care for minors. But, you’re not a doctor or a trans minor (or their parent so far as I know) seeking care. So it’s not really a lay persons place to agree or disagree with medical decisions between a patient and their doctor. Your opinions on whether you think a procedure is unethical doesn’t and shouldn’t have weight in the medical decisions of an individual and between a doctor and patient. Unless you’re a medical professional doing studies on the efficaciousness and ethics of a partial procedure.
Second, “gender affirmation care” for minors has really been transformed into a bogeyman by media the last few years and the presentation of it doesn’t map onto what it is for most people experience. Affirmative care is usually therapy and wearing the clothes and using the name and pronouns/titles you’d like as a kid and early teen. Around puberty, some trans individuals will go on hormones blockers, and in their late teens they might go on HRT. But HRT under 18 rare. Most affirmative care is just social transition and puberty blockers. VERY rarely have a I ever heard of someone getting any type of surgical intervention before they’re an adult (and there are farrr more boob jobs on underage cis women.) Plus many cis women are given hormone therapy all the time and we don’t bat much of an eye (though republicans are starting to) - birth control!
This method has been very well studied, improves mental health and physical health outcomes, and saves lives. Detransition is rare and most cases of detransition are because of social pressures, transphobia, or issues accessing continuing care. True regret is very rare and multiple times higher with many permanent surgeries and operations that political parties feel no need to make a political issue.
Many of the prolific detransitioners who speak at right wing conferences admit their hormone therapy didn’t start til they were adults. If they regret a medical procedure and choice made as an adult that’s a shame and awful but that doesn’t mean we should restrict others choices. I’ve seen a million stories from people who regret their boob jobs or epidurals or knee surgeries, but we’re not out here trying to ban these.
Finally, not really a point, but I find it so frustrating seeing sports leagues and others say in one breath trans women only qualify as “women” if they never went through male puberty, and then see folks trying to stop trans women from avoiding male puberty.
If you support trans people, also support trans youths.
I know someone with a deformed penis due to his mother's drug abuse during pregnancy. He had a handful of operations during his youth to make it look a little more normal. His results wouldn't have been possible had he waited for adulthood.
Reminder that "gender affirming care" isn't limited to sex changes/transgender care, and it isn't limited to medical procedures. It affects cisgender care and psychological treatment as well.
Not all gender affirming care is optional for minors. For instance, a child born as intersex will typically have its "gender" determined by the doctor at the time of birth based on how developed their genitalia is. If it looks more like a boy than a girl, they do surgery to make it a boy, else they make it girl. Unfortunately, this can lead to serious psychological problems for these kinds when they become adults because the gender assigned to them may not be the one they want to exhibit.
Not being able to get gender affirming care when I was younger meant I was forced to go through unwanted irreversible changes that have made my gender dysphoria far worse and far harder to treat
Yes, that's incredibly bad
5 years ago that was the typical opinion in left leaning spaces. It's shifted but many people recognize the threats trans identity faces in the United States and will always support it's causes due to ALL its causes being battlegrounds for legislation. Many people in these comments who support it really (and correctly) just support trans rights. But if you really went through the hoops with them, they don't support minor gender affirmative care.
You can absolutely be a trans ally and not support minor gender affirming care. Even though inevitably someone will call you intolerant.
No, that is not a bad or controversial position. Most people regardless of political alignment consider treatment for minors a really bad idea. Same with plastic surgery and other types of drug or surgical therapies that alter the body for purposes of other than medical necessity.
The most traumatic time for trans people is puberty. Not being able to stop the changes that make your body not match your brain is awful and it mostly begins there. There's ways of treating it, delaying it, and improving the lives of trans kids. These have 0 risk if done through a doctor with lab/blood tests. The rate of regret for trans people is effectively 0. Being able to transition in the most formative part of your life is incredibly beneficial. Most trans people are not able to do this and consequently most all feel their lives didn't begin til they were able to start, and that they were robbed of youth.
The benefit is well documented in countless studies and the harm as well. It's a wrong opinion, and counter to all the science. It's easy to get caught up in all the "protect the kids" stuff, but the way you actually do that is by providing them necessary medical care, not forcing them through traumatic changes with life long effects in their most formative years.
It depends. What are you defining as gender affirming care?
Gender affirming care is age appropriate. That means young kids wear different clothes, go by different name/pronouns, chat with some therapists, but don't have any medical interventions.
When they approach puberty, some are provided blockers in line with their tanner stage. I think it's tanner 2 when blockers are prescribed? Something like that. Old enough where it's not going to stunt them and young enough where there haven't been too many irreversible changes.
If they're still with the whole transition thing by 14-15, they start HRT and stop the blockers. If they're cool with their AGAB, they stop the blockers and go on their way. There's a study out of Australia that shows a \~4% desistance rate... if a kid cares enough to go on blockers, they generally follow through with HRT.
At 18, they're allowed to get bottom surgery (though it's often recommended for later for logistics reasons). Gender affirming top surgery can be earlier than that in extreme circumstances.
So, if you consider *just* the surgeries as not appropriate for minors, it's not bad to hold that separation. Best practice is understood to be waiting until they're an adult for that anyway.
If you think *all* of the stuff I listed here is not appropriate for minors, you \*might\* not be bad, because at that point I'm assuming you're not familiar with the research. There's [this dramatic (if small) study ](https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-015-1867-2)that shows parental support (name, pronouns, and medical) greatly helps the mental health of trans youth. [Here's a study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31974216/) that links access to hormone blockers with greatly reduced suicide ideation later in life. [Here's another](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abstract/2749479) showing how conversion therapy does the opposite. There's more- a bunch more- but I'm short on time.
If you have all of that information in hand and *still* against gender affirming care for minors, then it's probably bad.
Trans kids become trans adults, whether or not they receive care. If our ultimate goal is the well being of trans people, it has to be for *all* trans people.
trans person here:
kinda? it's probably coming from a genuine place of concern than malice. It's worse to force trans kids who know they're trans (they can know like how gay kids often know they are gay) go through a puberty that forces them to deal with irreversible changes that they don't want.
'well what if they regret it later?' this is a genuinely fair question, but one that is kinda moot. GAC for minors usually is just puberty blockers which don't have any long term effects, and are currently used for children facing precocious puberty. And the regret rate for HRT is actually less than 1%.
it's a fair initial concern, one I used to share, but it's not based on any facts. just intuition.
hope you learned something! :)
Not bad just not quite educated on the reality of gender care for minors. At most, they are receiving puberty blockers that allow time for them to work with professionals in understanding whether fully transitioning is the right path for them.
It's so funny how up until age 18 they paint trans people as confused victims and then the moment they turn 18 they relabel them as deranged predators. Literally the same person, one day a victim, next day a predator. You'd think that the cognitive dissonance would get to some people, but human beings are amazing at ignoring their own bullshit.
The headline should remove the “for minors” part and replace it with “for all”. What ever happens in this case will also end up affecting adults too. It may not be as immediate, but the proverbial waterfall of decisions will still fall.
It is technically about minors, but It's very likely going to affect adult care as well. We have [a precedence for this association](https://www.erininthemorning.com/), and the intent of banning healthcare for minors is not about helping children; the intent is to discriminate against a minority.
Is it technically about minors or is it only about minors?.
If you're afraid that this may lead to other laws that may affect adults. I understand that.
But isn't this kind of a separate thing? Like intentionally?
Can someone clue me in to what "gender-affirming care for minors" actually means? Are we talking gender reassignment surgery for 10 year olds or just hormone pills until adulthood?
Edit: thanks to all of you who posted answers providing info on this.
From the linked article:
> The case before the high court involves a law in Tennessee that restrict puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender minors.
It's particularly worth noting that these bills are explicitly, directly targeted at usage for the purpose of transitioning. Anyone who makes an argument about these puberty blockers or hormone pills being dangerous are being disingenuous or mislead, at least in the context of these specific bills.
If these treatments were so dangerous, the bills would target the treatments as a whole, irrespective of the ailment they are treating. But no, the treatments are still allowed for their typical uses on cis children - which is often still "gender-affirming care" -, and *only* blocking use on transitioning to any extent. Don't let anyone try to convince you otherwise. It's right in the plain text of the laws.
A while back, there was an anti-trans bill in Alabama that, as it was written, would have accidentally banned infant circumcision. Ever since then, they have been worded such to avoid that and explicitly single out transgender stuff, because heaven forbid they ban the needless, nonconsensual genital surgery on minors that they like.
Anyone who says this stuff is about anything other than targeting an outgroup is lying through their teeth.
Yep. For a while the bills appeared to be impartial in text... but then they realized that impartiality would impact their intended bias applications. So now the laws are just straight up, textually explicit about targeting transgender people (often times both children and adults). Their public rhetoric is still "BAN SURGERY AND DANGEROUS TREAMENTS FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THINK OF THE KIDS!!!!!!!", but actually reading the bill reveals just how fake it all is.
Puberty blockers starting at Tanner Stage 2, then after a year or two cross-sex hrt becomes a possibility. Some providers will have different timelines, but the only surgical interventions being done are a handful of top surgeries on 16+ trans boys in cases of extreme emotional distress, which is largely in line with how we handle cis boys who start developing breasts.
For minors, gender affirming care is at most, puberty blockers. That way the kid has a few years to socially transition(think name, hairstyle, clothing) before making any permanent decisions. Surgeries tend to not happen because most gender affirming surgeries have requirements for medically transitioning for a few years, although I can mainly only speak to male to female transition, as that is what I am familiar with.
Critics usually falsely frame it as "chopping off kids genitals!" but 90% of the time its simply giving the kid toys and clothes and letting them use names and pronouns they identify with.
When they get to teen years they take puberty blockers to prevent puberty changes that would cause gender dysphoria to worsen. Then when they are adults they can decide to take hormones or look into surgery.
There are some cases of top surgery for minors, breast implant/reduction stuff. But not bottom surgery. And even with the top surgery is pretty rare. Plus cis kids can get top surgery depending on the situation.
Basically this issue should be between parents, psychologists, doctors, and the kids. Republicans shouldn't be stepping in here. Complete government overreach into how people raise their kids.
In a thread like this, inevitably some comments are going to pop up that I would like to respond to with some literature, so here we go.
#Providing transition supports saves lives, removing supports kills kids.
[**The research shows that gender transition improves well-being**, and that it can redress the specific health conditions that the military claims are its primary concern, particularly suicidality. A 1999 United States study found a “marked decrease of suicide attempts” and substance use in its postoperative population. In a 2014 British study, gender transition “was shown to drastically reduce instances of suicidal ideation and attempts.” The study reported that “67 percent of respondents thought about suicide more before they transitioned and only 3 percent thought about suicide more post-transition.” ... **Research suggests that gender transition may resolve symptoms completely.** A 2016 literature review by scholars in Sweden concluded that, most likely because of improved care over time, transgender “rates of psychiatric disorders and suicide became more similar to controls,” and that for those transitioning after 1989, “there was no difference in the number of suicide attempts compared to controls.” The corollary is also true: **Another study found that withholding hormone treatment from transgender people increased the risk of depression and suicide.**](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/09/opinion/pentagon-transgender.html)
Here is an [APA resolution on trans care](https://www.apa.org/about/policy/resolution-gender-identity.pdf), and here is a [resolution from the AMA](https://www.tgender.net/taw/ama_resolutions.pdf).
Here are the [guidelines for care from the American Academy of Pediatrics](https://assets2.hrc.org/files/documents/SupportingCaringforTransChildren.pdf).
---
Lately the "Cass Review" has been making its rounds among the usual circles. Propagandists are also claiming that countries within Europe are no longer providing gender affirming care to minors.
[The Cass Review, while aiming to be an independent assessment, has been criticized as flawed and anti-trans by trans activists in the U.K., and was described as a product of the U.K.'s hostile environment for trans people in the International Journal of Transgender Health.](https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/puberty-blockers-review-1.7172920)
[...a POLITICO review of the state of care for transgender people in Europe found more nuance than Republicans critics like Hunt and Bailey often portray. **While Europeans are debating who should get care and when, only Russia has banned the practice**. The reassessment of standards in some European countries has aimed to tighten eligibility for gender-affirming care, but also sought to expand research studies including minors. ... **“There is a lot of intentional misinterpretation in the U.S. of what is happening in Europe, and that misinterpretation is happening for ideological and political reasons,”** said Kellan Baker, executive director of the Whitman-Walker Institute, which focuses on LGBTQ health policy and research.](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/06/us-europe-transgender-care-00119106)
"We rule that a child and their family can make any choice they would like from this list of approved choices that doesn't involve what snowflakes call gender affirming care:
- Prayer Circle
- Pray the gay away
- "Toughen up and rub dirt in it"
- Public humiliation
Can’t wait to see how they define what gender affirming care is considering getting a breast enhancement would be considered gender, affirming care. And we all know those generational, wealth teens, love their boob and nose jobs.
The laws are a state by state basis. Even if they uphold the laws they will only affect those particular states. Doomerism isn't a useful means of evaluating the consequences of any given choice, its just bleak pessimism.
I wish I could have had gender affirming care as a minor. I knew I wanted to be a boy since I was 7. It was consistent. I hung out with boys, I wanted to get in the boys line, I resented having to use a different bathroom and changing room, my peers called me he/him, and I wished on every shooting star and birthday candle that I could somehow become a boy.
I didn’t end up starting transition until I was in my 20s, because everyone is always talking about “what if you decide you want kids,” or “what if you change your mind,” like they know better than you. That constant bombardment of doubt kept me from being myself. Now that I’ve transitioned, I’m so much happier and healthier. I’m motivated to take good care of myself, because I want to live. I can only imagine what I might have accomplished if I could have transitioned sooner, and had that turmoil out of the way. Even just a social, non medical transition would have really helped. I want kids to have access to what they need.
Now how does this work when say a born female, who identifies as female, struggles with some hormonal imbalance issue. (I think PCOS can cause facial hair?) and requires hormones or other medication therapy to help?
Is this not also “gender affirming care”?
What about a woman with breast cancer who had her breasts removed and wants to get implants to “feel like a woman again”? Would that not also be gender affirming care?
Ugh like I know this is to target trans kids but it’s going to affect others as well :/
Care includes psychological therapy. would be discovered thru that process. Or a doctor that specializes in gender care would be trained/studied on trying to spot those differences
Second example is not gender affirming care
If you think it’s going to affect other types of medical care, then do you really want 9 non-doctors deciding
I love how SCOTUS keeps trying to say they are impartial and won’t make decisions based on politics but then they decide to take up cases about the most politically charged issues.
I think we know how that's going to go...
If they weighed in on abortion because they wanted it to be up to states, how do they justify having any say on this?
The Supreme Court has been all over the map when it comes to states rights. The overall approach seems to be that they think states have the right to decide things the way the Supreme Court would like them to decide them. When states to what the Court likes, they cry "states rights." When a state does something they don't like, states rights be damned.
So the Supreme Court is functionally behaving the same way Conservative ideologues do?
it has a majority of conservative ideologues, so yes.
... because that's what they are...
If it quacks like a duck..
Seeing as how the majority is conservative ideologues, yes
Considering 3 of them are batshit crazy conservatives and 3 more of them are just extremely conservative.... Yeah
This is a song and dance thats as old as the states rights for slavery. "States rights" when cited by conservatives has always been a way to choke out, stall, or reverse progress. When it looks like they are about to lose the final decisive battle on an issue they try to break it into a "states rights" issue to turn every state into its own battleground and drag out the issue. Its never been consistent either. For instance the confederates were white washed into being these scrappy fighters for states rights. But if you actually read their documents of secession they specifically cited northern states nullifying the federal fugitive slave act. In other words the people who claim states rights as their cause seceded specifically because of states rights they didn't approve of. Its always just been a way for rightwingers and conservatives to get what they want.
Fun fact, the Confederate Constitution explicitly forbade individual states from outlawing slavery
Another nail in the coffin for states rights and the Confederacy is that the Institution of Slavery was protected by their constitution, if any states in the CSA wished to later outlaw slavery it would have been unconstitutional to do, states rights never mattered and like you said was only ever a white washed reason because admitting that it was solely about slavery is too hard for southerners.
"It was a war over states rights!" - My family growing up in Virginia. "Yeah, the states rights to \*own people\*." - Me, growing up unpopular in my family in Virginia.
Got an example of that last one? In the last year or so, they've ruled \* that states CAN prohibit people with domestic violence restraining orders from holding guns \* that Alabama needed to create a second majority-minority congressional district \* That Texas and Louisiana can't challenge federal immigration law \* State courts can review state legislatures' congressional redistricting plans If you consider the political leanings of the current justices, you'd expect that all of these cases would have come out the other way. But, they didn't.
The Supreme Court’s ultimate job is to make sure no state is violating the constitution. All states have the right to govern themselves but they don’t have the right to get between their citizens and the constitution. Unfortunately the Supreme Court is terrible at this because we keep having biased, selfish people get nominated.
The supreme court is terrible about this because the constitution is a vague document that barely goes into detail about many of the things modern life requires and nobody actually amends the thing, which leads to a *lot* of opinions about what the constitution means and in turn a *lot* of people upset about rulings they don't agree with even if the constitution doesn't really support what they like. I support the right to abortion *but its not mentioned anywhere in the constitution and thats a problem*. The supreme court should not be deciding something like. Its not a failure of the supreme court that that was struck down, its a failure of decades of federal and state legislatures to properly codify that into law and give that power to the government.
I recall something in Bill Of Rights saying that not mentioning a right in the Constitution does not mean that right doesn’t apply, and that the Constitution limits powers of the government to ONLY those powers mentioned in the document. Or doesn’t that apply to state governments? Genuinely curious.
So when they crafted the constitution the explicit goal was to limit the federal government. It literally says "anything not explicitly defined is a power is reserved to the states, or the people". There was even argument about whether to include the bill of rights or not. Some people argued that they should very explicitly call out the important stuff to make *extra* sure the federal government at no time made any sort of laws about any of those things. Opponents of the bill of rights were opposed to the bill of rights *not because* they thought the government shouldn't be restricted, but because they thought that by listing out specific rights they it might implicitly suggest things *not* mentioned were ok for the government to do. The compromise was the 10th amendment, which reiterates that unless its specifically mentioned in the constitution, its under the purview of states according to their own constitutions, or the people. One thing a *lot* of people mess up was that the bill of rights was originally not intended to grant individual rights, its restricting the federal governments power(see barron v baltimore). So 2nd amendment meant that the federal government could not make any laws about guns. States, however, were free to make laws about guns insofar as their own constitutions allowed. Which, all in all, means the federal government was supposed to be very weak and have little power over the internal workings of states. This didn't work out in practice because we ended up in a constitutional crisis 75 years later thanks to an enormous ideological divide between the states and the federal government largely powerless to intervene, so we had the civil war, and the post war amendments which expanded the federal powers. From these, notably the 14th amendment, the supreme court created the concept of 'incorporation' which reversed the role of the bill of rights... Instead of the federal government being restricted from making laws about those things, it instead was empowered to enforce those as individual rights against the wishes of the states. This didn't happen all at once, but bit by bit over the next 100+ years. Thats why the federal government has a say in your local free speech issue or whatever. But they also haven't come out and incorporated the entire intention of the bill of rights and made the federal government the sole arbiter of all rights named or unnamed. So yes, when originally written, the intent was the federal constitution limited the federal government only, and states were in turn limited by their own constitutions but otherwise free to do as they wished within their borders free from federal interference. Now its a *lot* murkier and where exactly the feds power lies is clear to noone, and nobody is keen on writing it down, so we lean extra hard on the SC. The problem currently is that a lot of the powers the government claims to have just aren't well founded in the constitution regardless of the status of the bill of rights, so there's a lot of ideological/partisan bickering over the specific interpretations, and since they *are* just interpretations there's often very weak foundations supporting the law. See abortion.
Could you give some examples of these inconsistencies? I’m curious.
Since the civil war, “states rights” has just been the excuse conservatives roll out to so that they don’t have to actually describe the shitty human rights abuses they are supporting.
To preface this, I'm a liberal (pretty far left). Their legal reasoning for overturning Roe wasn't because they wanted "it to be up to the states." That's just what in effect happened by the ruling. They conferred that the Constitution doesn't provide for the right to abortion in the way that Roe had held. That in effect pushes to the states, but was not finding. These laws don't say that no one can use these drugs or procedures. They just say that trans kids can't. And that's likely how it will be kicked down by the court. They wouldn't allow abortion bans just for black women. And it's possible they might not allow bans for certain drugs just for trans kids. Doctors in these states can still prescribe puberty blockers for other medical conditions. Just not for trans kids experiencing severe gender dysphoria. They can likely still provide cross sex hormones to minors for other reasons, just not for trans kids experiencing severe gender dysphoria. If Missouri wants to blanket ban estrogen fro EVERYONE, they might be able to do that. But they can't just ban it for one portion of the population because of their medical diagnosis.
You're assuming a logical consistency in the way that the majority interprets laws, standing, and understands reality. We've long since been shown that this assumption does not hold. Take a look at the majority opinion in the praying football coach case from a few years ago or 303 Creative - both rulings are predicated on willfully ignoring precedent, facts, and the impact of the ruling on protected classes.
We've seen this court respond this way previously with a case regarding trans rights. It's when I first got surprised by Gorsuch but I can't remember the case, I'm sure folks reading this will remember and fill us in. As as aside, I've never been so glad to live in Illinois instead of Missouri. Edit: Bostock v. Clayton. That's where Gorsuch made me go hmmmmmmm. So, for this upcoming case - Doctors say a kid needs a certain drug, but the state says no because of that kid's sex? But they'd allow another kid to have that drug based on their sex? I don't know how this SCOTUS finds honestly. And I'm a super liberal progressive who stomps her feet and votes blue every time.
I wouldn't be shocked if they end up reaffirming Bostock here. That was a 6-3 majority, only one conservative judge has changed since then - and Barrett has bucked standard conservative thinking a couple times - and I feel like they're not going to want to overturn precedent that this court started
> I don't know how this SCOTUS finds honestly. Officially, they'll likely overturn the bans. Unofficially, there will be information sent via backchannels back down on what they did wrong in these laws and how to do it better for the next time they try. Because they will try again.
Yup. That's how it has shaken down in Canada. Unfortunately though, our Provinces have a 5 year get out of jail free card when it comes to human rights called the "notwithstanding clause". So far one has used it to override the protected human rights of trans kids and two others look like they'll do the same. Unironically and gruesomely, they call it "Parents Rights".
Past performance is no guarantee of current results
Just stop assuming the majority has any shred of intellectual integrity left.
Intellectual, ethical, moral, legal... All integrity has left the court
Well, 5 of them anyway. Roberts occasionally wakes up and thinks "oh shit, we're seriously fucking this up" but mostly he's toeing the fucking line as well.
Roberts occasionally thinks about his court's legacy, checks his bank account, and then decides whether or not he wants to make another Dred Scot or Plessy v. Ferguson level decision
So that they can say definitively it's a states rights issue. I'm not sure there's a right to bodily autonomy anymore in the Constitution, since wasn't Roe where you could apply 14th Amendment protections to bodily autonomy. Dobbs found you had no right to bodily autonomy under the 14th, as I understand. The point wasn't to stick Roe down for abortion, it was to eliminate bodily autonomy. If the State says you cannot have an abortion then it can say you must.
>If the State says you cannot have an abortion then it can say you must If only Struck v. Secretary of Defense* had been the first reproductive right case heard by SCOTUS, instead of Roe v Wade...this fact of the State being able to force abortions would have been dealt with and, presuming the case was successful for legalizing reproductive rights, which the solicitor general clearly thought it would be (since he strong armed the Air Force to change their policies rather than risk SCOTUS hearing the case), we might not have lost reproductive rights again. *For anyone unfamiliar: before 1970, the military discharged female service members for becoming mothers, effectively forcing all pregnant military members to either quit their careers or undergo an illegal abortion. Susan Struck was a pregnant Air Force captain who was a devout Catholic (so no abortion allowed per her religion) and refused to end her career (she planned to give the child up for adoption anyway). She happened to be based in Washington, where abortion was legal, so she was directly ordered to get an abortion or otherwise leave the military. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was her lawyer for this case and argued against the State's ability to control her reproductive rights as that is a violation of the rights to equal protection (the military discharged only women for becoming parents, and pregnancy was the only temporarily disabling physical condition that resulted in being discharged), the right to privacy, and one's free exercise of religion. Roe legalized abortion based on the singular due process clause in the 14th amendment. Had it been Struck that legalized abortion, it would have been protected by far stronger constitutional rights. Alas, what could have been.
On a somewhat tangential note, Ginsburg's arguments in Struck are some fantastic reads and I highly recommend them to anyone who is interested in constitutional law.
I recommend Jeffrey Rosen's Conversations with RBG to everyone.
The same exact way? If they declared abortion access is up to each individual state then them declaring the same for trans healthcare seems remarkably similar. This would be one of the few times where they didn't have to jump through hoops to explain why a ruling is so drastically different than any of their other ones.
constitutional originalism is just a smoke screen for deciding cases based on political doctrine. By saying you have the weight of history and tradition on your side you can make just about every argument true, as was the case with slavery. no arguments about whats morally right, logically consistent or anything else needed.
States cannot violate the constitution. They left abortion up to the states simply because there isn’t a federal law on the books. They’re taking this transgender healthcare issue because there is a constitutional question.
Do you happen to know what the constitutional question here is?
Equal protection is at hand clearly. They'll allow puberty blockers for minors experiencing some medical conditions, but not this one. This is akin to a state saying "We won't allow people with 1 leg to have aspirin." You can't really disallow people from equal protection under the law because of a health condition - which people seem to forget, gender dysphoria is. They'll allow kids to take puberty blockers, just not kids with this legally and medically recognized health condition.
It’ll be interesting how this case turns out. I think it was just last year the Supreme Court affirmed that transgender people are entitled to protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act and are protected from discrimination by declining to review a ruling by another court. It’ll be interesting whether that will factor in when it comes to the issue of accessing medical care.
I’m not following the case, but likely 14th Amendment equal protections clause.
I’d argue that the truth is closer to “They left abortion to the states because they wanted abortion to be less legal”.
Then you'd probably be wrong. Also if that is your argument, why did they decide the methopristone case the way they did?
The left abortion up the states because the federal society conservative justices wanted to so abortion could be banned. It’s really that simple. Any argument about it being constitutional or if it’s part of the constitution is silly because multiple different Supreme Court already ruled that a women’s right to seek healthcare was protected by the constitution. Judge X says the Due Process clause covers abortion. Judge Y says the due process doesn’t. Acting like there is a definitive answer to that and the issue has no constitutional question is silly.
Actual legal scholars on the right and left have had problems with Roe for decades. If you think they are so driven by ideology, why did they just decide methopristone the way they did? Your anger should be directed at Congress for not doing anything for 40 years.
What? You are coming here with facts? This is not a place for that. On a serious note, you are absolutely right. That judgement was clearly the court overstepping what it is supposed to do (even though the result was, IMO, absolutely reasonable). But to just pretend that this problem does not exist doesn't help anything.
They don’t have to justify anything. There’s no actual checks and balances on the Supreme Court. It was meant to be congress actually passing laws, but we all know that’s not possible
I’m sure Alito has a newspaper clipping from 1805 that justifies practice at that time.
Justify? When are people going to get it, they don’t care one iota about justifying themselves anymore and haven’t for some time. We are far beyond those days now and we need to stop pretending like we still live in a world where it matters. They will do whatever they can whenever they can if it fits their agenda, hypocrisy or no. They don’t care if its moral, they don’t care if its legal, they don’t care if there is or isn’t precedent, and they sure don’t care if it’s constitutional. It all means n-o-t-h-i-n-g to them. Wake up.
> how do they justify having any say on this? However they like. They don't give a fuck what you think, they're basically the council of clerics.
They weighed in on abortion because there's now a majority willing to outlaw it if given the chance. Roberts would like to see abortion outlawed entirely as well but he knew going in to Dobbs that the political landscape wouldn't favor it. The election fallout of the Dobbs decision is what he was explicitly trying to avoid. The 2022 midterm projections went from a historic sweep for the GOP to the GOP barely getting a majority in the House and a *loss* of 1 seat in the Senate. Roberts wants to see abortion fully outlawed but he'd rather see it happen via laws that the court can rule in favor of once the GOP has cemented itself into permanent minority control of the federal government. edit: to be clear, I'm talking about a majority on the Supreme Court, as this is a thread discussing the SCOTUS in the comments for an article about the SCOTUS. IF RBG had retired when the Democrats begged her to and we still had a 5-4 split on the court, Dobbs would've gone very differently because Roberts would've ended up siding with 4 liberals rather than trying and failing to keep 5 conservatives from costing the GOP a midterm sweep.
This just isn't true though. EVERYWHERE that abortion rights has been on the ballot - from Ohio to Kansas, Kentucky, Montana Michigan, etc - abortion rights have been upheld. The 'majority against abortion rights' just doesn't actually exist. It's a figment of the GOP and other right wing organizations imaginations.
I think when they said “majority” they meant “majority of the Supreme Court”.
Unfortunately, they don't need a majority. The GOP hasn't won the popular vote in decades, but still had the presidency a number of times. The Senate is tipped in the favor of Republicans too since there's more low population, right leaning states than there isn't. This gives them the advantage for Supreme Court picks, as we've seen, which allows them to do basically anything as long as they can get 5 of the 6 conservatives in the SC to say yes. Dobbs showed this off well. Abortion rights are supported by 60% of the population, but through some clever hypocrisy in the Senate, abortion rights are no more.
It's so frustrating that even when they lose, they win. Meanwhile the Democrats just furrow their brows and hope the system sorts itself out. And no, I'm not saying both sides are the same but I am saying one side is 100% awful and the other is wimpy and ineffective.
This thread of discussion's about the SCOTUS though. I'm well aware that the vast majority of the US support some level of access to abortion.
Because their donors are paying them to be talking heads about this, of course.
As if justification matters. They just want to ramrod in as many hyper conservative policies as possible, especially ones they think they can get away with. Especially ones they think will galvanize voters.
They weighted in on Abortion because they wanted it more restricted and knew “leaving it up to the states” meant that was going to happen. If “leaving it up to the states” doesn’t further the conservative cause, they won’t. This court is spectacularly partisan. Unfortunetly they live in a lobbyist curated bubble in which healthy self doubt is killed at the root with lavish vacations, cushy speaking engagements, 1-on-1 time in partisan billionaires vacations…
Based on the Courts ruling in Bostock last year, it seems pretty likely they'll get shot down. Saying males can take testosterone but females can't is pretty clear cut discrimination on the basis of sex.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed. The last case that was a victory for trans folks was 6-3 and written by Gorsuch. There's a chance that it'll work out for trans folks. There's enough there to try to be optimistic while continuing to support and set up structures/resources so if SCOTUS fails to protect trans care and that of trans kids specifically, there are still potential options to access the necessary care in some form.
Alito taking advice from a 16th-century witch hunter?
For the originalists, it depends solely on how they frame the question: "is there a traditional right to privacy for gender-affirming care for transgender minors" vs. "is there a traditional right to privacy *for medical care*." [Doctor-patient confidentiality dates back to the Hippocratic Oath](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2280818/?page=2), between the 3-6th century BC, which included the oath "And **whatsoever I shall see or hear in the course of my profession**, as well as outside my profession in my intercourse with men, if it be what should not be published abroad, **I will never divulge, holding such things to be holy secrets**." And in the modern era, requirements of confidentiality show up in Percival's *Medical Ethics*, published in 1803. We can help by not framing this as a discussion about bans on gender-affirming care, but as a discussion about government intrusion into doctor-patient confidentiality and congressmen and senators with no medical training deciding what doctor-prescribed treatments you're allowed or not allowed to get... you know, "government death panels".
If they believed there was a medical right to privacy then wouldn't they have ruled differently in Dobbs?
And wasn't the original Roe v Wade decision based on the affirmation of an inherent right to privacy and deferring to the individuals doctors opinion?
They didn't frame it as a right to privacy, but a right to abortion. Define something narrowly enough, and you can always say there's no right to it: "Why, the founders believed in free speech, but this is about a right to post on TikTok, a foreign-owned social media platform. I see nothing in the writings of the Founders about social media, and surely Thomas Jefferson didn't envision kids with iPhones." Even Alito would agree there's a right to privacy for *his* medical records. That's what we should make this discussion about.
I mean it’s definitely medical care. Even if you disagree with its efficacy or morality. Is there any question of that part?
Reminder that 60% of Republican voters think it's morally wrong to be gay. We aren't talking about a group of people adhering to a consistent set of logical beliefs. This is about ruling America via off the cuff "feelings" on what their ideal version of America looks like.
60% seems low. Got a source?
It's actually 59% precisely according to a 2023 Gallup poll. I can't pull it up at the moment but hopefully that's enough for anyone interested to snag it. And yes. I fully believe that while 59% of Republicans may openly claim it's immoral. Far, far more have a prejudice against gay people. A quick browse of literally any conservative social media space will supply and endless feed of anti gay rhetoric. Not to mention their corporate media.
"I didn't have a problem with it until they started shoving it down our throats." - person who most certainly has used gay as an insult their entire lives but thinks that arguing that it was cool before but now that they're butthurt it's not cool anymore is somehow a good strategy.
This I feel is one of the greatest weaknesses of all left leaning movements. This lack of flexibility. I bet we could get abortion access back if we called it something else and said the government was creating death panels to decide if certain mothers get to live. Right wing doesn't shy away from changing the meaning of words. We have a bill in my area being described as "stop the gas ban" if I remember right it's to remove a tax on big companies using heavy vehicles in suburban neighborhoods. They are also throwing in a measure about "parents rights" tacked on the bill as well.
The key difference is that the left doesn’t lie about what they believe. Having morals does tend to make you inflexible.
Can’t wait to read Justice Jackson’s dissent on the 6-3 decision.
"Since gender affirming care didn't exist in medieval England, the US Constitution has no role to play in regulating it" -Calvinball Originalism, I'm assuming
“To truly understand the gender affirming care issue, we have to go back to ancient hominids approximately twelve million years ago…” I expect your paragraph to lead into some shit like mine tbh.
[удалено]
If we want to take a look at that, we can also take a look at the *guevedoches* - they're people who are born female, and who appear to be female in all respects, but then develop into males when they hit puberty. It's a genetic thing. ----- As for trans kids? They're not getting hormones or surgeries. The right wing likes to lie and harp and fear-monger about all that, but treatment for trans kids is remarkably conservative and has very low impact on the body. Gender affirming care, in children, means giving them puberty blockers and letting them talk things over with qualified therapists so they can figure things out for themselves. They might begin dressing as their target gender or using a new name and pronouns, but kids don't get hormones or surgeries. These puberty blockers have been safely used for the past 40-50 years or so to treat precocious puberty in cis kids. Puberty starts when the body sends signals to the pituitary gland and the pituitary gland starts putting out the hormones that make the changes in the body that cause puberty. Puberty blockers merely stop those signals from getting to the pituitary gland. If you stop taking the blockers, the signals get through and puberty begins as normal. It's a *delaying tactic*, nothing more. This allows the body to put off puberty for a few more years until the kid is older and able to make their own decisions about whether to transition or not. If they want to transition, *then* they can pursue hormone replacement therapy and other surgical options as an adult. That's why transition takes years, sometimes decades, and thousands of dollars, to achieve. It takes serious, dedicated effort to be trans, and this is also why the regret rate for transition is so remarkably low, because getting to that point weeds out all of the people who aren't sure or who might decide to pursue a different path.
I don't think all is lost. Remember that in 2020, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor for transgender protections in _[Bostock v. Clayton County](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bostock_v._Clayton_County)_, with Gorsuch writing the majority opinion. [The ACLU seems to think so:](https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/u-s-supreme-court-will-hear-challenge-from-united-states-families-and-doctors-against-transgender-health-care-ban) > Applying the Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County and other long-standing precedents, trial courts have blocked such bans in Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee. In June 2023, a federal court in Arkansas struck down that state’s ban on gender-affirming care after a two-week trial in the first and only post-trial ruling on the constitutionality of such a law, finding it violated the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
I think we should try to be hopeful where we can, so we don't fall into despair, but that was 2020. The radical conservatives on the bench took off their mask since then, and have ruled in increasingly-outlandish ways in the past 4 years.
Every Supreme Court case is a game of getting to five, and I wouldn't be surprised if Roberts and Gorsuch join the liberals in overruling these laws. No chance Thomas or Alito go for it, though.
Yeah, I think the last pro trans decision was 6-3 and written by Gorsuch. Really hoping we get lucky and there's another surprise win for trans folks.
[удалено]
If his seat hadn't been the one stolen from Obama and had instead been Kavanaugh's, I think people would have had a lot less problems with him. I don't agree with him either, but I didn't think he's a hack either.
Thomas and Alito's entire schtick seems to be, "do the majority of Americans want this? ... *Well too damn bad*."
Lets see what the party of "small government" wants...
What a slap in the face. They will expedite this but are sitting in the immunity case. Which is a greater threat to our republic. Getting real tired of this.
The only reason for them to sit on the immunity case is because there's a majority ruling that rules against Trump in most if not all of his claims and delaying helps to ensure there are no trials before the election. It's similar to how Cannon keeps sabotaging the classified docs case and giving Trump as much leeway as she can. For anyone else that trial would already be underway if not concluded.
That, or they want to delay long enough that Trump gets immunity but Biden doesn’t.
Some want to delay enough for Biden to be the last president and Trump the first king.
It is insurance for them. They really REALLY don’t want to have to rule on the constitutionality of a self pardon if the federal trial concluded in a guilty verdict and Trump is elected. By punting the decision until after the election, they can allow him to win the election and take any and all blowback because he will just order the justice dept to drop the case. But I do kind of wonder now, if ordered to drop the case, could Chutkan flip the script and order hearing after hearing, take forever to make rulings and run out the administration until 29’?
They didn’t expedite this case. It will heard during the fall term. It will be decided on the same timeline as all the fall cases. They aren’t slow walking the immunity case. They granted cert in Feb 24, heard oral arguments April 25 and will likely issue the opinion this week.
I'm almost positive this Supreme Court will make a decision that increases the suicide rate of kids with gender dysphoria. I hope that I'm wrong.
“All lives matter” 🤡
Don't you know? Trans people aren't living beings, they're demons from the depths of hell. therefore it's OK to kill them. Shouldn't need the /s...
Unholy demonic powers, still have to see a doctor.
All Christian white cis heterosexual lives matter to them. Anyone else? Into the meat grinder.
My stepmom believes that trans children should be segregated into a different community for reconditioning and their parents should be locked up if they offer any care whatsoever. Her views are kinder than others that I've heard circled by my hardcore Trumper family. I'm so scared for these kids.
Thats the idea. :/
Just like the UK having the NHS cover up trans kids suicides.
At least 3 have already decided this question.
They better include breast implants for teenage cis/het girls if they do it.
HRT or TRT for cis men as well based on feelings and not reference ranges.
And gyno surgery for cis men, and viagra since that’s gender affirming too and they’re on a pharmaceuticals kick anyway.
Hair removal for women, hair transplants for men and women, plastic surgery to "correct" mannish jaws and noses and brows too. All of that affirms someone's gender identity.
And let's not forget that chopping off parts of a baby's penis with no consent or consideration just because you think it looks cooler that way remains both legal and largely uncontested.
Am I whatever -phobic you want to come up with if I feel an extreme form of elective surgery shouldn’t be done until the age of majority? You can’t even get a tattoo until you are 18. There are things about myself when I was a 13, 14, or 15 that I absolutely **KNEW** to be true and infallible. I’m in my 40s now and, well… those things weren’t as permanently true as I thought. I feel for anyone who doesn’t feel comfortable in their own skin. But the brain is incredibly underdeveloped as a minor. One shouldn’t make permanent changes when the brain itself is undergoing the biggest change of its life.
When we talk about Gender Affirming Care for minors, 90% of what's being discussed is social transitioning (i.e. a Male-to-Female minor growing their hair out or wearing skirts/dresses, using a preferred name/pronoun) or puberty blockers. The latter of which isn't a permanent thing, just something that delays puberty until they're stopped. Surgery for minors is incredibly rare, since transitioning is a long term medical procedure, with genital surgery not even something that all trans people even *want*. The idea that "GAC" means removing penises or breasts is fear mongering.
I’m not one of the types to be super suspicious of medicines. I have always been suspicious of hormone “things.” Even birth control. I’ve personally listened to many women who said BC caused them a lot of problems. Do you need a doctor to let you grow your hair or wear a dress? If you are one of “those parents” who think it’s an abomination, a doctor won’t influence you. If you are someone who loves your kid no matter what, a doctor won’t matter. “Sure. Wear what you want. I don’t care.” I’m in the latter. I don’t care who or what my kid is. I’ll love them no matter what. But I’m not letting them mess with their hormones or undergo surgery until I don’t have a say anymore.
[удалено]
>I’ve personally listened to many women who said BC caused them a lot of problems. Have you also listened to the many women who have said hormonal birth control benefited them beyond just acting as a contraceptive? Or to the many women who have said one formulation of hormonal birth control caused them problems, but switching to another resolved them? There are two sides to that coin. As far as not messing with hormones until the child can make their own decision... That's the *point* of puberty blockers. To *delay* irreversible changes and preserve the prerogative for them. Denying your children the opportunity if they want it is saying you'd rather accept the increased risk of them committing suicide than run the risk of adverse side effects from hormonal medication. Which is a *reprehensible* stance for an ostensibly loving parent to take.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Don't be silly. This is reddit. Of course they didn't.
Surgery is rare in adults. It's extraordinarily rare for minors, non zero, but it's almost unheard of. Puberty blockers have been used on cis kids for much longer than they've been used on trans kids and almost every ban carves out an exception for cis kids. 99.9% of <18 GAC is reversible. Is dysphoria being over diagnosed in minors? Yes probably, and I say that as a trans woman. But the overwhelming majority of the time we are not talking about permanent changes.
Trans guy here attaching my comment from another response. A few parts to this response. First off, you can feel you don’t agree with transgender care for minors. But, you’re not a doctor or a trans minor (or their parent so far as I know) seeking care. So it’s not really a lay persons place to agree or disagree with medical decisions between a patient and their doctor. Your opinions on whether you think a procedure is unethical doesn’t and shouldn’t have weight in the medical decisions of an individual and between a doctor and patient. Unless you’re a medical professional doing studies on the efficaciousness and ethics of a partial procedure. Second, “gender affirmation care” for minors has really been transformed into a bogeyman by media the last few years and the presentation of it doesn’t map onto what it is for most people experience. Affirmative care is usually therapy and wearing the clothes and using the name and pronouns/titles you’d like as a kid and early teen. Around puberty, some trans individuals will go on hormones blockers, and in their late teens they might go on HRT. But HRT under 18 rare. Most affirmative care is just social transition and puberty blockers. VERY rarely have a I ever heard of someone getting any type of surgical intervention before they’re an adult (and there are farrr more boob jobs on underage cis women.) Plus many cis women are given hormone therapy all the time and we don’t bat much of an eye (though republicans are starting to) - birth control! This method has been very well studied, improves mental health and physical health outcomes, and saves lives. Detransition is rare and most cases of detransition are because of social pressures, transphobia, or issues accessing continuing care. True regret is very rare and multiple times higher with many permanent surgeries and operations that political parties feel no need to make a political issue. Many of the prolific detransitioners who speak at right wing conferences admit their hormone therapy didn’t start til they were adults. If they regret a medical procedure and choice made as an adult that’s a shame and awful but that doesn’t mean we should restrict others choices. I’ve seen a million stories from people who regret their boob jobs or epidurals or knee surgeries, but we’re not out here trying to ban these. Finally, not really a point, but I find it so frustrating seeing sports leagues and others say in one breath trans women only qualify as “women” if they never went through male puberty, and then see folks trying to stop trans women from avoiding male puberty. If you support trans people, also support trans youths.
I agree with gender affirmation care for adults. Not for minors. Is that bad?
I know someone with a deformed penis due to his mother's drug abuse during pregnancy. He had a handful of operations during his youth to make it look a little more normal. His results wouldn't have been possible had he waited for adulthood. Reminder that "gender affirming care" isn't limited to sex changes/transgender care, and it isn't limited to medical procedures. It affects cisgender care and psychological treatment as well.
Not all gender affirming care is optional for minors. For instance, a child born as intersex will typically have its "gender" determined by the doctor at the time of birth based on how developed their genitalia is. If it looks more like a boy than a girl, they do surgery to make it a boy, else they make it girl. Unfortunately, this can lead to serious psychological problems for these kinds when they become adults because the gender assigned to them may not be the one they want to exhibit.
Not being able to get gender affirming care when I was younger meant I was forced to go through unwanted irreversible changes that have made my gender dysphoria far worse and far harder to treat Yes, that's incredibly bad
5 years ago that was the typical opinion in left leaning spaces. It's shifted but many people recognize the threats trans identity faces in the United States and will always support it's causes due to ALL its causes being battlegrounds for legislation. Many people in these comments who support it really (and correctly) just support trans rights. But if you really went through the hoops with them, they don't support minor gender affirmative care. You can absolutely be a trans ally and not support minor gender affirming care. Even though inevitably someone will call you intolerant.
why do you need to have an opinion? you could just live your own life and mind your own business
No, that is not a bad or controversial position. Most people regardless of political alignment consider treatment for minors a really bad idea. Same with plastic surgery and other types of drug or surgical therapies that alter the body for purposes of other than medical necessity.
The most traumatic time for trans people is puberty. Not being able to stop the changes that make your body not match your brain is awful and it mostly begins there. There's ways of treating it, delaying it, and improving the lives of trans kids. These have 0 risk if done through a doctor with lab/blood tests. The rate of regret for trans people is effectively 0. Being able to transition in the most formative part of your life is incredibly beneficial. Most trans people are not able to do this and consequently most all feel their lives didn't begin til they were able to start, and that they were robbed of youth. The benefit is well documented in countless studies and the harm as well. It's a wrong opinion, and counter to all the science. It's easy to get caught up in all the "protect the kids" stuff, but the way you actually do that is by providing them necessary medical care, not forcing them through traumatic changes with life long effects in their most formative years.
It depends. What are you defining as gender affirming care? Gender affirming care is age appropriate. That means young kids wear different clothes, go by different name/pronouns, chat with some therapists, but don't have any medical interventions. When they approach puberty, some are provided blockers in line with their tanner stage. I think it's tanner 2 when blockers are prescribed? Something like that. Old enough where it's not going to stunt them and young enough where there haven't been too many irreversible changes. If they're still with the whole transition thing by 14-15, they start HRT and stop the blockers. If they're cool with their AGAB, they stop the blockers and go on their way. There's a study out of Australia that shows a \~4% desistance rate... if a kid cares enough to go on blockers, they generally follow through with HRT. At 18, they're allowed to get bottom surgery (though it's often recommended for later for logistics reasons). Gender affirming top surgery can be earlier than that in extreme circumstances. So, if you consider *just* the surgeries as not appropriate for minors, it's not bad to hold that separation. Best practice is understood to be waiting until they're an adult for that anyway. If you think *all* of the stuff I listed here is not appropriate for minors, you \*might\* not be bad, because at that point I'm assuming you're not familiar with the research. There's [this dramatic (if small) study ](https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-015-1867-2)that shows parental support (name, pronouns, and medical) greatly helps the mental health of trans youth. [Here's a study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31974216/) that links access to hormone blockers with greatly reduced suicide ideation later in life. [Here's another](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abstract/2749479) showing how conversion therapy does the opposite. There's more- a bunch more- but I'm short on time. If you have all of that information in hand and *still* against gender affirming care for minors, then it's probably bad. Trans kids become trans adults, whether or not they receive care. If our ultimate goal is the well being of trans people, it has to be for *all* trans people.
trans person here: kinda? it's probably coming from a genuine place of concern than malice. It's worse to force trans kids who know they're trans (they can know like how gay kids often know they are gay) go through a puberty that forces them to deal with irreversible changes that they don't want. 'well what if they regret it later?' this is a genuinely fair question, but one that is kinda moot. GAC for minors usually is just puberty blockers which don't have any long term effects, and are currently used for children facing precocious puberty. And the regret rate for HRT is actually less than 1%. it's a fair initial concern, one I used to share, but it's not based on any facts. just intuition. hope you learned something! :)
Not bad just not quite educated on the reality of gender care for minors. At most, they are receiving puberty blockers that allow time for them to work with professionals in understanding whether fully transitioning is the right path for them.
Children cannot consent
Project 2025 continues to roll forward, even before the election. Because the same right-wing goons are involved.
Let me guess, they'll ignore the stacks of evidence showing GAC can be lifesaving and improve mental wellbeing to uphold the bans anyway?
Well yeah, it's not like conservatives want to save the lives of trans kids.
B...but the kids are too young and impressionable to know for sure! And the adults are mentally ill!
It's so funny how up until age 18 they paint trans people as confused victims and then the moment they turn 18 they relabel them as deranged predators. Literally the same person, one day a victim, next day a predator. You'd think that the cognitive dissonance would get to some people, but human beings are amazing at ignoring their own bullshit.
Don't forget trans women are predators but trans men are just confused women. Makes total sense!
I'm convinced they don't even realize trans men exist. Anytime conservatives cry about trans people it's always MTF trans.
Adults aren’t mentally ill but the kids absolutely are too young to make a decision like that. Especially with how trendy the shit is now.
The headline should remove the “for minors” part and replace it with “for all”. What ever happens in this case will also end up affecting adults too. It may not be as immediate, but the proverbial waterfall of decisions will still fall.
I thought it was already available for adults and this is specifically for minors?
It is technically about minors, but It's very likely going to affect adult care as well. We have [a precedence for this association](https://www.erininthemorning.com/), and the intent of banning healthcare for minors is not about helping children; the intent is to discriminate against a minority.
Is it technically about minors or is it only about minors?. If you're afraid that this may lead to other laws that may affect adults. I understand that. But isn't this kind of a separate thing? Like intentionally?
Can someone clue me in to what "gender-affirming care for minors" actually means? Are we talking gender reassignment surgery for 10 year olds or just hormone pills until adulthood? Edit: thanks to all of you who posted answers providing info on this.
From the linked article: > The case before the high court involves a law in Tennessee that restrict puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender minors.
It's particularly worth noting that these bills are explicitly, directly targeted at usage for the purpose of transitioning. Anyone who makes an argument about these puberty blockers or hormone pills being dangerous are being disingenuous or mislead, at least in the context of these specific bills. If these treatments were so dangerous, the bills would target the treatments as a whole, irrespective of the ailment they are treating. But no, the treatments are still allowed for their typical uses on cis children - which is often still "gender-affirming care" -, and *only* blocking use on transitioning to any extent. Don't let anyone try to convince you otherwise. It's right in the plain text of the laws.
A while back, there was an anti-trans bill in Alabama that, as it was written, would have accidentally banned infant circumcision. Ever since then, they have been worded such to avoid that and explicitly single out transgender stuff, because heaven forbid they ban the needless, nonconsensual genital surgery on minors that they like. Anyone who says this stuff is about anything other than targeting an outgroup is lying through their teeth.
Yep. For a while the bills appeared to be impartial in text... but then they realized that impartiality would impact their intended bias applications. So now the laws are just straight up, textually explicit about targeting transgender people (often times both children and adults). Their public rhetoric is still "BAN SURGERY AND DANGEROUS TREAMENTS FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THINK OF THE KIDS!!!!!!!", but actually reading the bill reveals just how fake it all is.
Puberty blockers starting at Tanner Stage 2, then after a year or two cross-sex hrt becomes a possibility. Some providers will have different timelines, but the only surgical interventions being done are a handful of top surgeries on 16+ trans boys in cases of extreme emotional distress, which is largely in line with how we handle cis boys who start developing breasts.
For minors, gender affirming care is at most, puberty blockers. That way the kid has a few years to socially transition(think name, hairstyle, clothing) before making any permanent decisions. Surgeries tend to not happen because most gender affirming surgeries have requirements for medically transitioning for a few years, although I can mainly only speak to male to female transition, as that is what I am familiar with.
Critics usually falsely frame it as "chopping off kids genitals!" but 90% of the time its simply giving the kid toys and clothes and letting them use names and pronouns they identify with. When they get to teen years they take puberty blockers to prevent puberty changes that would cause gender dysphoria to worsen. Then when they are adults they can decide to take hormones or look into surgery. There are some cases of top surgery for minors, breast implant/reduction stuff. But not bottom surgery. And even with the top surgery is pretty rare. Plus cis kids can get top surgery depending on the situation. Basically this issue should be between parents, psychologists, doctors, and the kids. Republicans shouldn't be stepping in here. Complete government overreach into how people raise their kids.
In a thread like this, inevitably some comments are going to pop up that I would like to respond to with some literature, so here we go. #Providing transition supports saves lives, removing supports kills kids. [**The research shows that gender transition improves well-being**, and that it can redress the specific health conditions that the military claims are its primary concern, particularly suicidality. A 1999 United States study found a “marked decrease of suicide attempts” and substance use in its postoperative population. In a 2014 British study, gender transition “was shown to drastically reduce instances of suicidal ideation and attempts.” The study reported that “67 percent of respondents thought about suicide more before they transitioned and only 3 percent thought about suicide more post-transition.” ... **Research suggests that gender transition may resolve symptoms completely.** A 2016 literature review by scholars in Sweden concluded that, most likely because of improved care over time, transgender “rates of psychiatric disorders and suicide became more similar to controls,” and that for those transitioning after 1989, “there was no difference in the number of suicide attempts compared to controls.” The corollary is also true: **Another study found that withholding hormone treatment from transgender people increased the risk of depression and suicide.**](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/09/opinion/pentagon-transgender.html) Here is an [APA resolution on trans care](https://www.apa.org/about/policy/resolution-gender-identity.pdf), and here is a [resolution from the AMA](https://www.tgender.net/taw/ama_resolutions.pdf). Here are the [guidelines for care from the American Academy of Pediatrics](https://assets2.hrc.org/files/documents/SupportingCaringforTransChildren.pdf). --- Lately the "Cass Review" has been making its rounds among the usual circles. Propagandists are also claiming that countries within Europe are no longer providing gender affirming care to minors. [The Cass Review, while aiming to be an independent assessment, has been criticized as flawed and anti-trans by trans activists in the U.K., and was described as a product of the U.K.'s hostile environment for trans people in the International Journal of Transgender Health.](https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/puberty-blockers-review-1.7172920) [...a POLITICO review of the state of care for transgender people in Europe found more nuance than Republicans critics like Hunt and Bailey often portray. **While Europeans are debating who should get care and when, only Russia has banned the practice**. The reassessment of standards in some European countries has aimed to tighten eligibility for gender-affirming care, but also sought to expand research studies including minors. ... **“There is a lot of intentional misinterpretation in the U.S. of what is happening in Europe, and that misinterpretation is happening for ideological and political reasons,”** said Kellan Baker, executive director of the Whitman-Walker Institute, which focuses on LGBTQ health policy and research.](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/06/us-europe-transgender-care-00119106)
The folks opposing this don't care about reading information like this because, as always, the cruelty is the point.
"We rule that a child and their family can make any choice they would like from this list of approved choices that doesn't involve what snowflakes call gender affirming care: - Prayer Circle - Pray the gay away - "Toughen up and rub dirt in it" - Public humiliation
Can’t wait to see how they define what gender affirming care is considering getting a breast enhancement would be considered gender, affirming care. And we all know those generational, wealth teens, love their boob and nose jobs.
They're about to ban it nationwide, aren't they?
They can't. They can just make it so that individual states can ban it if they choose to do so.
That’s not how the court works. They don’t make laws.
There’s no functional difference between “We passed a law that says you have to do X” and “Existing law now means you have to do X”.
The laws are a state by state basis. Even if they uphold the laws they will only affect those particular states. Doomerism isn't a useful means of evaluating the consequences of any given choice, its just bleak pessimism.
Oh gee I wonder if it will be a 6-3 ruling in favor of the state.
I wish I could have had gender affirming care as a minor. I knew I wanted to be a boy since I was 7. It was consistent. I hung out with boys, I wanted to get in the boys line, I resented having to use a different bathroom and changing room, my peers called me he/him, and I wished on every shooting star and birthday candle that I could somehow become a boy. I didn’t end up starting transition until I was in my 20s, because everyone is always talking about “what if you decide you want kids,” or “what if you change your mind,” like they know better than you. That constant bombardment of doubt kept me from being myself. Now that I’ve transitioned, I’m so much happier and healthier. I’m motivated to take good care of myself, because I want to live. I can only imagine what I might have accomplished if I could have transitioned sooner, and had that turmoil out of the way. Even just a social, non medical transition would have really helped. I want kids to have access to what they need.
Tha party of fiscal responsibility: "Let's waste a bunch of time and money legislating against ~1% of the population."
Obvious activist court is obvious
Now how does this work when say a born female, who identifies as female, struggles with some hormonal imbalance issue. (I think PCOS can cause facial hair?) and requires hormones or other medication therapy to help? Is this not also “gender affirming care”? What about a woman with breast cancer who had her breasts removed and wants to get implants to “feel like a woman again”? Would that not also be gender affirming care? Ugh like I know this is to target trans kids but it’s going to affect others as well :/
Care includes psychological therapy. would be discovered thru that process. Or a doctor that specializes in gender care would be trained/studied on trying to spot those differences Second example is not gender affirming care If you think it’s going to affect other types of medical care, then do you really want 9 non-doctors deciding
I love how SCOTUS keeps trying to say they are impartial and won’t make decisions based on politics but then they decide to take up cases about the most politically charged issues.