Current Events > Supreme Court will take up state bans on gender-affirming care for minors

(+) Yeah! (+)

Not sure how the right leaning bench won't rule in favor of the states to make their own extreme laws as with abortion.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-transgender-health-tennessee-kentucky-75e3b446513f61281013a2bf86248044

WASHINGTON (AP) The Supreme Court on Monday jumped into the fight over transgender rights, agreeing to hear an appeal from the Biden administration seeking to block state bans on gender-affirming care.

The justices action comes as Republican-led states have enacted a variety of restrictions on health care for transgender people, school sports participation, bathroom usage and drag shows. The administration and Democratic-led states have extended protections for transgender people, including a new federal regulation that seeks to protect transgender students.

The case before the high court involves a law in Tennessee that restrict puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender minors. The federal appeals court in Cincinnati allowed laws in Tennessee and Kentucky to take effect after they had been blocked by lower courts. (The high court did not act on a separate appeal from Kentucky.)

Without this Courts prompt intervention, transgender youth and their families will remain in limbo, uncertain of whether and where they can access needed medical care, lawyers for the transgender teens in Tennessee told the justices.

Actor Elliot Page, the Oscar-nominated star of Juno, Inception and The Umbrella Academy, was among 57 transgender people who joined a legal filing in support of Supreme Court review. Arguments will take place in the fall. Last month, South Carolina became the 25th state to adopt a law restricting or banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, even though such treatments have been available in the United States for more than a decade and are endorsed by major medical associations.

States move on trans youth care
Several Republican-led states have taken steps to bar access to gender-affirming care for transgender minors, which for people under 18 typically involves puberty blockers or other hormone treatments. Some Democratic-led states are instituting protections. Most of the state restrictions face lawsuits. The justices had previously allowed Idaho to generally enforce its restrictions, after they had been blocked by lower courts.

At least 24 states have laws barring transgender women and girls from competing in certain womens or girls sports competitions. At least 11 states have adopted laws barring transgender girls and women from girls and womens bathrooms at public schools, and in some cases other government facilities. The nations highest court has only rarely taken up transgender issues. In 2020, the justices ruled that a landmark civil rights law protects gay, lesbian and transgender people from discrimination in employment.

In 2016, the court had agreed to take up the case of a transgender student, backed by the Obama administration, who was barred from using the boys bathroom in his Virginia high school. But the court dropped the case after a directive advising schools to allow students to use the bathroom of their chosen gender, not biological birth, was scrapped in the early months of the Trump administration. The directive had been a key part of an appeals court ruling in favor of the student, Gavin Grimm.

In 2021, the justices declined to get involved in Grimms case after the appeals court again ruled in his favor. At the time, Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas noted they would have taken up the school boards appeal.

Remember: these bans are not about "protecting children from the dangers presented by puberty blockers" as the bans allow cis gender youth to access blockers to stop precocious puberty.

This is merely to block a marginalized group from access to healthcare by utilizing falsehoods to demonize the entire practice.

Gosh, I wonder how the 6-3 jackboot majority will rule on this one.

See this is why I find it hard to take it seriously when y'all call us "terf Island"

We may have jk rowling and rishi sunak, but at least we don't have a council of elders codifying bigotry into law.

Not that it should be a race to the bottom -_-

I'm somewhat surprised that the Court is jumping on this before the 8th Circuit's decision in the Brandt case.

I haven't been following state by state but half the country is restricting access.

Idaho, Utah, Arizona, North Dakota, South Dakota
Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Iowa
Missouri , Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Ohio
West Virginia, Tennessee, Alabama, South Carolina, North Carolina
Georgia
Wyoming - takes effect 7/1/24
Montana - ban put on hold in 2023
Arkansas - ban struck down currently in appeals
Florida - ban struck down on 6/11/24

Even if scotus bans it dem states should allow it anyway because republican states dont listen to scotus or the federal gov so fuck em

Oh gee, I wonder how this will be judged. Totally not going to be a 6/3 ruling that's going to somehow, someway lead to a spike yet again in teenage suicides. Surely not.

CADE_FOSTER posted...

Even if scotus bans it dem states should allow it anyway because republican states dont listen to scotus or the federal gov so fuck em

It isn't about a federal ban its Biden Admin saying no state should have a ban and the supreme court hearing the case. This is seeing similar for the case in abortion, states are allowed to have their own laws for gender transitioning medicine, aka ban for minors.

pinky0926 posted...

See this is why I find it hard to take it seriously when y'all call us "terf Island"

We may have jk rowling and rishi sunak, but at least we don't have a council of elders codifying bigotry into law.

Not that it should be a race to the bottom -_-

Uhh... House of Lords? Royal Ascent?

name_unknown posted...

aka ban for minors.

Some aren't even stopping at minors.

Though it's nice to know Florida's bullshit got hard smacked.

you have a literal king who you pay 300 million dollars to every year because reasons

WE, however, don't pay our kings and queens that much -- and we have 9 of them!

It's kind of ridiculous we now have a country of multiple contradictory laws.

We should not be a country that bans x in one state but allows it in another.

If only this country hadnt decided Hillary was unelectable it would be 6-3 dem majority

ClayGuida posted...

We should not be a country that bans x in one state but allows it in another.

Pregnant women in Idaho are now pricing out getting insurance for emergency helicopter airlifts because Idaho won't allow an abortion until the mother is minutes from death so they need the option of going to Utah in a hurry if necessary.

Country is broken and I don't know if it's fixable anymore.

CADE_FOSTER posted...

If only this country hadnt decided Hillary was unelectable it would be 6-3 dem majority

Would Kennedy have retired with a Democrat in the White House? Would Mitch have just let seats stay open if the Republicans had a Senate majority?

theAteam posted...

Pregnant women in Idaho are now pricing out getting insurance for emergency helicopter airlifts because Idaho won't allow an abortion until the mother is minutes from death so they need the option of going to Utah in a hurry if necessary.

Country is broken and I don't know if it's fixable anymore.

Holy shit. Can I get a link for that? That's a fact that needs wider sharing.

MLBloomy posted...

Would Kennedy have retired with a Democrat in the White House? Would Mitch have just let seats stay open if the Republicans had a Senate majority?

Maybe, maybe not, but he likely would have by now.

DnDer posted...

Holy shit. Can I get a link for that? That's a fact that needs wider sharing.

Googling Idaho helicopter abortion gave me this

https://idahocapitalsun.com/2024/04/23/loss-of-federal-protection-in-idaho-spurs-pregnant-patients-to-plan-for-emergency-air-transport/

fuckkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk god dammit

pinky0926 posted...

See this is why I find it hard to take it seriously when y'all call us "terf Island"

We may have jk rowling and rishi sunak, but at least we don't have a council of elders codifying bigotry into law.

Not that it should be a race to the bottom -_-

Not trying to defend the US in general, but the states rights BS at least has the side effect of there being some refuges in the country. Even Labour seems pretty transphobic.

Here comes the awful decision after the good gun decision.

bump stock shit was an even worse decision shocked they havent allowed fully automatic weapons back yet

Yeah, this wont end well likely. Again how isnt this considered a hate crime against a trans people?

"We're just trying to protect the children!"
*hands out bump stocks*

pinky0926 posted...

See this is why I find it hard to take it seriously when y'all call us "terf Island"

We may have jk rowling and rishi sunak, but at least we don't have a council of elders codifying bigotry into law.

Not that it should be a race to the bottom -_-

yall blocked puberty blockers *explicitly* for trans kids.

If you want any hope for this, watch Roberts and Gorsuch during oral arguments.

Can they vote on it again when thomas leaves in a few years. Even then it'd still be 5-4 I suppose.

https://apnews.com/article/transgender-rights-children-florida-592b24b28e365ded336ca841f2ac90ac

can only think of the current and past federal judges striking down state laws for ban on gender care and Roberts sees this as something that needs to be decided. Florida this month being the latest

"A federal judge on Tuesday struck down a 2023 Florida law that blocked gender-affirming care for transgender minors and severely restricted such treatment for adults, calling the statute unconstitutional.
Senior Judge Robert Hinkle said the state went too far when it barred transgender minors from being prescribed puberty blockers and hormonal treatments with their parents permission. He also stopped the state from requiring that transgender adults only receive treatment from a doctor and not from a registered nurse or other qualified medical practitioner. And he barred a ban on online treatment for transgender adults.
Hinkle said transgender people are constitutionally entitled to the legitimate treatment they need and, quoting the late Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., compared those who oppose it to those who were once against equality for minorities and women.
Some transgender opponents invoke religion to support their position, just as some once invoked religion to support their racism or misogyny, Hinkle wrote in his 105-page decision. Transgender opponents are of course free to hold their beliefs. But they are not free to discriminate against transgender individuals just for being transgender.
DeSantis had signed the law last year as he was gearing up for a presidential campaign that was highly based on culture wars.
We never did this through all of human history until like, what, two weeks ago? Now this is something? he told cheering supporters as he signed the bill. Theyre having third graders declare pronouns? Were not doing the pronoun Olympics in Florida.
At trial, Floridas attorneys had conceded that the state cannot stop someone from pursuing a transgender identity, but said it can regulate medical care.
For minors, the only treatments at issue are puberty blocking treatments and cross-sex hormones giving testosterone to someone assigned female at birth, for example. Those who were undergoing treatment when the law was adopted in May 2023 were allowed to continue. Surgery, which is rare for minors, was still blocked."

And he barred a ban on online treatment for transgender adults.

this is a thing they can do? or at least, try to

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Because "my body my choice" only applies for them when it comes to being anti-vax.

Every other choice needs the involvement of the "small government."

Seeing how the Supreme Court has majorly chilled out lately (likely because they're tired of being cast as villains) and this same Court banned trans discrimination, I suspect they''l follow suit with most state courts and strike down the medical care provisions. The surgical provisions can go either way

CADE_FOSTER posted...

bump stock shit was an even worse decision shocked they havent allowed fully automatic weapons back yet

Clarence Thomas saying "someone could just pull the trigger super duper fast to emulate the speed of a bump stock" was insulting to the concept of human intelligence. Nobody can pull a trigger that fast unless they're a cyborg.