SCOTUS

[Northwestcoug]

Rare congenital diseases are not the issue here.

Yeah but similar cases inevitably get caught up in the political zeal, hamstringing clinicians when tney need to treat patients. Witness needless maternal deaths in states that enact abortion bans.

[LVAllen]

Rare congenital diseases are not the issue here.

The Supreme Court deciding that a law that bans hormone therapy for a minor, depending on what sex they are, is not really discriminating based on sex, is the issue. From the dissent:

"[S]ex determines access to the covered medication. Physicians in Tennessee can prescribe hormones and puberty blockers to help a male child, but not a female child, look more like a boy; and to help a female child, but not a male child, look more like a girl. Put in the statute’s own terms, doctors can facilitate consistency between an adolescent’s physical appearance and the “normal development” of her sex identified at birth, but they may not use the same medications to facilitate “inconsisten[cy]” with sex. All this, the State openly admits, in service of “encouraging minors to appreciate their sex.”"

Also, surgery isn't an issue here.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Yeah but similar cases inevitably get caught up in the political zeal, hamstringing clinicians when tney need to treat patients. Witness needless maternal deaths in states that enact abortion bans.

And under a "do whatever the hell you want" scenario, how many kids are permanently altered by the treatments and then end up with lifelong regret?

[MartyFunkhouser]

I haven't read the decision, but I likely am okay with the result of it. I am not in favor of treatments for minors that have the potential for long term impacts into adulthood.

However, I will believe that the states passing these laws give a damn about kids and aren't doing this because of their hatred of transgender people when we see a backlash against the person leading RFK Jr's autism study who used those same puberty blockers on kids with autism saying it would cure them.

[frank ryan]

And under a "do whatever the hell you want" scenario, how many kids are permanently altered by the treatments and then end up with lifelong regret?

I'm not outraged about the bill. I see some wisdom in it. I also don't view it as illegal.

I don't like the broader right-wing energy to eliminate (as Matt Walsh says) transgenderism. I'm with Marty on that.

[UVACoug]

I think it's reasonable to debate whether "gender affirming care" is good for minors or not, but I can't wrap my head around the argument that it is a constitutionally protected right (which is what the dissent would have ruled).

[Northwestcoug]

And under a "do whatever the hell you want" scenario, how many kids are permanently altered by the treatments and then end up with lifelong regret?

I think the ‘do whatever the hell you want scenario’ is a flippant way of having a spectrum of gender affirming care, up to pharmacotherapy for those who need it most.

Look, in a lot of cases my opinion on what to do with transgender youth is closer to yours than what my pushback here might seem. But the science, despite what SCOTUS and legislators say, supports a much more nuanced approach.

[LVAllen]

I haven't read the decision, but I likely am okay with the result of it. I am not in favor of treatments for minors that have the potential for long term impacts into adulthood.

However, I will believe that the states passing these laws give a damn about kids and aren't doing this because of their hatred of transgender people when we see a backlash against the person leading RFK Jr's autism study who used those same puberty blockers on kids with autism saying it would cure them.

Funk, the reason I said this opinion is bullshit is because it claims the statute doesn't discriminate based on sex or transgender status. The former absolutely would have triggered heightened scrutiny, the latter should, but that question has been up in the air. But if you get to heightened scrutiny, the Court would have to break out its "ENJOINED" stamp, and they didn't want to do that.

They try to handwave this dereliction of duty by claiming that the statute's classification is based on medical use. Medical use to treat what, exactly? Oh, right. the conditions that essentially define transgender people. It's like saying that a certain treatment can't be used to treat sickle cell disease (an inherited disease which more than 90% of those affected are black), and claiming it isn't discrimination against blacks, it's this whole other thing. It's bullshit. And it messes up equal protection jurisprudence in a major way. Meanwhile, all the red state assholes have now been given a path forward for blatant trans elimination: just call it medical use classification.

[All-American]

Funk, the reason I said this opinion is bullshit is because it claims the statute doesn't discriminate based on sex or transgender status. The former absolutely would have triggered heightened scrutiny, the latter should, but that question has been up in the air. But if you get to heightened scrutiny, the Court would have to break out its "ENJOINED" stamp, and they didn't want to do that.

They try to handwave this dereliction of duty by claiming that the statute's classification is based on medical use. Medical use to treat what, exactly? Oh, right. the conditions that essentially define transgender people. It's like saying that a certain treatment can't be used to treat sickle cell disease (an inherited disease which more than 90% of those affected are black), and claiming it isn't discrimination against blacks, it's this whole other thing. It's bullshit. And it messes up equal protection jurisprudence in a major way. Meanwhile, all the red state assholes have now been given a path forward for blatant trans elimination: just call it medical use classification.

I mean, the whole strict scrutiny/intermediate scrutiny/rational basis framework is sort of contrived, but you make a concession on intellectual honesty to give district courts something they can work with. (Then there’s Alito’s concurrence: even if this does discriminate on the basis of transgender status, that has never warranted heightened scrutiny and the basis for this law would pass whatever test of scrutiny should be applied.)

In the end, there is a clear and compelling justification for the law: wait until they are adults before pushing them through something with permanent consequences. It’s probably not a stupid law. But even if is, the Constitution doesn’t let the Supreme Court invalidate merely stupid laws.

[Moliere]

I mean, the whole strict scrutiny/intermediate scrutiny/rational basis framework is sort of contrived, but you make a concession on intellectual honesty to give district courts something they can work with. (Then there’s Alito’s concurrence: even if this does discriminate on the basis of transgender status, that has never warranted heightened scrutiny and the basis for this law would pass whatever test of scrutiny should be applied.)

In the end, there is a clear and compelling justification for the law: wait until they are adults before pushing them through something with permanent consequences. It’s probably not a stupid law. But even if is, the Constitution doesn’t let the Supreme Court invalidate merely stupid laws.

I’m no lawyer so I can’t argue at y’all’s level, but my understanding is this TN law is only applicable to minors. Once someone is 18, they can undertake whatever surgery they feel they need to do. I’d support that as long as the cost of those surgeries are not borne by anyone other than the person who feels they need them.

[falafel]

Rare congenital diseases are not the issue here.

That's fuckin' interesting man, that's fuckin' interesting.

[falafel]

They try to handwave this dereliction of duty by claiming that the statute's classification is based on medical use. Medical use to treat what, exactly? Oh, right. the conditions that essentially define transgender people.

Let's pass a law that discriminates against people who bleed out of their genitalia regularly (as defined by statute). That's a gross medical issue and does not require heightened scrutiny.

[MartyFunkhouser]

Funk, the reason I said this opinion is bullshit is because it claims the statute doesn't discriminate based on sex or transgender status. The former absolutely would have triggered heightened scrutiny, the latter should, but that question has been up in the air. But if you get to heightened scrutiny, the Court would have to break out its "ENJOINED" stamp, and they didn't want to do that.

They try to handwave this dereliction of duty by claiming that the statute's classification is based on medical use. Medical use to treat what, exactly? Oh, right. the conditions that essentially define transgender people. It's like saying that a certain treatment can't be used to treat sickle cell disease (an inherited disease which more than 90% of those affected are black), and claiming it isn't discrimination against blacks, it's this whole other thing. It's bullshit. And it messes up equal protection jurisprudence in a major way. Meanwhile, all the red state assholes have now been given a path forward for blatant trans elimination: just call it medical use classification.

I should read it.

[falafel]

I should read it.

And because you are a lawyer, that is your right.

Moli, wally, Dude -- you are collectively out of your element.



edit: these are jokes. i believe most knew that, but it pays to be safe. that is the lawyerly way.

[frank ryan]

Just in time for Trump to eliminate funding for the Suicide Hotline for LGBTQ youth and young adults.

I didn't see that. This should be a much bigger story. MAGA is a movement built on cruelty, and a move like this is evidence of it,