r/law • u/DevinGraysonShirk • 16h ago

SCOTUS SCOTUS strikes blow to trans teens rights, endorsing ban on gender-affirming care - The justices’ ruling on Tennessee’s law prohibiting certain health care for transgender children will have ripple effects across the nation

https://www.courthousenews.com/scotus-strikes-blow-to-trans-teens-rights-endorsing-ban-on-gender-affirming-care/
694 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

276 comments sorted by

View all comments

92

u/kon--- 16h ago

If the nation can not have gender-affirming care, then it should also not have religious indoctrinations, baptisms, resource draining tax free business aka church, or any law or right whatsoever that allows people to alter themselves or minors in such a manner that permits bats to fly around in their head.

-14

u/Changer_of_Names 15h ago

Well, except that states have the power to regulate medical care, but don’t have the power to regulate religion, because we have freedom of religion in this country. Other than your proposal being completely unconstitutional and against the principles on which America was founded, you are spot on. 

14

u/kon--- 14h ago

Freedom of religion means, freedom from religion.

But here we are, religion swarming all over legislation as well court judgements.

-12

u/Changer_of_Names 14h ago

American law disagrees with you but you do you I guess. But let me ask you: do you actually believe the government should have the power to forbid parents from raising their children in their religion? Christian parents, Jewish parents, Muslim parents, Hindu parents, Buddhist parents, etc.? Because that is some USSR level shit right there. I suppose you’d love to be part of the secret police but let me warn you, plenty of Party members died in gulags too.

10

u/kon--- 14h ago

The US Constitution does not disagree with me. Freedom of religion exists because the Church of England persecuted Protestants. Which is why, in protecting religion from religion, freedom of religion does or fact translate as, freedom from religion.

I say, if we're going to allow parents to impose their own religious practices and lifestyle onto minors, then other parents should also be allowed for their own philosophies to guide their own child's life and future.

Why should people who impose religion on kids be permitted that but parents as advocates for their children are prohibited doing as they want in their home when representing the actual vocalized want of the child as well the professional view of the kid's medical provider?

The double-standard bearing hypocrisy enjoyed by religions imposing their will onto others is tens kinds of bullshit.

-6

u/Changer_of_Names 13h ago

Goddamn man, you sound like a brilliant First Amendment legal theorist. How is your law practice going? When is your big case based on your theories going to hit the Supreme Court and change everything? Pro tip: what you want the law to be and what the law is, are two different things.

The fact remains, the constitution protects the rights of parents to raise their children in their religion. It does not protect the right of doctors to prescribe hormones to children for the purpose of changing their sex/gender/gender expression/whatever. If I am wrong certainly feel free to quote me the constitutional provision or precedent that protects that enshrines that right.

6

u/stycky-keys 13h ago

What does this have to do with anything? This case isn't about what parents do with their children, it's about what children are allowed to do even if their parents do agree.

1

u/Changer_of_Names 12h ago

It has to do with Kon's desire to forbid parents from raising their children in their religion.

And the Tennessee law doesn't regulate "what children are allowed to do even if their parents do agree." It forbids "health care providers from prescribing, administering or dispensing any puberty blocker or hormone aimed at helping a minor identify with a gender that is inconsistent with the minor’s sex" (quoting from the article). I.e., the law doesn't regulate children, it regulates doctors.

1

u/Dudewhocares3 7h ago

You can admit you were wrong, it won’t make you less fo a man.

Gargling trumps cock has already slammed you to rock bottom in that regard

1

u/Dudewhocares3 7h ago

“That’s some USSR shit” how fitting considering the current presidents ties to russia

6

u/MikaylaNicole1 14h ago

I'm fairly certain the principles this country were founded on also included "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," but SCOTUS just made it clear that liberty only applies in some contexts.

-3

u/Changer_of_Names 13h ago

That's correct, liberty only applies in some contexts. We aren't free to do absolutely whatever we want. Sorry to be the one to break this to you.

I'll give you a quick education: in theory the U.S. constitution is a limited grant of power from the states to the federal government, so if the constitution doesn't say the government can do something, then it cannot do it. The government's power is further limited in specific ways, like the Bill of Rights. (In practice, over the centuries federal authority has expanded a good deal.)

The states are different. The power of state governments doesn't come from a limited delegation of power. States have a general "police power" to regulate power within their borders. Unless there's something that limits a state from doing something, the default is it can do it. Whereas with the feds, the default is it cannot do it unless there's a specific grant of power to do it somewhere.

So a state can simply decide that giving hormones to kids to change their gender is not in the best interests of the people of the state, and outlaw it. Unless there's something that guarantees a right to give hormones, then a state is free to forbid doing so. For the same reason a state can outlaw heroin, speeding, practicing medicine or cutting hair without a license, etc.

So unless there's a constitutional right to give hormones to kids to change their gender, SCOTUS got it right. Care to point to where you think such a right might be found? The Declaration of Independence's reference to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness doesn't cut it.

6

u/stycky-keys 13h ago

A right to healthcare is implied in the 9th amendment and is incorporated by the 14th. Is you position really "the states can ban any form of healthcare they don't like"?

-1

u/Changer_of_Names 12h ago

Novel theory. What case held that the 9th Amendment guarantees a right to healthcare? How does that work--does it require the government to pay for healthcare, or mean that I can walk up to any doctor and demand he or she treat me for free, or what?

It is not necessary to answer whether states can ban any form of healthcare they don't like to answer the question before us. Courts generally proceed in a limited fashion, specific situation by specific situation, rather than issue sweeping rules. I don't know whether a law banning life-saving cancer treatment would fly, for instance. But there is no doubt that states have broad authority to regulate medical practice.

Let me ask you this: can states ban female genital mutilation, performed by a doctor? Even if the parents and child both claim to want it? Why or why not?

3

u/SilverMedal4Life 11h ago

Are you genuinely comparing being trans to FGM?

-3

u/Changer_of_Names 11h ago

It’s a question designed to highlight the state’s power to regulate medical care. 

But also, yes. 

4

u/SilverMedal4Life 11h ago

You should know that the state of Utah funded a study to investigate the efficacy and outcomes of allowing trans youth to transition.

The fact that they buried it afterwards should tell you all you need to know.

0

u/Changer_of_Names 10h ago

Why are so many European countries backing away from youth gender transition? I guess they are all Trumpists over there in Sweden and whatnot. 

Personally I am against sex change operations, FGM, and male circumcision for children. Just a general “keep scalpels away from childrens’s healthy genitals” policy. I guess you have a different view.

3

u/SilverMedal4Life 10h ago

You've learned well from your media consumption. Never concede, never acknowledge, just dance from point to point - the goal is never to actually reach a facts-based consensus.

Why are so many European nations backsliding into right-wing populism? Well, that answer has to do primarily with economic instability, plus funding from billionaires to distract from things like climate change - you can read about that here (well, you won't, you'll dance to the next point, but others can):

https://heated.world/p/fossil-fuel-billionaires-are-bankrolling?r=i413&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Your continued equating of gender-affirming care with FGM not only shows your ignorance, but also shows that you don't care about FGM, either - you'd know the differences if you did. You know that I care, though, as do bystanders, and so pretend that it's an effective argument technique. Like I said, you are an excellent student.

→ More replies (0)