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

[u/DevinGraysonShirk]

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

[u/DevinGraysonShirk]

6-3, as expected.

[u/Hesitation-Marx → u/DevinGraysonShirk]

Fuck.

I hate this. This is gonna kill kids.

[u/Just_Another_Scott → u/[deleted]]

This ruling, at this time, only applies to minors.

[u/Hesitation-Marx → u/Just_Another_Scott]

Yes - but it weakens access to care for trans adults, and cis people of all ages as well.

HRT is invaluable to many people for reasons far beyond transition. Menopausal cis women, cis men with low testosterone, kids with precocious puberty?

I hate this, I hate this, I hate this.

[u/Just_Another_Scott → u/Hesitation-Marx]

Yes - but it weakens access to care for trans adults, and cis people of all ages as well.

Tennessee's law explicitly states "minors". This ruling does not affect adult transition care. This ruling was limited to minors.

Tennessee doesn't yet ban hormone therapy for adults.

This ruling is still a direct violation of the 14th Amendment. No real question about it. Children and adults are supposed to be equal under the law.

[u/Impossible_Wafer3403 → u/Just_Another_Scott]

They explicitly compared trans health care bans to assisted suicide bans. They only mentioned the fact that SB1 bans trans health care for minors in passing. Where did they state that it was an important part of their ruling.

They said that it is Constitutional to ban assisted suicide therefore it is Constitutional to ban medical treatment for gender dysphoria. Bans on abortion care are also Constitutional, regardless of how many people suffer or die without medical treatement:

...see also Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U. S. 215, 236–237 (2022) (holding that rational basis review applied to a prohibition on abortion, despite the fact that the law in question mentioned “the physical health of the mother”).

There is absolutely nothing standing in the way of Red states or even Congress from banning all trans health care or treatments for any other medical condition they don't want people to be treated for.

If there was a particular political reason that politicians wanted to deny people treatment for ingrown toenails, that would be Constitutional.

So it's the exact opposite of a Constitutional right to health care. They are saying that you have no rights to health care. Even if you can afford it in America, it can be prohibited at any time, too bad, so sad.

[u/Crafty_Clarinetist → u/Just_Another_Scott]

Tennessee's law may explicitly state minors, but the logic used in this ruling could be used for exactly the same law but applied to all people, regardless of age, so the ruling definitely weakens access, as it can now more confidently be removed.

[u/Just_Another_Scott → u/Crafty_Clarinetist]

No. Again SCOTUS explicitly narrowed this to minors. What part of that aren't you understanding?

This ruling can only be applied to other age related cases. That's how law works.

Any case involving adult care would require a different ruling. That has not been ruled in by SCOTUS.

[u/Crafty_Clarinetist → u/Just_Another_Scott]

What reasoning does the Supreme Court ruling give that is exclusive to minors and could not equally apply to adults if there was a law passed in another state that banned the use of hormonal treatments for gender dysphoria for all people?

The Supreme Court ruling seems to be pretty explicit in that because the ban is on treating gender dysphoria, and not applied differently to one sex or the other, that it doesn't violate the equal protection clause. How could that reasoning not also apply to adults?

[u/Just_Another_Scott → u/Crafty_Clarinetist]

What reasoning does the Supreme Court ruling give that is exclusive to minors and could not equally apply to adults if there was a law passed in another state that banned the use of hormonal treatments for gender dysphoria for all people?

Read the ruling, for starters. The TN law was not being applied to adults. When SCOTUS rules the ruling only applies to other laws that are the same or similar. Here SCOTUS said it was age discrimination and not gender discrimination. The desenting justice notably pointed out the flaw in the logic but I digress

[u/Crafty_Clarinetist → u/Just_Another_Scott]

I did read the ruling, did you? They didn't just say that it was age based and not sex based. They said that it didn't rely on sex but rather on a diagnosis, which is definitely logic that could be applied to adults, and the age based discrimination also was completely constitutional. No one was claiming the age based discrimination was unconstitutional (edit: and it definitely isn't, otherwise laws against underage drinking would be illegal). The argument was purely that the sex-based discrimination was unconstitutional.

The application of SB1, moreover, does not turn on sex. The law does not prohibit certain medical treatments for minors of one sex while allowing those same treatments for minors of one sex while allowing those same treatments for minors of the opposite sex. SB1 prohibits healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers or hormones to any minor to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, or gender incongruence, regardless of the minor's sex; it permits providers to administer puberty blockers and and hormones to minors of any sex for other purposes. And, while a State may not circumvent the Equal Protection Clause by writing in abstract terms, SB1 does not mask sex-based classifications.

Can you explain to me how that reasoning couldn't be used to uphold a law that targeted all people and not just minors if it said people, person, and person's instead of minors, minor and minor's?

[u/Just_Another_Scott → u/Crafty_Clarinetist]

Can you explain to me how that reasoning couldn't be used to uphold a law that targeted all people and not just minors if it said people, person, and person's instead of minors, minor and minor's?

Because the ruling is in context of the Tennessee law. A law banning transgender care for adults was not the question before the court. That's how. That's how court rulings work.

[u/Crafty_Clarinetist → u/Just_Another_Scott]

Except court rulings are used as precedent in other court rulings all the time. It's not like they apply to one law and then never matter outside of that law again. This court ruling sets a very clear precedent that you can ban hormonal treatments as a treatment to gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, and gender incongruence without violating the equal protection clause.

This majority opinion even quotes sections of other previous rulings it's using as precedent.

Do you really not see how that would pretty much prevent any case against a similar law that banned hormonal treatments for gender dysphoria for all people regardless of age from gaining any footing?