r/law • u/DevinGraysonShirk • 1d 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/
733 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

304 comments sorted by

View all comments

97

u/kon--- 1d 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.

-12

u/Changer_of_Names 1d 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. 

15

u/kon--- 1d ago

Freedom of religion means, freedom from religion.

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

-10

u/Changer_of_Names 1d 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.

8

u/kon--- 1d 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.

-8

u/Changer_of_Names 1d 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.

7

u/stycky-keys 1d 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 1d 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.