Supreme Court rules in favor of Tennessee law banning puberty blockers and hormones for transgender children.

 

The Supreme Court. Fox News/AFP/Getty.

The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a Tennessee law banning puberty blockers and hormones for transgender children. Fox News. The question of law at hand in the case, United States v. Skrmetti, violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. The court found that it did not as the government had a obvious interest in regulating medical activity and had a vested interest in protecting children. The plaintiffs had argued that the law was discriminating based on transgenderism, but the court held that the law was based on age and medical purpose, which allowed them to judge it on the "rational basis" standard. The case was decided 6-3 with all three liberal justices dissenting. The majority wrote that states should write their own laws on this issue and it will open the door to other bans on allowing transgender children to transition medically. 

My Comment:

I believe this is the right decision, both morally and under the law. Morally, I think these treatments are an abomination. Puberty blockers are horrifying due to the massive side effects and damage they cause to a body. Humans are meant to go through puberty, even if they are uncomfortable with it, but even if that wasn't the case, these drugs are very dangerous. They cause issues with bones and can prevent sexual function entirely. Hormone treatments appear to be even worse given the changes aren't at all reversable while some of the effects of puberty blockers are. Even if I had zero problems with children socially transitioning I'd still be opposed to these treatments, just based on the side effects. 

There is also the argument that most children that claim to be transgender are going through a phase and most desist on their own. Given that there are a lot of folks end up giving up on being transgender even after these youth treatments, it would be diabolical to allow young children who don't really know what they want to permanently medically change their bodies. The counterargument is that puberty is irreversible and it's "harder" to transition afterwards, but even if that was true it would not be fair to damage a confused child, because of what might happen after they are an adult. Regardless, I don't believe that children are competent enough to make these kinds of medical decisions on their own, especially if they are under the influence of activist parents. It's much better to have them wait until they are 18 as they will both be more able to accurately judge the pros and cons of a medical transition, but they will also be more free from the influence of their parents and schools, who may not have their best interests at heart. 

Regardless, though, the issue in the case wasn't if these treatments are a good idea or not, but if banning them was discriminatory. The court found that it was not, and I agree with them. Instead of banning on a protected class, which Transgenderism apparently gives you, it was based on age. It's not any different than preventing a homosexual person having sex with someone underage, we have to do it to protect children. That's not discrimination as the goal isn't the hurt the homosexual person but to protect the child, and it's the same argument here. 

The case law will be used to support further laws restricting the practice of medically transitioning children. Those laws are good laws for the reasons I mentioned above, I don't believe these treatments are good for children and now the case law is that it isn't discrimination. It's possible that someone could craft a law somewhere that would not fall under the rational basis standard, but I struggle to see what that is as long as it only targets medical transition for children.

What the case law doesn't prevent is transgender treatments for adults. Though I would be opposed to most, but not all of them, I do wonder if a similar law would survive SCOTUS review if it banned adult treatments. My guess is that it would not as simply banning these procedures, most notably surgery, would probably cross the line into discrimination. 

Either way though, I do think this is another example of the T portion of LGBT taking a major loss. It's very clear that the tide has gone against them, and this issue was a major component of it. Folks just aren't comfortable with minors having medically questionable, at best, treatments that aren't really reversable and can cause a lot of damage.