U.S. Supreme Court upholds ban on gender-altering treatments for children

The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed a state law in Tennessee that bans the infliction of transgender procedures on minors.

The 6-3 ruling revealed a pointedly leftist trio on the court demanding the agenda of chemically and surgically altering children to accommodate what almost always is a temporary gender dysphoria.

The majority opinion, supported by the conservative members of the court, was written by Chief Justice John Roberts.

The ruling found the Tennessee law does not violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Regarding the state’s SB 1, Justices Clarence Thomas, Amy Coney Barrett, and Samuel Alito wrote concurring opinions, while Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Ketanji Jackson and Elena Kagan.

“We are asked to decide whether SB1 is subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. We hold it is not. SB1 does not classify on any bases that warrant heightened review,” Roberts found.

The ruling is significant, as there are about 20 other states that have similar laws preventing the infliction of body alterations and mutilations on minors.

The case revolved around the fact, according to the court, the “growing number of states restricting sex transition treatments for minors by enacting the Prohibition on Medical Procedures Performed on Minors Related to Sexual Identity.”

In Tennessee, SB1 “prohibits healthcare providers from prescribing, administering, or dispensing puberty blockers or hormones to any minor for the purpose of (1) enabling the minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s biological sex, or (2) treating purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s biological sex and asserted identity.”

“At the same time, SB1 permits a healthcare provider to administer puberty blockers or hormones to treat a minor’s congenital defect, precocious puberty, disease, or physical injury,” the court noted.

Three “transgender minors,” their parents, and a doctor challenged the law under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

A trial judge halted the law but the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed it to take effect, as the law “did not trigger heightened scrutiny and satisfied rational basis review.”

The ruling said SB1 “is not subject to heightened scrutiny because it does not classify on any bases that warrant heightened review.”

The law’s classifications are based on age and medical condition.

“Classifications based on age or medical use are subject to only rational basis review,” the court explained.

In fact, the plaintiffs claimed the classifications were based on sex, but they are not, the ruling said.

“The law does not prohibit certain medical 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 hormones to minors of any sex for other purposes,” the ruling said.

Also, the ruling said, “the court rejects the plaintiffs’ argument that, by design, SB1 enforces a government preference that people conform to expectations about their sex.”

The court said, “Tennessee determined that administering puberty blockers or hormones to minors to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, or gender incongruence carries risks, including irreversible sterility, increased risk of disease and illness, and adverse psychological consequences. The legislature found that minors lack the maturity to fully understand these consequences, that many individuals have expressed regret for undergoing such treatments as minors, and that the full effects of such treatments may not yet be known. At the same time, the State noted evidence that discordance between sex and gender can be resolved through less invasive approaches. SB1’s age- and diagnosis-based classifications are rationally related to these findings and the State’s objective of protecting minors’ health and welfare.”

“In today’s historic Supreme Court win, the common sense of Tennessee voters prevailed over judicial activism,” said Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti. “A bipartisan supermajority of Tennessee’s elected representatives carefully considered the evidence and voted to protect kids from irreversible decisions they cannot yet fully understand. I commend the Tennessee legislature and Governor Lee for their courage in passing this legislation and supporting our litigation despite withering opposition from the Biden administration, LGBT special interest groups, social justice activists, the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, and even Hollywood.”

Roberts wrote, “This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound. The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best. Our role is not ‘to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic’ of the law before us, but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.”

Leftists who brought the fight to create mandates for transgenderism, one of Joe Biden’s highest priorities while in office, included an official of Lambda Legal, who said, “This is a heartbreaking ruling, making it more difficult for transgender youth to escape the danger and trauma of being denied their ability to live and thrive.”

Sotomayor explained the basis for her claim it is sex discrimination, asserting in her dissent, the “law conditions the availability of medications on a patient’s sex. Male (but not female) adolescents can receive medicines that help them look like boys, and female (but not male) adolescents can receive medicines that help them look like girls.”