Right, you jumped in with legal analysis when the purpose of the post clearly was to caution the dems about the political implications - not the legal merits of the case. Did I not just explain that to you, again? The you complain about me not going into the legal merits, after I said that dems should not even no near the issue at midterms regardless of who will win the case. Sounds like you have a legal rap you want to do and are looking for a thread to go with it. I said the article I posted lays out the legal issues. I am satisfied to just let it play out.
I agree with NHS. There simply isn't enough data to deem it safe. From a common sense perspective, how in the hell could it be safe long term and not cause harm. I remember when lobotomies were deemed safe and effective. https://abcnews.go.com/Health/engla...blockers-transgender-youth/story?id=108077330 "We have concluded that there is not enough evidence to support the safety or clinical effectiveness of puberty suppressing hormones to make the treatment routinely available at this time," an NHS spokesperson told ABC News in a statement.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/12/...hold-tennessee-ban-on-youth-transgender-care/ Supreme Court appears ready to uphold Tennessee ban on youth transgender care
Well the decision comes out in June most likely. I still think the court will attempt to narrow the scope of the Tenn law as it is quite broad and overreaching
Im not so sure about this being as cut and dry as you make it. The medical science is not as cut and dry as diagnosis and pathway to treatment. Clinically transgenderism expresses itself as a dysphoria, which is a psychological condition. And I don’t say that insult or attack people who are transgender. I say that because a medical intervention that would alter the physical body is not common for psychological conditions. I’m thinking back to when we treated mental health issues with lobotomies. Just saying, the state may have the right to limit this type of treatment to consenting adults. However, I will say, conversely, the state does allow for the altering of children’s genitalia in the form of circumcision. That is also an elective procedure without much medical use.
You have made some reasonable statements in this post. Let us hope that you- like Fetterman- will continue to show recovery from your extensive previous lefty brain damage. Continue to reach out to us for help. Congratulations on your first steps.
But you never addressed the distinction that the state does not find the medical procedure illegal or unsafe....just wants to deny it to minors. Is there a legitimate interest where a state says the procedure is fine but not for 18 years or younger even if doctor, parents and patient are on board? My legal issue is whether the medical community is to decide or the state when it comes to consenting parents and child making this decision. Whatever our decision on this, I would find the state law better addressing this issue by requiring psych consults and additional opinions. The other issue is the legislative history includes ignorant comments from the legislators passing the bill which implies a specific bias rather than a medical legitimate interest. If it is clealry defined as dysphoria, then why is it allowed in 19 year olds and not in 18 year olds...this makes it seem arbitrary in its position without a further narrowing of the scope. A medical intervention is already accepted by the state, so texas needs a really strong interest in creating a prohibition in a class defined by age.
Maybe you and Kantanji Jackson and Sotomayor can get a room together. Other than that. This case is not going to go your way. In addition, even if one argues there is no irreparable harm or risk of such, that does not make a case for there being a constitutional right. It only makes the case that the state legislature gets to decide. Discrimination on the basis of age is permissible where there is a rational basis for it. And it does not get any more compelling than when irreversible harm to minors is involved. Ketanji Jackson replies to the argument about the risks by saying: "everything has risks, even aspirin." Cannot make this sh#t up. Alito starts asking the Justice Department lawyers about the study showing that kids did not benefit from the puberty blockers and are worse off. Then he asks why the court should accept their arguments when the European countries are all backing off based on negative findings and experience. Let's just say that did not go well for the government.
The state has a right to protect children from harm from their parents and dubious doctors. Like I said there is a history of psych doctors doing wild things to treat mental heath, ie electro-shock therapy, lobotomies, etc. Courts can certainly draw a bright line on what is appropriate for children vs what is appropriate for adults. Now, with a distinction being made in sports where puberty is the defining line of gender qualification, limiting treatment to post pubescent can harm future opportunities. That’s an argument but I doubt the SCOTUS will care. What I find compelling is we do allow for the altering of genitalia in the form of circumcision without anyone batting an eye. This has almost no medical value and causes harm to more kids than there are transgender people.