That issue has some merit but the opponents of the child transitioners can use that area of argument legally as well. Such as: Yo, Ketanji, how you feel about female genital mutilation on minors? No problem finding muslim parents with muslim doctors who agree that that is right for the child, eh? You can get back to me later.
Then can the state ban the use of ADHD medicines because they feel it harms the kids more than it helps? Can the state decide that a 14 year old girl needs to carry the baby full term because there is a no exception ban on abortions? Can the state ban weight loss surgery in obese kids or in a kid competing in a beauty paegant? This is not a transgender question as small frog wants it to be, it is how far can a state go to intercede in discussions between families and doctors for a procedure that is already approved and cleared (state is not interested in banning the procedure, just cutting off minros). Why not pass a law that ways no one under 15 can have it because the child should reach full puberty first and get examined by medical and psych professionals to have standards. That is why I said it seems way too broad because it cuts off any type of consultation or care for anyone under 18. The SC is not going to get in an appropriate age or anything like that or find the law unconstitutional because there is a right to it in the constitution (another ignorant retort from people here). The question is the state excessively overstepping their boundaries too broadly without a clear defined legitimate interest in a medical issue. Doesn't matter if it is transgender or ADHD medication or smallpox vaccines...
Problem is there is a medical justification for male circumcision despite what Usual claims: Reduced risk of urinary tract infections: Circumcision can slightly lower the risk of urinary tract infections in infants during their first year of life. Reduced risk of penile cancer: Circumcision can reduce the risk of penile cancer in adult men. Reduced risk of sexually transmitted infections: Circumcision can lower the risk of HIV and some other sexually transmitted infections (STIs). However, it's less effective against STIs that are common in the U.S., and the reduction in HIV risk is minimal. Prevention of penile problems: Circumcision can prevent foreskin infections and phimosis, a condition where the foreskin can't be pulled back. Easier hygiene: Circumcision can make hygiene easier. Female mutilation is a backward procedure meant to control a woman and her development with nothing but a fake religious belief to support it, there is no medical evidence or support for it. A muslim doctor agreeing to it is still doing i for archaic religious reasons and not actual defined medical reasons. THe procedure has no health benefits and is banned in the U.S.
I see. So the fact that the parents and the doctor agree that it should be done is not sufficient reason to do it. AGREED. Similarly, just because the parents and child's doctor believe a child should have their private parts cut off is not sufficient reason. It is properly subject to other reviews and societal laws to protect the young beyond what wackjob parents with wackjob doctors working social agendas want. It is properly within the review and jurisdiction of state legislatures. If you have arguments for why it should be allowed, then that is the place to go. And if you disagree with that, then fine, but get ready for the Court to tell you that is how it is going to be.
Dove into some of the legal clips of back and forth and knowing this SC looks like SC will basically leave the law in tact. That is not surprising. The question as is in many cases will the SC issue limiting language to ensure future state laws do not overstep bounds and limit this to application to a ban on minors. My fear with the SC is always a slippery slope of the next case thinking they can widen the scope of a decision. For me the Dobbs case has no relevance becasue Dobbs supports possibility of complete ban of a medical procedure while this is preventing it from happening to minors. One comparison that was brought up is that people under 18 cannot smoke or get tattoos so based on that the state can justify a legitimate interest to limit treatments to anyone over 18 who legally makes their own decision.
The age discrimination factor will be pivotal because well.....errrr... the court is responding to argument the government presented. Otherwise, it is MASSIVELY misguided to say that the "Dobbs case has no relevance." Massively The court clearly is signaling that it is having trouble finding constitutional language to support a right to this kind of medical procedure even beyond the age discrimination argument, and the government would have made that argument if it could have found one. This is same problem they ran into with Dobbs. Second, the conservative justices, just as in Dobbs, are repetitively stating and signaling that regardless of whether the medical procedure is deemed to be good, bad, or risky it is a matter for the legislature. Rather than "nine justices, none of whom is a doctor", as one of them stated. You think the disposition of the justices which was on full display in Dobbs has "no relevance" for a similar argument on trans even if applied to adults. Heh, now that you are reluctantly accepting that you are not going to prevail on the current case, you should start working on correcting your assessment for a future case involving adults. Hint: the court is going to decide that there is no constitutional right for adults but it is a matter for the legislatures. There is a sub-argument there as to whether both congress and state legislatures have jurisdiction but nevertheless it is a matter for legislative branches. I will agree that the current case does not decide the issue for adults because the court was not presented with that case. But the justices have clearly shown their disposition for the "constitutional right" versus "legislative decision" issue. So that will be Dobbs, and this case establishing their disposition. You think they are going to morph for adults? Ah, no.
talking to you is difficult sometimes...because your analysis is binary. WHAT I SAID.... since you dont read but hate me for anything I try to convey... is does the state have a legitimate interest taking a procedure that is legal and valid for adults and minors in other states and saying banned under 18. The law seemed to ban even consultations which is not a medical procedure. saying I will not prevail?....was I involved in this case? was I the plantiff? this is not about constitutional rights to a procedure...do you have a constitutional right to a dentist? an eye doctor? plastic surgery? No of course not. But legislatures cannot eliminate services or private arrangements without legitimate or reasonable basis....THAT is the constitutional right, not the actual medical procedure. The constitution prohibits legislatures from taking actions without due process or a legitimate interest. What they are regulating does not have to be a protected right in the constitution itself. This is the problem with people who never studied these issues. You can challenge a law because it restricts a constitutional right, because a state or agency is acting ultra vires, or has a law which is arbitrary or capricious. Dobbs is not the same because a different analysis was used. The Court overturned a case that said there was a right to privacyto protect abortion and SC didnt ban abortions, just said it is not a federal right protected so states can deal with it across the board. Dobbs did not ban abortions at all. This case deals directly with a ban in one state. put the transgender issue aside as I am discussing the legal issue alone. I dont give a shit about transgender or what a family wants to do unless they violate a law.
You recite the need of legislatures to have a valid basis for entering into the issue of whether minor children can be entered into actual transitioning -either via surgery or hormonally etc.- while is abundantly clear that states have an inerest in and intervene in an extremely wide range of less serious issues. Not sure what's up with the lecturette on legislatures needing to have a valid interest in injecting themselves on issue. I am quite sure that piece will not be a problem. As I said, look for the small signs in justices comments at court where the conservatives kept saying that it was a matter for the legislatures. To repeat myself, since you are repeating yourself, I agreed that the legal issues with Dobbs were different but do not agree with your statement "has no relevance." The disposition of the conversatives in the court in Dobbs is exactly the same as in the trans case. ie. the justices reiterate that the issue is appropriate for state legislatures. The fact that the underlying legal issues may vary is acknowledged but chances of a party prevailing depends on what the disposition and mindset of justices might be, and review of Dobbs tells you all you need to know. As with the abortion issue, it is just a cottage industry for abortion litigation, regardless of what the supreme court or a legislature does. You settle some basic point at court or with the legislation and another ten crop up like mushrooms after a rain. And so it will be on this trans stuff. So you can point out various hypotheticals or what-ifs that the court decision may or may not address in their decision or that some party might still litigate and I don't doubt that for a micro-second because it goes with the turf. But with Dobbs there was a basic decision that having acces to abortion is not a constitution right and that it was a matter and the degree to which it can be enabled or curtailed is matter for the legislature. And that is what will happen with the trans case too. As with the Dobbs case it is not clear whether Congress- as a legislature- also has jurisdiction. Plenty of people are acting as though it does although that is not clear to me and I don't think Dobbs made it clear. Some conservatives and some liberals too argue that Congress does not have jurisdiction because the court and constitution puts it back to the states. But both conservatives and lefties banter about having a national law legalizing aborition at some level or banning it at some level. I think that is still unclear constitutionally. And could be an issue with the trans case. Some conservatives of liberals might want a national law to settle it. Unclear. Whether that is a state's rights thing or a concurrent jurisdiction thing and all of that.
Anyone with a basic understanding of biology and common sense can recognize that artificially disrupting the body's natural hormonal processes—a state completely contrary to what is biologically normal—poses serious long-term health risks. This ban reflects a necessary step toward prioritizing the well-being of young people over hasty medical interventions that are driven entirely by political ideology rather than science. https://dailycaller.com/2024/12/11/uk-bans-puberty-blockers-minors/ ‘Unacceptable Safety Risk’: UK Bans Puberty Blockers For Minors The United Kingdom (UK) indefinitely banned the use of puberty-blocking drugs for minors Wednesday after recommendations from experts that warned of an “unacceptable safety risk.” The ban affects the sale and supply of the drugs to all citizens under 18 following an independent review by the Commission on Human Medicines, according to a press release from the British government. The ban will be reviewed in 2027. “The Commission on Human Medicines (CHM) has provided independent expert advice that there is currently an unacceptable safety risk in the continued prescription of puberty blockers to children,” the statement reads. “It recommends indefinite restrictions while work is done to ensure the safety of children and young people.”