In late June, U.S. District Judge Eli Richardson ruled against a Tennessee law that seeks to ban the mutilation of children in the name of “gender-affirming care.” Following the lead of several other judges around the country, the decision rested on the idea that not allowing doctors to medically “transition” minors was a violation of the equal protection clause within the Constitution.
Reuters reported the story, spinning it as one of a series of defeats against states that had sought to protect children from such procedures. The ACLU also took a victory lap in the aftermath while others bragged on social media.
In Tennessee, U.S. District Judge Eli Richardson said he was reticent to enjoin a law “enacted through a democratic process,” but noted that judges across the country have blocked similar laws based on the constitutional right to equal protection.
“The Court does not take providing such relief lightly. … If Tennessee wishes to regulate access to certain medical procedures, it must do so in a manner that does not infringe on the rights conferred by the United States Constitution,” Richardson wrote.
The way the press report this stuff never ceases to amaze me. We are quite literally talking about permanently mutilating children in order to affirm mental illness. Yet, those who are against that are framed as the bad guys. It really leaves you wondering if there’s anything that the far left won’t embrace. As crazy as modern transgender ideology is, there’s always something worse waiting around the corner.
But I digress, in a rare Saturday ruling, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has stepped in to silence all the left-wing celebration.
— John Masslon (@masslon) July 8, 2023
The law was originally set to go into effect on the first of July, but with only a week in the process lost, this represents a fairly quick turnaround in the legal world. It’s also a big win for sanity.
The idea that a state can’t regulate elective medical procedures that permanently scar children is laughable, and to be clear, hormone and puberty blockers do just that. By that logic, can a state also not ban a child from getting a tattoo? Or from getting their arms chopped off if they really feel like they should have no arms? Not all procedures, medical or otherwise, are created equal, and states have a long history of being able to place guardrails around what is allowed and what isn’t.
The equal protection argument makes no sense on its face, in my opinion, nor does the idea that a parent has an absolute right to push any supposed “treatment” on their child that they see fit. I understand there are libertarian concerns in any such argument, but children are a different issue. It’s still hard to grasp how we ended up here.
In the end, these laws are likely to make their way to the Supreme Court. It’s hopefully there that some more settled relief can be offered to states that are simply protecting children.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member