By Katelynn Richardson
The Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s law banning child sex change procedures on Wednesday.
In a 6-3 ruling, the court held that Tennessee’s law does not violate the Equal Protection clause.
“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,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound. The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements.”
“Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process,” Roberts continued.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
“[The majority] also authorizes, without second thought, untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them,” Sotomayor wrote.
Sotomayor wrote that those searching for evidence of transgender discrimination “need look no further than the present,” referencing several policies implemented by the Trump administration. (RELATED: Supreme Court Allows Trump Admin To Enforce Transgender Military Ban)
“The Federal Government, for example, has started expelling transgender servicemembers from the military and threatening to withdraw funding from schools and nonprofits that espouse support for transgender individuals,” she wrote.
Tennessee passed its law, which restricts minors from receiving medical treatments intended to help them live as an identity “inconsistent” with their sex, in 2023. The Biden administration challenged the law as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) changed its position on the case in February but urged the Supreme Court to move forward with issuing a ruling.
Trump signed an executive order in January cutting federal funding for child sex changes, where he called the World Professional Association of Transgender Health (WPATH) “junk science” and banned federal agencies from citing its guidance. The Biden administration relied on WPATH standards in its briefs filed before the court.
Even a study by an advocate of child sex change procedures found they did not improve mental health.
Even the transgender lawyer who argued the case in the Supreme Court on behalf of those challenging the ban admitted that the treatments banned don’t reduce suicide. The ACLU’s Chase Strangio, conceded to the Supreme Court that “completed suicide is thankfully and admittedly rare” among transgender youth, even those not given gender-affirming treatment, and that “there is no evidence…that this treatment reduces completed suicide.”
Transgender treatments have significant side effects. A recent study shows 95% of young biological women on testosterone developed pelvic floor dysfunction. As the London Telegraph reports, “Around 87 per cent of the participants had urinary symptoms such as incontinence, frequent toilet visits and bed-wetting, while 74 per cent had bowel issues including constipation or being unable to hold stools or wind in. Some 53 per cent suffered from sexual dysfunction.”
As health and science reporter Benjamin Ryan notes, medical authorities in “UK, Sweden, Finland, and now Norway as well,” have recommended against “prescribing puberty blockers and hormones to trans-identifying minors.” Yet, in America, gender clinics are giving teenagers double mastectomies and other sex-change operations in many states. The Biden administration promoted puberty blockers, even though the FDA said puberty blockers can cause brain swelling and permanent vision loss.
[Liberty Unyielding Editor’s Note: None of the unpleasant realities about sex-change procedures prevented the Supreme Court’s progressive justices from claiming in their dissent that not giving minors sex-change treatments would cause “untold harm.” When reality conflicts with a judge’s ideology, it is reality that tends to be rejected, not the ideology. Judges tend to cling to their ideology even when it requires ignoring reality.]
