On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a Tennessee law that prohibits gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, a ruling that may significantly impact families nationwide.
A decisive 6-3 ruling empowers Tennessee, along with potentially over 20 other states, to implement bans on treatments like puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender youth.
Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, who stood firm in court to uphold the law, expressed his approval of the ruling.
“Evidence continues to come in showing that this is not an appropriate treatment for kids,” Skrmetti said, adding, “The real scandal is how we got to this point.”
Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley expressed his approval of the ruling.
“These are kids. They come in with often mental health issues, they’re feeling depressed, and doctors say, what needs to happen is a gender transition surgery,” Hawley said. “This is common sense.”
In a decisive ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts stated that the case upheld the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. He highlighted that the matter encompassed intricate scientific and policy discussions, which ought to be delegated to the states.
The decision faced severe backlash from Democrats.
“It’s an awful decision,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, (D-N.Y.). “The Supreme Court has forgotten that one of its jobs is to protect individual rights.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor expressed her dissent, stating that the court “abandons transgender children and their families to political whims,” labeling the decision as a failure of appropriate judicial scrutiny.
The American Civil Liberties Union, representing the impacted families, cautioned that the decision may compel thousands to abandon their home states in search of medical treatment elsewhere.
“It’s devastating for the people who are most affected,” said Chase Strangio, an attorney with the ACLU.
Leading medical organizations, such as the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, are against these prohibitions. Advocates assert that, when properly provided, gender-affirming care has the potential to save lives.
This decision represents a major blow to supporters of transgender rights, placing the direction of youth gender care policy under the control of state governments.
