'Cruelty over care': Transgender care advocates blast Supreme Court
'Cruelty over care': Transgender care advocates blast Supreme Court
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Supreme Court will hear case about bans on gender-affirming care for minors
A case involving a law in Tennessee that restricts puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender minors will be heard by the Supreme Court.
Scripps News
Organizations and advocates for transgender youth blasted the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on June 18 that upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors.
Advocates said the high court's decision was a major blow to transgender rights and medical organizations that have endorsed gender-affirming care for minors.
The decision came about five years after the court ruled that transgender, gay and lesbian people are protected by a landmark civil rights law barring sex discrimination in the workplace.
In the Tennessee case, the high court said that preventing minors from using puberty blockers and hormone therapy does not violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
The Tennessee House Republican Caucus cheered the ruling as a "proud day for the Volunteer state and for all those who believe in protecting the innocence and well-being of America's children."
The Tennessee Equality Project, an advocacy group that fights anti-LGBTQ legislation, said in a statement that the organization was "profoundly disappointed" by the high court's decision. The decision further erodes the rights of transgender children, their families and doctors, the group said.
"Gender-affirming care is proven to save lives," the group's statement said. "Major medical associations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association, support gender-affirming medical and psychological care because it saves lives and improves mental well-being."
Kimberly Inez McGuire, executive director of Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity, said the Supreme Court chose "cruelty over care."
"This decision upholds a dangerous and deeply unjust law that strips families of their rights, criminalizes love and support and puts the lives of young people at risk," McGuire said in a statement.
The decision means transgender adolescents who live in states that restrict gender-affirming care could have difficulty accessing such care, said Lindsey Dawson, associate director for HIV policy and director for LGBTQ health policy at KFF, a health policy nonprofit.
Dawson said 25 states have gender-affirming care bans in effect, though only Arizona and New Hampshire ban gender-reassignment surgery. Some transgender youth who live in states restricting care such as puberty blockers or hormone therapy might choose visit states without such bans. However, that option wouldn't be an option for transgender youth and their families who lack the financial means to travel for care.
"If you are minor who needs access to this medically necessary care, you simply can't get it if you live in one of these states," Dawson said.
More details: Supreme Court to weigh key transgender care case: What's at stake for minors
Trump administration targets transgender care
The decision comes as President Donald Trump's administration has targeted other aspects of transgender care.
After taking office, Trump signed an executive order stating the U.S. would not "fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support" gender-affirming care.
In April, the federal agency that oversees Medicare and Medicaid told states not to use Medicaid funding to pay for gender-affirming care for minors.
Dr. Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, said the federal agency will stop paying for gender reassignment operations or hormone treatments for those under 18.
A 2023 study in the medical journal JAMA Network Open found gender-affirming surgeries were most popular with young adults.
More than 25,000 people ages 19 to 30 received these procedures from 2016 through 2019. Fewer than 8% of patients − a total of 3,678 − were 12- to 18-year-olds.
Contributing: Maureen Groppe,
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
an hour ago
Supreme Court rejects toy company's push for a quick decision on Trump's tariffs
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a push from an Illinois toy company asking for a quick decision on the legality of President Donald Trump's tariffs. Learning Resources Inc. wanted the justices to take up the case soon, rather than let it continue to play out in lower courts. The company argues the tariffs and uncertainty are having a 'massive impact' on businesses around the country and the issue needs swift attention from the nation's highest court. The justices didn't explain their reasoning in the brief order rebuffing the motion to fast-track the issue, but the Supreme Court is typically reluctant to take up cases before lower courts have decided. An appeals court is set to hear the case in late July. The company argues that the Republican president illegally imposed tariffs under an emergency powers law, bypassing Congress. It won an early victory in a lower court, but the order is on hold as an appeals court considers a similar ruling putting a broader block on Trump's tariffs. The appeals court has allowed Trump to continue collecting tariffs under the emergency powers law for now. The Trump administration has defended the tariffs by arguing that the emergency powers law gives the president the authority to regulate imports during national emergencies and that the country's longtime trade deficit qualifies as a national emergency.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Appeals panel scrutinizes judge's block on Trump National Guard deployment
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) got a frosty reception at a federal appeals court Tuesday afternoon as it scrutinized a lower judge's ruling blocking President Trump's federalization of the National Guard in Los Angeles. The three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit appeared inclined to let Trump maintain control of the guardsmen, weighing the scope of the president's discretion in times of conflict and whether the courts have the authority to intervene at all. The judges seemed to believe Supreme Court precedent provides the president with broad authority to declare emergencies that can trigger the ability for him to deploy the troops. 'Those are maybe good arguments for the Supreme Court to reconsider those cases,' Judge Eric Miller, one of Trump appointees on the panel, told California's lawyer. 'But they've told us repeatedly that when there is a case that is directly applicable to an issue, even if we think it's been undercut by later developments…we're supposed to follow the applicable case and leave it to them to overrule it,' Miller added. The judges repeatedly stressed an 1827 Supreme Court decision, Martin v. Mott, that gives the president exclusive authority to decide whether an exigency justifying the use of military power has arisen. Samuel Harbourt, California's attorney, insisted 'it was a very different case.' 'If we were writing on a blank slate, I would tend to agree with you,' Jennifer Sung, an appointee of former President Obama, told him. 'But the problem that I see for you is that Mott seem to be dealing with very similar phrasing about whenever there is an invasion, then the President has discretion, and it seemingly rejected the exact argument that you're making.' Judge Mark Bennett, the other Trump appointee, questioned whether the courts could intervene in the Los Angeles deployment even if there was some limited role for judicial review. 'With the facts here and the language in Martin v. Mott, how can that test be met here?' he asked. Trump deployed the National Guard over a week ago as protests erupted in Los Angeles over the administration's immigration raids, devolving at times into violence. He cited a statute that allows the guard to be federalized when there is a rebellion or when the president can't execute federal law with regular forces. Tuesday's arguments followed a district judge's order directing Trump to return control of California's National Guard to Newsom. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, an appointee of former President Clinton and the brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, called Trump's takeover illegal and said it exceeded the scope of the statute. The Justice Department appealed the ruling within minutes of its release, and the 9th Circuit panel granted the government's request to temporarily halt the ruling as its request for a longer pause is considered. Brett Shumate, who represented the government at Tuesday's arguments, said Breyer 'improperly second-guessed' Trump's judgment about the need to call up the guard, interfering with his commander-in-chief powers. 'It upends the military chain of command. It gives state governors veto power over the President's military orders. It puts article three judges on a collision course with the commander in chief. And it endangers lives,' Shumate said. California also argues that regardless of whether the triggering conditions were met, Trump did not follow the statute's mandate to issue his order 'through' the state's governor. California says that requires Newsom to consent, which he did not. But at least some of the judges appeared skeptical of that argument, too. 'It's a very roundabout way, I mean, of imposing a consultation requirement,' said Miller. The appeals court could now rule at any time. Before adjourning, the panel noted Breyer is moving quickly to a Friday hearing on whether to grant a longer injunction. His ruling would moot the current appeal. And if the administration loses, they asked for the deployment to remain intact until they have an opportunity to file an emergency appeal at the Supreme Court. Updated on June 18 at 5:58 a.m. EDT Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Boston Globe
5 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Israeli Consulate in Downtown Boston targeted with antisemitic flyers
'The Consulate General of Israel to New England is aware of and closely monitoring a disturbing incident in which inflammatory flyers — containing the names and personal details of Consulate employees — were distributed in the City of Boston,' the statement said. 'The Consulate strongly condemns this shameful and dangerous act.' Advertisement Officials from the Consulate, which is based in Downtown Boston, immediately notified city and state law enforcement, according to the statement issued Wednesday. A spokesperson for Massachusetts State Police said the agency's Hate Crimes Awareness and Response Team, as well as the Commonwealth Fusion Center, which collects and analyzes information related to terrorism, 'are aware of the matter and continue to monitor for threats to the Consulate.' 'Boston, Newton, and Brookline Police as well as the Boston Regional Intelligence Center have primary jurisdiction in this matter,' the state police spokesperson said in an email Friday night. Boston police could not be reached for comment. The Anti-Defamation League New England condemned the 'deeply troubling' incident in a social media post. 'The distribution of photos and personal details of Israeli Consulate staff on flyers encouraging individuals to 'tell them to leave Boston' is nothing short of dangerous and must be called out,' the post on X said. Advertisement Consul General Benjamin Sharoni was among those targeted by the flyers. 'When someone comes to your doorstep, puts up posters with your photo and personal information, and seeks to mobilize others to create a hostile environment around you— it is bullying, it is an intimidation, and a call to hostile action,' Sharoni said in the consulate's statement. Consulate officials said 'this deplorable act is especially concerning in light of recent horrific incidents where anti-Israel incitement has escalated into antisemitism, hate crimes, and acts of violence and terror, including right here in our region,' according to the statement. In Brookline, In Washington, D.C. last month, two Israeli embassy staffers The New England consulate's statement thanked local law enforcement for 'their swift response and continued cooperation, as well as their commitment to deepening security efforts around this matter.' 'We are certain that every effort will be made to ensure the safety and security of our team, our work, and other diplomatic missions operating in the City,' consulate's statement said. The statement also sought to make a firm stand. 'Any attempt to intimidate or disrupt our work will be met with firm resolve and our unwavering commitment to continue serving and further strengthening the bilateral relationship between Israel and this region,' the consulate's statement said. Advertisement The ADL echoed sentiments expressed by consulate officials about the timing of the distribution of the flyers. 'It is deeply troubling in the current climate, where anti-Israel incitement has directly led to the brutal murder of two Israeli embassy staff members in DC,' the ADL's post said. The distribution of photos and personal details of Israeli Consulate staff on flyers encouraging individuals to 'tell them to leave Boston' is nothing short of dangerous and must be called out. It is deeply troubling in the current climate, where anti-Israel incitement has… — ADL New England (@ADL_NewEngland) After Sunday's incident at The Butcherie near Coolidge Corner, Governor Maura Healey addressed the attack on social media, saying it was concerning and unacceptable. 'Acts of violence and intimidation have no place in our communities,' Healey's statement said. 'We stand with our Jewish neighbors against antisemitism. Everyone deserves to live, pray and do business without fear in Massachusetts.' Brookline Police Chief Jennifer Paster denounced the 'hateful' attack. 'This was not simply an act of property damage, and it is not simply vandalism,' Paster said in a statement Sunday. 'There is no doubt that this crime was a targeted, hateful message meant to intimidate a Jewish-owned business and our broader Jewish community.' Paster said a preliminary investigation found that two masked individuals walked to The Butcherie from Coolidge Street and returned in that same direction after throwing the brick through a window displaying a map of Israel. In April, the ADL reported that antisemitic incidents continued to occur at record numbers in New England last year. That followed a The ADL, which began tracking antisemitic activity in 1979, said 2024 marked the fifth year in a row that such incidents increased and broke the previous record for the region. Advertisement The group said New England has seen a 213-percent increase in antisemitic incidents since 2022. The Algemeiner Journal, a New York-based newspaper, Tonya Alanez can be reached at
