logo
#

Latest news with #SenateBill1

Supreme Court upholds child sex change ban in Tennessee
Supreme Court upholds child sex change ban in Tennessee

American Military News

timea day ago

  • Health
  • American Military News

Supreme Court upholds child sex change ban in Tennessee

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee law on Wednesday that bans sex changes for minors in the state, ruling that the prohibition on 'certain medical treatments for transgender minors' is not discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment. In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court said, 'Tennessee's law prohibiting certain medical treatments for transgender minors is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and satisfies rational basis review.' According to Fox News, the case, 'United States v. Skrmetti,' was originally brought against Tennessee's Senate Bill 1, which bans 'all medical treatments intended to allow 'a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor's sex' or to treat 'purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor's sex and asserted identity.'' Tennessee's Senate Bill 1 prevents healthcare providers from performing sex change procedures for minors with gender dysphoria and from using hormone and puberty blocker treatments to allow minors to transition to a different sex. READ MORE: Supreme Court allows AR-15, high-capacity magazine bans to continue In the Supreme Court's majority opinion on Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, '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. The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound.' 'The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best,' Roberts added. 'Our role is not 'to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic' of the law before us, Beach Communications, 508 U. S., at 313, but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.' Following the Supreme Court's ruling on Wednesday, conservative political commentator Matt Walsh released a statement saying that he was 'grateful' to be a part of a 'truly historic victory' after years of fighting against child sex change procedures. 'Three years ago, we launched our investigation into Vanderbilt's child mutilation practices. We rallied in the state capital. Our lawmakers responded with a law banning child mutilation in the state,' Walsh tweeted. 'Today the Supreme Court upheld our law, which means child mutilation can be banned anywhere and everywhere in the country. And should be.'

U.S. Supreme Court upholds Tennessee ban on gender-affirming care for minors
U.S. Supreme Court upholds Tennessee ban on gender-affirming care for minors

Yahoo

timea day ago

  • Health
  • Yahoo

U.S. Supreme Court upholds Tennessee ban on gender-affirming care for minors

Demonstrators outside the U.S. Supreme Court in December, when justices heard arguments in a case about Tennessee ban on gender-affirming care for minors. The court upheld the law Wednesday. (Photo by) The U.S. Supreme Court, in a potential landmark decision, upheld Tennessee's law prohibiting gender-affirming care for minors, saying children who seek the treatment don't qualify as a protected class. In United States v. Skrmetti, the high court ruled 6-3 Wednesday to overturn a lower court's finding that the restrictions violate the constitutional rights of children seeking puberty blockers and hormones to treat gender dysphoria. The U.S. Court of Appeals overturned the district court's decision and sent it to the high court. The court's three liberal justices dissented, writing that the court had abandoned transgender children and their families to 'political whims.' Tennessee lawmakers passed the legislation in 2023, leading to a lawsuit argued before the Supreme Court last December. The federal government, under the Biden administration, took up the case for the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and three transgender teens, their families and a Memphis doctor who challenged the law, but the Department of Justice under President Donald Trump dropped its opposition. In its ruling, the court said that the plaintiffs argued that Senate Bill 1 'warrants heightened scrutiny because it relies on sex-based classifications.' But the court found that neither of the classifications considered, those based on age and medical use, are determined on sex. 'Rather, SB1 prohibits healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers or hormones to minors for certain medical uses, regardless of a minor's sex,' the ruling states. The ruling says the application of the law 'does not turn on sex,' either, because it doesn't prohibit certain medical treatments for minors of one sex while allowing it for minors of the opposite sex. In Pride month, transgender Marylanders reflect on strengths, weaknesses, of state protections Tennessee's House Republican Caucus issued a statement calling it 'a proud day for the Volunteer State and for all who believe in protecting the innocence and well-being of America's children.' Tennessee Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson, who sponsored the bill, said he is grateful the court ruled that states hold the authority to protect children from 'irreversible medical procedures.' 'The simple message the Supreme Court has sent the world is 'enough is enough,'' Johnson said in a statement. The Tennessee Equality Project, an LGBTQ advocacy group, expressed dismay at the decision. 'We are profoundly disappointed by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to side with the Tennessee legislature's anti-transgender ideology and further erode the rights of transgender children and their families and doctors,' the group said in a statement. 'We are grateful to the plaintiffs, families, and the ACLU for fighting on behalf of more than 1.3 million transgender adults and 300,000 youth across the nation.' The group said gender-affirming care saves lives and is supported by medical groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association. The court also rejected plaintiffs' argument that the law enforces 'a government preference that people conform to expectations about their sex.' The court found that laws that classify people on the basis of sex require closer scrutiny if they involve 'impermissible stereotypes.' But if the law's classifications aren't covertly or overtly based on sex, heightened review by the court isn't required unless the law is motivated by 'invidious discriminatory purpose.' 'And regardless, the statutory findings on which SB1 is premised do not themselves evince sex-based stereotyping,' the ruling says. In response to the outcome, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said Tennessee voters' common sense won over 'judicial activism' on a law spurred by an increase in treatment for transgender children. 'I commend the Tennessee legislature and Governor [Bill] Lee for their courage in passing this legislation and supporting our litigation despite withering opposition from the Biden administration, LGBT special interest groups, social justice activists, the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, and even Hollywood,' Skrmetti said. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., criticized the ruling just moments after it came out when asked about it during a press conference. 'This Supreme Court seems to have forgotten that one of their jobs is to protect individual rights and protect individuals from being discriminated against,' Schumer said. 'It's an awful decision.' Democrats, he said, are 'going to explore every solution,' though he didn't elaborate. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the opinion that the 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.' 'The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound. The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best,' Roberts wrote. 'Our role is not 'to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic' of the law before us, but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process,' he wrote. The ACLU said in a statement the decision is based on the record and context of the Tennessee case and doesn't extend to other cases involving transgender status and discrimination. Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU's LGBTQ & HIV Project, called the ruling 'devastating,' but despite the setback said transgender people still have healthcare options. 'The court left undisturbed Supreme Court and lower court precedent that other examples of discrimination against transgender people are unlawful,' Strangio said in a statement. – This article first appeared in the Tennessee Lookout, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Tennessee Lookout maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Holly McCall for questions: info@

U.S. Supreme Court upholds Tennessee prohibition on gender affirming care for minors
U.S. Supreme Court upholds Tennessee prohibition on gender affirming care for minors

Yahoo

timea day ago

  • Health
  • Yahoo

U.S. Supreme Court upholds Tennessee prohibition on gender affirming care for minors

Demonstrators outside the U.S. Supreme Court as justices hear arguments in a case about Tennessee's law banning gender-affirming care for minors on Dec. 4, 2024, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by) The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's law prohibiting gender affirming care for minors, saying children who seek the treatment don't qualify as a protected class. In United States v. Skrmetti, the high court issued a 6-3 ruling Wednesday overturning a lower court's finding that the restrictions violate the constitutional rights of children seeking puberty blockers and hormones to treat gender dysphoria. The U.S. Court of Appeals overturned the district court's decision and sent it to the high court. The court's three liberal justices dissented, writing that the court had abandoned transgender children and their families to 'political whims.' Tennessee lawmakers passed the legislation in 2023, leading to a lawsuit argued before the Supreme Court last December. The federal government, under the Biden administration, took up the case for the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and three transgender teens, their families and a Memphis doctor who challenged the law, but the U.S. Department of Justice under President Donald Trump dropped its opposition. In its ruling, the court said that the plaintiffs argued that Senate Bill 1 'warrants heightened scrutiny because it relies on sex-based classifications.' But the court found that neither of the classifications considered, those based on age and medical use, are determined on sex. 'Rather, SB1 prohibits healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers or hormones to minors for certain medical uses, regardless of a minor's sex,' the ruling states. The ruling says the application of the law 'does not turn on sex,' either, because it doesn't prohibit certain medical treatments for minors of one sex while allowing it for minors of the opposite sex. The House Republican Caucus issued a statement saying, 'This is a proud day for the Volunteer State and for all who believe in protecting the innocence and well-being of America's children.' Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson, who sponsored the bill, said he is grateful the court ruled that states hold the authority to protect children from 'irreversible medical procedures.' 'The simple message the Supreme Court has sent the world is 'enough is enough,'' Johnson said in a statement. The Tennessee Equality Project, an LGBTQ advocacy group, expressed dismay at the decision: 'We are profoundly disappointed by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to side with the Tennessee legislature's anti-transgender ideology and further erode the rights of transgender children and their families and doctors. We are grateful to the plaintiffs, families, and the ACLU for fighting on behalf of more than 1.3 million transgender adults and 300,000 youth across the nation.' The group said gender-affirming care saves lives and is supported by medical groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association. The court also rejected plaintiffs' argument that the law enforces 'a government preference that people conform to expectations about their sex.' The court found that laws that classify people on the basis of sex require closer scrutiny if they involve 'impermissible stereotypes.' But if the law's classifications aren't covertly or overtly based on sex, heightened review by the court isn't required unless the law is motivated by 'invidious discriminatory purpose.' 'And regardless, the statutory findings on which SB1 is premised do not themselves evince sex-based stereotyping,' the ruling says. In response to the outcome, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said Tennessee voters' common sense won over 'judicial activism' on a law spurred by an increase in treatment for transgender children. 'I commend the Tennessee legislature and Governor Lee for their courage in passing this legislation and supporting our litigation despite withering opposition from the Biden administration, LGBT special interest groups, social justice activists, the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, and even Hollywood,' Skrmetti said. U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., criticized the ruling just moments after it came out after being asked about it during a press conference. 'This Supreme Court seems to have forgotten that one of their jobs is to protect individual rights and protect individuals from being discriminated against,' Schumer said. 'It's an awful decision.' Democrats, he said, are 'going to explore every solution,' though he didn't elaborate. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the opinion: '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. The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound. The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best. Our role is not 'to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic' of the law before us, but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.' The ACLU said in a statement the decision is based on the record and context of the Tennessee case and doesn't extend to other cases involving transgender status and discrimination. Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU's LGBTQ & HIV Project, called the ruling 'devastating,' but despite the setback said transgender people still have healthcare options. 'The court left undisturbed Supreme Court and lower court precedent that other examples of discrimination against transgender people are unlawful,' Strangio said in a statement. Tennessee Lookout is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Tennessee Lookout maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Holly McCall for questions: info@ SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

'We won': Social media erupts over SCOTUS ruling dealing 'fatal blow' to transgender surgeries on minors
'We won': Social media erupts over SCOTUS ruling dealing 'fatal blow' to transgender surgeries on minors

Fox News

time2 days ago

  • Politics
  • Fox News

'We won': Social media erupts over SCOTUS ruling dealing 'fatal blow' to transgender surgeries on minors

Conservatives on social media rejoiced on social media Wednesday after the Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-transition treatments for adolescents. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Tennessee's Senate Bill 1, which "prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow 'a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor's sex' or to treat 'purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor's sex and asserted identity,'" does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Conservatives on social media, who viewed the ruling as a win for parents' rights, quickly praised the court ruling. "A huge victory," conservative commentator Matt Walsh posted on X. "A fatal blow to the child mutilation industry. We won." "A massive win for sanity," Townhall columnist Dustin Grage posted on X. "This is a massive!" Conservative commentator Charlie Kirk posted on X. "A wonderful victory for decency, common sense, and our kids Now we need a nationwide ban! Onward." "Awesome news!" GOP Rep. Riley Moore posted on X. "States absolutely can and should be able to protect children from chemical or surgical castration." "This is a massive victory for common sense and the safety of our youth," American Principles Project posted on X. "No more irreversible harm in the name of ideology!" "WE NEED A NATIONWIDE BAN ON TRANSGENDER SURGERIES AND HORMONE DRUGS FOR MINORS," conservative influencer account LibsofTikTok posted on X. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said that the law in question is not subject to heightened scrutiny "because it does not classify on any bases that warrant heightened review." All three liberal justices notably dissented in the case. That law in question prohibits states from allowing medical providers to deliver puberty blockers and hormones to facilitate a minor's transition to another sex. It also targets healthcare providers in the state who continue to provide such procedures to gender-dysphoric minors — opening these providers up to fines, lawsuits and other liability.

How Supreme Court Trans Health Care Ruling Will Affect Kids
How Supreme Court Trans Health Care Ruling Will Affect Kids

Scientific American

time2 days ago

  • Health
  • Scientific American

How Supreme Court Trans Health Care Ruling Will Affect Kids

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors in the case US v. Skrmetti. In a 6–3 decision by the conservative supermajority, the court ruled that the state law, called Senate Bill 1 (SB1), does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution by discriminating on the basis of sex—despite the fact that the law forbids certain medical treatments for young people based on their assigned sex at birth. Why This Matters The ruling is a major blow to transgender Americans' rights and protections, which have been under attack at the state and federal level. The challenge to Tennessee's SB1 had been brought by three transgender adolescents, their families and a doctor. 'This might seem like a small issue to others but it affects my whole world,' wrote one of the plaintiffs, a then 12-year-old transgender boy, in a declaration submitted to the district court. 'I've gone through a lot to finally get to the happy, healthy place where I am and I desperately hope that doesn't all get taken away from me.' On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. For anyone under the age of 18, SB1 banned medical treatments that aim to alleviate the symptoms of gender dysphoria—a feeling of misalignment between someone's perceived gender and their assigned sex at birth. The law bans gender-affirming medical treatments, including puberty-blocking drugs and hormone therapies. There's no evidence of serious negative effects of these medications, though long-term use of puberty blockers may limit the buildup of bone mineral density. Such medications have also long been used by nontransgender adolescents and children to treat a variety of conditions. Their use for gender dysphoria is currently supported by the American Medical Association, the American Association of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association and other important medical institutions. Research has shown that young people who experience gender dysphoria are at a high risk of depression and suicide. Those who receive care have better mental health outcomes, including decreased suicidal ideation, multiple studies have found. In contrast, between 2018 and 2022, when states enacted antitransgender laws, suicide attempts among transgender young people increased by as much as 72 percent. In the U.K., a ban on puberty blockers for transgender youth led to a sharp decline in mental health among this group, including increased depression, social isolation, and suicidal ideation, a recent study found. The Decision In the Supreme Court's majority decision, Chief Justice John Roberts pointed to 'fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety' of the treatments. Many of those debates have largely been political, not scientific, however. The Court was tasked with deciding whether the law constituted sex discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause and should thus be subject to a higher level of judicial scrutiny. Plaintiffs argued that SB1 prohibits established medical treatments for some people and allows them for others based on individuals' assigned sex at birth. For example, in Tennessee, a teenager who had been assigned female at birth could not receive testosterone therapy, but a teenager who had been assigned male at birth could. 'The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements,' Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. 'Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best. Our role is not 'to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic' of the law before us ... but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.' In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, 'Tennessee's law expressly classifies on the basis of sex and transgender status.... The majority contorts logic and precedent to say otherwise, inexplicably declaring it must uphold Tennessee's categorical ban on lifesaving medical treatment.... By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent.' What the Experts Say The Court's decision means that Tennessee's SB1 and any similar state laws do not merit heightened scrutiny from the judicial system to ensure they are appropriate. 'This is unfortunate because the evidence base regarding gender-affirming care is overwhelming supportive of access to the care,' says Elana Redfield, a LGBTQ+ policy expert at the Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles. 'However, the legislature disregarded this evidence and relied instead on misinformation and conjecture when it passed the law—and, one can argue, bias against transgender people.' Redfield notes that the case's outcome doesn't prevent states from passing laws to protect access to gender-affirming care—as 14 states and Washington, D. C., have chosen to do. She adds that the ruling also does not prevent future challenges to antitransgender laws from being brought before the Court on different grounds. Lawrence Gostin, co-faculty director of the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University Law Center, has decried the Court's decision. 'It's jaw-dropping to see a majority of Supreme Court justices turn a blind eye while transgender minors are flatly denied access to health services in consultation with their doctors,' Gostin said in a recent press release. 'The Court is greenlighting red state laws that will deeply affect the lives of marginalized and victimized people seeking healthcare, social acceptance, and dignity. This decision paves the way for additional restrictions on other essential but politically fraught services, notably within sexual and reproductive health.' Last December Scientific American spoke with health policy experts about what was at stake in the US v. Skrmetti case. In January a study of 315 trans youth found that they had better emotional health after taking hormones. See our answers to the questions ' What Are Puberty Blockers, and How Do They Work? ' Explore ' What the Science on Gender-Affirming Care for Transgender Kids Really Shows.' IF YOU NEED HELP If you or someone you know is struggling or having thoughts of suicide, help is available. Call or text the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline at 988 or use the online .

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store