this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2024
119 points (98.4% liked)

News

23638 readers
2981 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

The Supreme Court appeared likely to uphold Tennessee's 2023 ban on gender-affirming care for minors, citing concerns about evolving medical research and deferring to state lawmakers.

The Biden administration and families argue the law discriminates based on sex and transgender status, violating the Equal Protection Clause. Conservative justices, however, questioned federal intervention in state policies.

The case focuses on whether Tennessee’s law should face heightened judicial scrutiny. A ruling could affect similar bans in 24 states.

A decision, expected by June, will shape the legal landscape for transgender rights and medical care nationwide.

all 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 39 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Why do all the "government overreach" republicans seem to scurry into the woodwork whenever the government interferes with doctors and their patients?

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It's the mental gymnastics they pull. Fed bad, states good. If the federal government has too much power, the US could turn into a dictatorship. So let's strip the fed of all power and enable the states to become dictatorships.

[–] JaymesRS 9 points 2 weeks ago

City government is better than state government is better than federal government until they do something republicans don’t like than larger entities should stop them.

[–] AnarchoSnowPlow@midwest.social 5 points 2 weeks ago

They've spent so long just saying that the government is terrible and useless. They've finally scraped together enough power that they're proving it.

In fact! We should thank them for showing us that government can be worse than useless, it can be actively malicious!

[–] neuracnu@lemmy.blahaj.zone 34 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I listened to the oral arguments on U.S. v. Skrmetti this morning.

I couldn't express how deeply disappointed I was when Justice Kavanaugh verbally fretted about the "risks" of unintended outcomes as a result of the court's ruling (either way) and the petitioners didn't drill deeply into that concern.

If the court strikes down Tennessee's SB1 law banning gender affirming care for children, there is a risk that a child could receive puberty blockers and later regret it... AFTER specifically requesting it... AFTER getting the consent of their parents... AFTER receiving psychological assessments to ensure that they're aware of the risks and effects... and AFTER finding a medical doctor or endocrinologist willing to prescribe the medication.

If the court upholds the Tennessee law, there is a risk that EVERY child seeking gender affirming care in the state will be prevented from doing so, categorically, with ZERO recourse, regardless of their own wishes, the wishes of their parents, medical care team, and disregards the preponderance of non-biased research on the matter (the Cass Report doesn't count, and the author even argues FOR puberty blockers) that points to overwhelming positive medical outcomes.

These degrees of risk are NOWHERE CLOSE to being equivalent and it's ridiculous to have allowed that reasoning to slide by unaddressed.

[–] rc__buggy@sh.itjust.works 14 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

if there's strong, forceful, scientific policy arguments on both sides
--Bret "I like beer" Kavanaugh

Is there any scientific "policy argument" (even leaving alone strong and forceful) that says gender affirming care is incorrect?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

What I'm wondering is what a child with precocious puberty is going to do in Tennessee. Are we going to see 5-year-old girls with breasts and 8-year-old boys with beards in Memphis?

[–] neuracnu@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 2 weeks ago

To be fair, SB1 addresses medical function. Kids would be allowed to receive puberty blockers to address medical diagnosis of precocious puberty, but not to address gender dysphoria. The foundation of the state's argument is that precocious puberty is a legitimate medical condition and gender dysphoria (which they repeatedly and dismissively refer to as "psychological stress") is not.

Never mind that neither lawmakers or "the democratic process" is qualified to, or should be in the business of, determining what is and is not a legitimate medical condition.

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago

Clearly this deals with issues of discrimination, of privacy, of autonomy that have been laid out in dozens of previous SCOTUS decisions.

Unfortunately I suspect that the right wing majority will decide this on their own policy preferences and their own bigotry - just like they did in Dobbs.

[–] PoopSpiderman@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

Bigots gonna bigot..?

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

The Supreme Court appeared likely to uphold Tennessee's 2023 ban on gender-affirming care for minors

In other news, the sun appeared likely to appear in the east tomorrow morning.