The law has been on hold since 2021, but, after June's Supreme Court ruling addressing a similar Tennessee law, the Eighth Circuit upheld Arkansas's law.
I find the heart of the (if I can stretch the term far enough) logic here to lie in the statement "two parallel currents in this Nation’s history and tradition—first, states can prohibit medical treatments for adults and children, and second, parents cannot automatically exempt their children from regulations."
Re the first, medical treatments have been banned when they have been shown to be dangerous and useless, that is, harmful to public health. But is there a "history and tradition" of banning medical treatments without regard to, indeed in defiance of, their research-backed and observationally-demonstrated benefits? Of randomly banning them based on ideology, not science or medicine, justifying it because it wasn't "solely" driven by hatred? If there is, the court doesn't point to any evidence of it - because it can't.
Re the second, we should all write that down. I imagine it won't be a week before some other case invokes "parental rights" in pursuit of some reactionary agenda about book banning or school subjects or inoculations or whatever; invoked, that is, to "automatically exempt their children from regulations" applicable to others, at which point such "history and tradition" will prove to be extremely flexible.
Abortion has long been shown by research to be safe - much safer than childbirth, in fact - but I'm not sure about how much research has been done on benefits of abortion. Which would differentiate it from GAC.
But no matter. I can even concede the point because all it does is add an exclamation point to bans on health care driven by ideology rather than fact.
This is good news and will spare some kids from making medical decisions whose ramifications they can't fully appreciate. The care will still be available once they reach adulthood.
"The care will still be available once they reach adulthood."
The powerful people behind gender affirming care bans for minors have admited they want to ban care for adults as well. This is their starting point not their end point.
Rep. Gary Click has become a central architect of the anti-transgender legislative movement. In 2024, he authored House Bill 68, which not only banned gender-affirming care for trans youth but also barred transgender athletes from competing in sports—legislation that triggered a political standoff with Republican Gov. Mike DeWine. When DeWine vetoed the bill, Click rallied GOP lawmakers to override the decision and enact it into law. Not long after, in a strategy call with state legislators across the country, Click laid out the long-term Republican agenda: ending gender-affirming care for everyone. When one lawmaker asked how to achieve the “endgame” of banning such care even for adults, Click replied, “We have to take one bite at a time, do it incrementally.
'Our minds are made up, our higher court has spoken, do not confuse us with complex essential questions that may have been effectively debated in the lower court.'
"To shield public employees from personal injury lawsuits for job-related damages, the courts have overstepped, effectively barring public access to vital federal court functions. These functions include asserting rights and identifying constitutional mandates that the government has exceeded, and at the very least, assigning fault for whoever may ask the court to do so."
Goodbye reasonableness and medical science … hello eugenics.
All science has been declared as fraudulent and only misinformation can be considered truthful. Welcome to Wonderland!
This will kill kids. No doubt. These people are simply evil—banal or baroque: evil.
The party of personal freedom, folks.
Cruel, vile and flat out evil.
I find the heart of the (if I can stretch the term far enough) logic here to lie in the statement "two parallel currents in this Nation’s history and tradition—first, states can prohibit medical treatments for adults and children, and second, parents cannot automatically exempt their children from regulations."
Re the first, medical treatments have been banned when they have been shown to be dangerous and useless, that is, harmful to public health. But is there a "history and tradition" of banning medical treatments without regard to, indeed in defiance of, their research-backed and observationally-demonstrated benefits? Of randomly banning them based on ideology, not science or medicine, justifying it because it wasn't "solely" driven by hatred? If there is, the court doesn't point to any evidence of it - because it can't.
Re the second, we should all write that down. I imagine it won't be a week before some other case invokes "parental rights" in pursuit of some reactionary agenda about book banning or school subjects or inoculations or whatever; invoked, that is, to "automatically exempt their children from regulations" applicable to others, at which point such "history and tradition" will prove to be extremely flexible.
Seems to me abortion has been banned in the way you describe, minus the mind-boggling bit about the ban not being driven solely by hatred.
Abortion has long been shown by research to be safe - much safer than childbirth, in fact - but I'm not sure about how much research has been done on benefits of abortion. Which would differentiate it from GAC.
But no matter. I can even concede the point because all it does is add an exclamation point to bans on health care driven by ideology rather than fact.
Thanks for the observation.
Exactly. Another intimate and highly personal decision that the government has no business intruding upon.
This is good news and will spare some kids from making medical decisions whose ramifications they can't fully appreciate. The care will still be available once they reach adulthood.
"The care will still be available once they reach adulthood."
The powerful people behind gender affirming care bans for minors have admited they want to ban care for adults as well. This is their starting point not their end point.
SOURCE:
https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/ohio-republican-author-of-anti-trans?utm_source=substack&publication_id=994764&post_id=163212796&isFreemail=false&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email-reaction&r=4lkc53&triedRedirect=true
Rep. Gary Click has become a central architect of the anti-transgender legislative movement. In 2024, he authored House Bill 68, which not only banned gender-affirming care for trans youth but also barred transgender athletes from competing in sports—legislation that triggered a political standoff with Republican Gov. Mike DeWine. When DeWine vetoed the bill, Click rallied GOP lawmakers to override the decision and enact it into law. Not long after, in a strategy call with state legislators across the country, Click laid out the long-term Republican agenda: ending gender-affirming care for everyone. When one lawmaker asked how to achieve the “endgame” of banning such care even for adults, Click replied, “We have to take one bite at a time, do it incrementally.
'Our minds are made up, our higher court has spoken, do not confuse us with complex essential questions that may have been effectively debated in the lower court.'
Nice going, circle jerks.
"To shield public employees from personal injury lawsuits for job-related damages, the courts have overstepped, effectively barring public access to vital federal court functions. These functions include asserting rights and identifying constitutional mandates that the government has exceeded, and at the very least, assigning fault for whoever may ask the court to do so."
https://randoliberal.substack.com/p/i-call-bullshit
You rock,girl! Best laugh i've had all week.