Medical decisions should be made between a patient & their Doctor. The government has no business in these decisions. The government does not have medical training.
The world in 1776 is very different than the world today. The writers of the Constitution could not imagine the world of 2023. Just because they didn’t mention something in the Constitution doesn’t mean it should be banned in 2023. Science progresses as our knowledge expands.
Yet, as science progresses, constitutional protection narrows. Judges now interpret complex medical procedures from an Eighteenth-Century perspective, giving rise to the above decision, or from gainsaying results of clinical trials as witnessed in the mifepristone debacle. All in the service of reactionary politics dressed up in tendentious legalisms.
The court in this case did not say that the Constitution bans these treatments or requires them to be banned; it said that the Constitution does not prevent *state legislatures* from banning them. That seems like a bad idea to me, but the fault lies with the state legislature, not the Constitution.
No one is arguing your strawman. What plaintiffs have argued, successfully at every district court, is that state legislative bans themselves violate the Constitution — despite not being mentioned specifically in the Constitution.
I didn't mean to be characterizing the plaintiffs' arguments, but rather to be responding to this comment: "Just because [the Framers] didn’t mention something in the Constitution doesn’t mean it should be banned in 2023." That's surely true, but nothing in CA11's opinion here suggests otherwise (that I can see). Perhaps what Jean actually meant was "...doesn't mean it should be *allowed to be banned* in 2023." I'm not trying to troll; I think many people seem genuinely confused about the broader upshot of CA11's due process ruling and whether it will *forbid* certain types of regulation.
I think Jean is accurately reflecting reality: Gender-affirming medical care is not specifically discussed in the Constitution, including the 14th Amendment. It is banned by Alabama currently. I don’t know anyone that was confused by that, but, OK.
So I guess we can conclude that it would be constitutional to ban modern treatment for prostate cancer because such treatment didn't exist in 1868 even if treatments for cervical cancer are allowed?
And they are seriously arguing that the founders thought parents didn't have the right to make decisions about the welfare of their children?
Most interesting: by this logic, there is no right of free speech over airwaves, cable, internet because those technologies did not exist in either 1789 or 1868. So there, Elon!!
I think the answer to your question is if the government could form some low bar rational basis to ban prostrate cancer treatments, such a ban would be Constitutionally permissible.
Most Americans consider bodily autonomy a matter of basic personal liberty though they often disagree on the specifics (gender affirming care, the decision to carry a pregnancy to term, masks, vaccines). The notion that we don’t have such a liberty interest because the Framers might not have included it in their understanding of what having liberty entailed is an overly dogmatic fealty to the late 18th century world view of the Framers, before the adoption of the germ theory of disease and when bleeding was still considered an effective medical treatment.
These laws are obviously motivated by “invidious discrimination.” What a load of BS. So now all our rights are determined by what people thought in 1868? When women didn't have the right to vote and weren't fully independent legal beings. This is so ridiculous. I hope this goes to the en banc court. Although I bet the Supreme Court would uphold this decision. 😡
Minimum rationality is all but impossible to fail to satisfy. It’s the “you can’t fight City Hall” version of the laugh test. Within its scope a purported rationale need not have ever played an actual role in taking the state action, can be pretextual, advanced at trial or even made up by the court. It’s the sucker punch of Con Law.
The lesson of modern conservative jurisprudence is to couch any challenge to government action as a violation of one’s individual idiosyncratic religious beliefs. When it comes to religious objections to state action, the right wing courts are happy to jettison their strict originalism.
Our constitution is not in any sense of the word based upon any religious principle or belief. Therefore to rule that any alleged violation of someone’s constitutional religious beliefs against another is pure bullshit. If you have the “right” to believe in whatever phony religion you want then I too have the right to not believe in nothing and if we’re both right then who the hell wins? To quote a famous American “Can’t we all just please get along”. If we don’t return to the politics of 2015 and prior, this country will elect an asshole like tRump or worse and the next thing we’ll know will be the last thing we’ll know and we will learn real quick how the political prisoners around the world feel slowly dying in prison because they dared to question the authoritarian asshats running their country.
It’s hard to believe the “parents’ rights” they usually bray about wasn’t a thing in 1868--or 1789. Even if the right to medrano medical treatment doesn’t fit their insane standard, the right of parents (obviously imperfect in this situation) should have some sway.
This is a ridiculous ruling that must be challenged by the DOJ, this isn’t a legal opinion he was appointed for these very views on rights. If it’s impossible to get a fair hearing in the 11th circuit how is it any better Than a Russian court?
Every time I read something like this I feel so happy that I don’t live in the South or in a state with a republican governor then it reminds me of the stunt the incompetent senator from KY pulled. Anyone else think of the movie The Pelican Brief?
Medical decisions should be made between a patient & their Doctor. The government has no business in these decisions. The government does not have medical training.
The world in 1776 is very different than the world today. The writers of the Constitution could not imagine the world of 2023. Just because they didn’t mention something in the Constitution doesn’t mean it should be banned in 2023. Science progresses as our knowledge expands.
Yet, as science progresses, constitutional protection narrows. Judges now interpret complex medical procedures from an Eighteenth-Century perspective, giving rise to the above decision, or from gainsaying results of clinical trials as witnessed in the mifepristone debacle. All in the service of reactionary politics dressed up in tendentious legalisms.
The court in this case did not say that the Constitution bans these treatments or requires them to be banned; it said that the Constitution does not prevent *state legislatures* from banning them. That seems like a bad idea to me, but the fault lies with the state legislature, not the Constitution.
No one is arguing your strawman. What plaintiffs have argued, successfully at every district court, is that state legislative bans themselves violate the Constitution — despite not being mentioned specifically in the Constitution.
I didn't mean to be characterizing the plaintiffs' arguments, but rather to be responding to this comment: "Just because [the Framers] didn’t mention something in the Constitution doesn’t mean it should be banned in 2023." That's surely true, but nothing in CA11's opinion here suggests otherwise (that I can see). Perhaps what Jean actually meant was "...doesn't mean it should be *allowed to be banned* in 2023." I'm not trying to troll; I think many people seem genuinely confused about the broader upshot of CA11's due process ruling and whether it will *forbid* certain types of regulation.
I think Jean is accurately reflecting reality: Gender-affirming medical care is not specifically discussed in the Constitution, including the 14th Amendment. It is banned by Alabama currently. I don’t know anyone that was confused by that, but, OK.
So I guess we can conclude that it would be constitutional to ban modern treatment for prostate cancer because such treatment didn't exist in 1868 even if treatments for cervical cancer are allowed?
And they are seriously arguing that the founders thought parents didn't have the right to make decisions about the welfare of their children?
Most interesting: by this logic, there is no right of free speech over airwaves, cable, internet because those technologies did not exist in either 1789 or 1868. So there, Elon!!
I think the answer to your question is if the government could form some low bar rational basis to ban prostrate cancer treatments, such a ban would be Constitutionally permissible.
Most Americans consider bodily autonomy a matter of basic personal liberty though they often disagree on the specifics (gender affirming care, the decision to carry a pregnancy to term, masks, vaccines). The notion that we don’t have such a liberty interest because the Framers might not have included it in their understanding of what having liberty entailed is an overly dogmatic fealty to the late 18th century world view of the Framers, before the adoption of the germ theory of disease and when bleeding was still considered an effective medical treatment.
some red states nowadays might ban it as "against God's Will" But not till all the legislators are female. IE, the 12th of Never.
These laws are obviously motivated by “invidious discrimination.” What a load of BS. So now all our rights are determined by what people thought in 1868? When women didn't have the right to vote and weren't fully independent legal beings. This is so ridiculous. I hope this goes to the en banc court. Although I bet the Supreme Court would uphold this decision. 😡
Minimum rationality is all but impossible to fail to satisfy. It’s the “you can’t fight City Hall” version of the laugh test. Within its scope a purported rationale need not have ever played an actual role in taking the state action, can be pretextual, advanced at trial or even made up by the court. It’s the sucker punch of Con Law.
The lesson of modern conservative jurisprudence is to couch any challenge to government action as a violation of one’s individual idiosyncratic religious beliefs. When it comes to religious objections to state action, the right wing courts are happy to jettison their strict originalism.
Our constitution is not in any sense of the word based upon any religious principle or belief. Therefore to rule that any alleged violation of someone’s constitutional religious beliefs against another is pure bullshit. If you have the “right” to believe in whatever phony religion you want then I too have the right to not believe in nothing and if we’re both right then who the hell wins? To quote a famous American “Can’t we all just please get along”. If we don’t return to the politics of 2015 and prior, this country will elect an asshole like tRump or worse and the next thing we’ll know will be the last thing we’ll know and we will learn real quick how the political prisoners around the world feel slowly dying in prison because they dared to question the authoritarian asshats running their country.
It’s hard to believe the “parents’ rights” they usually bray about wasn’t a thing in 1868--or 1789. Even if the right to medrano medical treatment doesn’t fit their insane standard, the right of parents (obviously imperfect in this situation) should have some sway.
This is a ridiculous ruling that must be challenged by the DOJ, this isn’t a legal opinion he was appointed for these very views on rights. If it’s impossible to get a fair hearing in the 11th circuit how is it any better Than a Russian court?
Hmmm, wonder how long it will be before Plessy v. Ferguson is also resurrected.............
Every time I read something like this I feel so happy that I don’t live in the South or in a state with a republican governor then it reminds me of the stunt the incompetent senator from KY pulled. Anyone else think of the movie The Pelican Brief?