13 Comments

Great read! Straight forward and to the point! Helped me understand the holding without needing to read the opinion.

Expand full comment

I breathe a little freer every time I read about a judge in one of these super conservative states issuing a sane, well reasoned decision on one of these matters. It’s as if they are immune to the hysteria driving all this crazy legislation.

Expand full comment

It's the essential tradeoff created by not having future elections looming over their heads: the judges who would have been transactional fellow-travelers no longer need to do so, and are enabled to consider the actual merits before them, but the ones who are genuine true believing nutcases are no longer compelled to hide that fact, and can put truly unrestrained nonsense into the legal system. All heightened by the reduced scrutiny that applies to everything happening at the state level, of course.

Expand full comment

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/

Politicians who practice medicine without a license nor consulting licensed experts, should be criminally prosecuted.

Expand full comment

the law in question appears to remove psychological conditions not only from the broad rubric of medical conditions but from science.itself. Legislators want to dictate that medical treatment is only allowed for conditions evidenced by "hard evidence" (based on genetics, organ confusion) and not by "perceptions". This slope leads to retracting recognition of psychiatrists, therapist's, perhaps even social workers…and to legislative repeal of individual autonomy and free will. Perhaps even the end of both insanity defenses and criminal intent as an element of a crime. Whatever protection of minors was intended, the law provides no protection from the "pressures" and rabid righteousnesses of the legislators who voted for the bill and whoever signed it into law.

Expand full comment

I've said it before and I'll say it again: to deny the validity of transgender identities is, on some level, to deny the basic concept of privacy.

Expand full comment

by that logic, it would also lead to banning all pain medication, in all circumstances.

Expand full comment

A win. We'll take it.

Expand full comment

Thank you, that was well written. I was wondering the entire time about scrutiny, what could the possible "rational basis" or "legitimate interest" be. I was so relieved when you finally said that Judge Marks found "the law would not likely pass any level of scrutiny".

Expand full comment

Well damn. Now all those teachers who insist that the boys in their class are really girls and that if they don't get treatments for a sex change they will get a lower grade or even be expelled--those forces thus forcing kids to undergo puberty blockers if they want an A--they'll be given free reign.

So I HAVE to add a sarcasm alert?

Expand full comment

Arkansas here. The court here will follow Florida's ban.

Going to be a fight here on

it.

Expand full comment

πŸ‘πŸ»πŸ‘πŸ»πŸ‘πŸ»πŸ‘πŸ»πŸ‘πŸ»πŸ‘πŸ»πŸ‘πŸ»πŸ‘πŸ»πŸ‘πŸ»πŸ‘πŸ»πŸ‘πŸ»πŸ‘πŸ»πŸ‘πŸ»πŸ‘πŸ»πŸ‘πŸ»πŸ‘πŸ»

Expand full comment

Thanks for the rundown. How comical that they passed a "right to try" experimental treatments bill the same session as this one.

The Iowa constitution doesn't have explicit language about privacy, so I anticipate that if/when Iowa's ban on gender-affirming care is challenged, it will be in federal court. A little surprised that case hasn't been filed yet. Maybe they are waiting for an Eighth Circuit decision on the Arkansas case?

Expand full comment