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.
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.
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".
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.
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?
Great read! Straight forward and to the point! Helped me understand the holding without needing to read the opinion.
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.
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.
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.
A win. We'll take it.
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".
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?
Arkansas here. The court here will follow Florida's ban.
Going to be a fight here on
it.
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
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?