U.S. District Judge John Heil III rejected challenges to the law in a Thursday ruling — the first district court judge to reach such a conclusion. An appeal is coming.
A brief search doesn't bring up the ideological baggage for this judge that is present for some others. I leave to others to find any red flags. Seems to be known for commercial litigation.
I wonder how consistent this disrespect with parental rights to provide medical care to their children without undue influence from the state will be applied by conservative lower courts.
Oh my. No transgender treatment was available in the 19th Century or at the founding. Therefore banning it must be constitutional because there is no right enshrined in our history. THINK of all the things transgender people have no right to do. No right to purchase a gasoline powered car. No right to go to a national park. No right to go to a movie.
Of course there may well have been such treatment back then. It was called suicide.
This saddens me. But it also reminds me that every prohibition on medicine in the US in the last 200 years is never permanent. Eventually, doctors and patients win.
It's very strange how you care so much about something (1) that has no effect on you and (2) which you insist on speaking pseudo-authoritatively about (asserting your knowledge of my "rules" based on nothing more than your presumptions based on your apparently anti-trans priors) despite not appearing to have any real knowledge about gender dysphoria or transgender lives.
You are, of course, free to hold such views and write about them elsewhere all you want. If you continue with posting such uninformed, anti-trans talking points on my site, however, I will delete them and block you from commenting.
Seig Heil!
A brief search doesn't bring up the ideological baggage for this judge that is present for some others. I leave to others to find any red flags. Seems to be known for commercial litigation.
I wonder how consistent this disrespect with parental rights to provide medical care to their children without undue influence from the state will be applied by conservative lower courts.
Oh my. No transgender treatment was available in the 19th Century or at the founding. Therefore banning it must be constitutional because there is no right enshrined in our history. THINK of all the things transgender people have no right to do. No right to purchase a gasoline powered car. No right to go to a national park. No right to go to a movie.
Of course there may well have been such treatment back then. It was called suicide.
This saddens me. But it also reminds me that every prohibition on medicine in the US in the last 200 years is never permanent. Eventually, doctors and patients win.
The cruelty continues, unabashed...[sigh]
It's very strange how you care so much about something (1) that has no effect on you and (2) which you insist on speaking pseudo-authoritatively about (asserting your knowledge of my "rules" based on nothing more than your presumptions based on your apparently anti-trans priors) despite not appearing to have any real knowledge about gender dysphoria or transgender lives.
You are, of course, free to hold such views and write about them elsewhere all you want. If you continue with posting such uninformed, anti-trans talking points on my site, however, I will delete them and block you from commenting.