CJ Sutton: "I think the plaintiffs would argue that the only disagreement [about gender-affirming medical care for minors] is between doctors and non-doctors, that, if you’re focused on the medical profession [and] the relevant experts, there is not disagreement.”
With respect, CJ Sutton, the "disagreement" is between doctors AND THEIR PATIENTS v non-doctors, i.e., clueless legislators...that's always been the issue, regardless how it's been couched in other (obfuscatory) terms.
Would finding these bans on treatment of minors are OK mean the state could go ahead in banning treatment of adults? Much as I'd love to read all the briefs I haven't time just now. Was there any emphasis from the states that these bans are only about minors?
Honestly, Susan, I'm a little confused about this, given that this is a topic we've been discussing at length here (and I know you're a regular reader!). So, I'm not quite sure where to begin. Obviously state bans limited to children are in part argued as to be justified because of that focus; this is the history of "save the children" and back further still. But, that is also why one of the main arguments brought by challengers — and successful in front of many courts — is the due process parenting rights claim. Finally, we also know that much of the justification claimed for these bans is *not* limited to children, and we have already seen efforts at extending that — to include 18 year olds in Alabama and to include restrictions on adult care in Florida. In sum, it's an argument, yes, but it's not a particularly good or genuine one.
I didn't think it was a good one. Does a Republican ever need a good reason for social legislation? I was more worried that if the courts decide in some places for approval of laws for children, will it be open season on adults? I was just wondering if the state was hanging its hat in the briefs on protecting innocents.
In other words, if a due process claim (or equal protection claim) for children fails at the Circuit Court and the Extremes, will we be seeing a LOT more of this aimed at adults without even the veneer of protecting innocents? Or do you think that would be political suicide and if so, will the legislators care?
The scariest thing was "Dobbs shows we have a right to control the medical profession." Its a teeny step to full blown eugenics.
Chris, if I may ask, what happens if the Supreme Court eventually upholds the bans? Can a theoretical Democrat-held Congress legalize the care again or is it just "states rights" and we have to do it one by one over the next generation or two? I'm really scared for my community, man. This shit is killing me.
CJ Sutton: "I think the plaintiffs would argue that the only disagreement [about gender-affirming medical care for minors] is between doctors and non-doctors, that, if you’re focused on the medical profession [and] the relevant experts, there is not disagreement.”
With respect, CJ Sutton, the "disagreement" is between doctors AND THEIR PATIENTS v non-doctors, i.e., clueless legislators...that's always been the issue, regardless how it's been couched in other (obfuscatory) terms.
Would finding these bans on treatment of minors are OK mean the state could go ahead in banning treatment of adults? Much as I'd love to read all the briefs I haven't time just now. Was there any emphasis from the states that these bans are only about minors?
Honestly, Susan, I'm a little confused about this, given that this is a topic we've been discussing at length here (and I know you're a regular reader!). So, I'm not quite sure where to begin. Obviously state bans limited to children are in part argued as to be justified because of that focus; this is the history of "save the children" and back further still. But, that is also why one of the main arguments brought by challengers — and successful in front of many courts — is the due process parenting rights claim. Finally, we also know that much of the justification claimed for these bans is *not* limited to children, and we have already seen efforts at extending that — to include 18 year olds in Alabama and to include restrictions on adult care in Florida. In sum, it's an argument, yes, but it's not a particularly good or genuine one.
I didn't think it was a good one. Does a Republican ever need a good reason for social legislation? I was more worried that if the courts decide in some places for approval of laws for children, will it be open season on adults? I was just wondering if the state was hanging its hat in the briefs on protecting innocents.
In other words, if a due process claim (or equal protection claim) for children fails at the Circuit Court and the Extremes, will we be seeing a LOT more of this aimed at adults without even the veneer of protecting innocents? Or do you think that would be political suicide and if so, will the legislators care?
The scariest thing was "Dobbs shows we have a right to control the medical profession." Its a teeny step to full blown eugenics.
Damned fine case reporting.⚧️
Thanks much.
Chris, if I may ask, what happens if the Supreme Court eventually upholds the bans? Can a theoretical Democrat-held Congress legalize the care again or is it just "states rights" and we have to do it one by one over the next generation or two? I'm really scared for my community, man. This shit is killing me.