[Supreme] Court allows Idaho to generally enforce ban on gender-transition care for minors

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/...rce-ban-on-gender-transition-care-for-minors/

I haven't actually read this link, but I read the ruling and the dissent which is linked from the official SCOTUS website.

The background of the case:
Idaho passed a law banning certain "gender affirming" treatments that have permanent effects on minors. These laws are gaining traction in conservative states.

Two children sued the state and Attorney General in order to continue receiving their drugs. The judge then ordered an injunction banning the enforcement of any aspect of the law to any person for any reason while the case is under ligation. This is unusual, injunctions must be narrowly tailored to the relief requested. The state appealed and the final appellate review was to deny their stay of the injunction by a panel of two Clinton judges and one Obama judge. No reasoning was given for supporting this precedent and rule breaking injunction.

Idaho then appealed to the Supreme Court for emergency relief.

The majority ruling 6-3:
The majority granted the injunction requested by the plaintiffs since the state never contested that and wanted to deny them the drugs they desired during the litigation. But they struck down the blanket ban of enforcing the law.

The dissent:
The primary dissent was written by Jackson. She basically complained that the Court took up the case. She didn't put up a strong argument against the logic of the majority ruling that the blanket ban of enforcing the law went against the court rules. But she disagreed with the SCOTUS issuing an order rather than allowing the lower courts to run with this case as they see fit saying they are closer to the case than the SCOTUS judges.

This is an awkward argument for an appellate judge to take. Appeals courts are always further removed from the cases they are reviewing. That's the nature of the courts. But that doesn't mean that appellate courts can't identify when a lower court clearly errs in a procedural manner and correct that error. She also wanted the state to make additional arguments in their appeal, which is odd. They don't have to make every legal argument under the sun to appeal a case when there was a clear procedural violation. They're allowed to contest it on that basis alone.

This is a very odd decision to read and it seems clear that if it wasn't over a social issue that is so clearly partisan that the court would have ruled 9-0 to enforce the rules of the court like they do cases that are not about such social issues.

 

Fascists gonna fascist. Hopefully we can stop the authoritarian anti-trans hate.

 

There is nothing facist about preventing children from making decisions that have permanent effects for elective procedures. Nor is there anything inherently hateful about such a policy. Nor is this 'anti trans', as adults can still do as they please.

This is about children being unable to consent. The same way they have to wait for a boob job or a nose job. Parents shouldn't be making these decisions either.

Before you start: Yes, ban circumcision too.

Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and/or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy

Words have meanings. When you use terms loosely, those terms lose all meaning.

 

I don't see what all the fuss is about. If the kids want to have the surgery and the parents are willing to pay for it, doesn't bother me. If they start having such operations performed at taxpayer expense, then we have a problem.

 

It should bother you. Perhaps you have forgotten how unprepared you were to make life changing decisions when you were a child.

 

"Start"? They already pay for such treatment in military, prisons and government workers and through government subsidized health insurance.

 

I don't know about fascism, but it's patently absurd for voters and their non-medical representatives to be making medical decisions for people they don't understand based upon the latest idiotic moral panic.

 

Children cannot consent to having bits of themselves removed, or to taking hormone blockers that WILL cause permanent damage.
Parents? Cannot consent on their behalf to purely elective surgeries or treatments.

We don't do amputations on people who are perfectly healthy, even if they really think they should be one handed.
Its a sickness, chopping bits off is not a treatment.

 

Well this is what I'm talking about. Parents do consent for elective procedures for their children, you just disagree with the decisions these people are making because you can't understand how they could want it. But these people are NOT perfectly healthy. Based upon available evidence and individual patient factors, the best course of treatment is chosen by patients, parents and doctors working together. You're not a medical expert, at least not in this field. It is certainly possible the standard of care could evolve over time, but it should be based upon better data on evidence of outcomes, not the worries of conservative moralists.

Is it plausible some doctors cross the line and provide inappropriate care? Yes. We have rigorous licensing organizations and oversight to enforce the standard of care, as well as courts for when things go wrong. Getting it wrong can end a career and serve as a warning to others. But the definition of right needs to be based upon evidence of outcomes ideally, and the clinical judgement of experts who work with patients like them as a backup... not people who don't have a clue what this disease is all about.

 

I see the issue here. No one is actually making a medical decision here. It's a financial decision that includes a set of doctors, and a pharmaceutical army that collects on the lifetime of annuities starting from childhood..... The crime here is teaching kids they have an actual choice. Vicious demented folks teaching kids that they don't have to be boys or girls... just whatever they feel they are. And how is that working out? Many cultures call this grooming.

 

I really doubt it with the healthcare models normally employed. Kaiser Permanente, for example, loses money when they have to provide more care as an HMO model. Encouraging, or even tolerating, clinically suspect care is very much against their incentives. There is a real issue with conformity that arises when things become so politically charged, though. But at the end of the day, doctors and licensing authorities rely on evidence. When the evidence is lacking - that's when things like politics can have undue influence. That said, it's still better to leave this to experts who deal with the issues these patients have on a regular basis, than the musings of people who really have no idea what it's like to have these conditions.

The social contagion theory is an interesting thing to be careful about. But grooming? lol.. no. Where's the incentive for that? It's not about pedophiles getting sex.

 

And what I'm talking about is that the law should not allow such a thing, and taking steps to foreclose such things isn't wrongful.

I don't have to be a medical expert, I'm a legal expert. I KNOW children cannot consent, and so elective procedures should be left to when the person you're cutting bits off or permanently crippling can consent.
You can apply this to circumcisions, tattoos, piercings, nose jobs outside bona fide medical issues like a deviated septum, boob jobs outside bona fide reconstruction, etc.

 

No its about making someone a patient for life who needs continuing medical and often surgical interventions to maintain anything like a semblance of normal life.
The incentive is monetary for the corpos, and social for the parents and many of the children. Are you a white male? Don't have a victim card? Now you do. Etc.

 

For the doctors, under the payment models most of them go by, this doesn't make any sense. Fee for service is the way of the past. Most doctors are paid by salary plus bonus. When using salary, there's no incentive to do any more work than is clinically needed. This is good to avoid overtreatment, risks undertreatment. The bonus is the variable. For an HMO, bonuses are going to be larger the LESS physicians do, because they cared for more members using fewer resources (in extreme cases this is called capitation, but more often it's just a bonus for all physicians based upon the overall organization). Another common way to determine bonuses is measures of quality, i.e. how often did they provide appropriate care. I am not aware of a quality metric for starting hormone therapy in teens. Probably is not a thing. You're assuming incentives for overtreatment are there, but much of that changed decades ago in an attempt to control healthcare costs.

 

I am kind of one-off that position. I think they should hold off on any surgery until they are 18, but otherwise I really don't care a lot. I think it is weird AF but what isn't these days.

 

It is good that the child multilators have been mostly stopped from preying upon children who cannot consent. I note that the UK, Japan, Denmark, and Sweden have all banned such child mutilations because their medical societies all found that there was no medical evidence of effectiveness, that it was defacto medical experimentation upon children who could not legally consent, and that there was vast evidence of harm caused by the practice.

The usual hyper partisan fools don't care about such facts though.

 

Sadly, Canada under that evil incompetent bastard Tru-dump actually does perform elective amputations now. Just last month a Canadian doctor amputated healthy fingers off a man's hand because he claimed to have body dismorphia and self identified as an amputee. WTF happened to "first do no harm"?

 

Yeah, its a mental disorder. Medical treatment of the body has no effectiveness upon the mental disorder.
Paul Mchugh had it right in 1979 when he closed the first and largest transgender clinic when he closed the Johns Hopkins clinic saying
"With these facts in hand I concluded that Hopkins was fundamentally cooperating with a mental illness. We psychiatrists, I thought, would do better to concentrate on trying to fix their minds and not their genitalia."

 

What you say is the way it should be but it is not Reality.

 

But is consent the issue, after all they still mutilate the genitals of Jewish boys at an early age, but they were brainwashed into believing that it was normal.

 

Where did you get the impression that only Jews get circumcised?
And while the body parts function as normal after circumcision, Body parts removed in sex change surgeries completely lose the function of the removed parts.

 

"It's authoritarian if I don't like it"

 

Would seem prohibiting Drs from performing surgeries on minors to change their sex is less authoritarian than requiring Drs to perform and Insurance companies to pay for surgeries on minors to change their sex.
It is absurd that 60 years later the so called science of psychology is still trying to perpetuate the absurd theories of John Money.
John Money - Wikipedia

 

Personally, I support a more "reasonable" and "sensible" compromise, which would allow the teen to undergo treatment to help prevent or partially prevent gender-specific development that would be difficult to reverse (without promoting, or trying to greatly minimize any unnatural gender-specific development that is not in accord with their birth gender). For example, if a teen girl did not want to grow breasts, it would not be difficult for her to grow breasts later in life, if she changed her mind.

This would put the teen in a better position later to make whatever choice they wanted to.
The basic idea would be to try to minimize anything that's going to be irreversible.

It seems like a reasonable and sensible compromise to me, but most people who seem interested in this issue seem to be polarized on opposite sides of the fence. So for "trans supporters", it doesn't go far enough, and for those saying they want to protect children, it still seems crazy and abhorrent. So I haven't seen anyone in these forums step forward in support of my proposed compromise policy.

Compromise idea for sex change hormones in young teens

 

No compromise necessary. Minors aren't competent to make life changing decisions. Those should be left to adults.