Post

In United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court ruled that Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors was not unconstitutional—the first case of its kind on which the court has ruled.

wired.comUS Supreme Court Upholds Tennessee’s Ban on Gender-Affirming Care for MinorsIn United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court ruled that Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors was not unconstitutional—the first case of its kind on which the court has ruled.

48 reposts191 likes

Needless to say, the 3 liberal Supreme Court Judges did not agree with Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors. Usually, they would say, "I respectfully dissent." Not Justice Sotomayor who left out the "respectfully" and just said, "I dissent."

So basically, state lawmakers can ban medical treatments for any diagnosis, as long as the ban applies to both males and females? Even if the ban only ever affects one group—people seeking gender-affirming care. Seems like an absurdly narrow definition of discrimination.

“Families may now have to make the heartbreaking choice to leave their state or split their families, or take on extensive financial burdens, in order to ensure that their kids can access medically necessary care," said Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign.

wired.comUS Supreme Court Upholds Tennessee’s Ban on Gender-Affirming Care for MinorsIn United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court ruled that Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors was not unconstitutional—the first case of its kind on which the court has ruled.

If you're single, sure. Weigh your pros and cons. But if you've got kids, or women you care about, or if you prefer The Enlightenment to the Dark Ages... you don't want to keep your family in a red state.

Sadly, no. By continuing to work and live within a republican society, an American will strengthen and encourage the republicans, specifically strengthening their governments and infrastructure. Not the greatest idea.

Jules Gill-Peterson, along with other experts in the field, coauthored an amicus brief for SCOTUS explaining how trans kids have existed long before contemporary medical science and that they’ve been transitioning, medically or otherwise, far longer than the “irreversible damages” crowd would claim.

wired.comThis Historian Has Seen the Future of Trans Health CareJules Gill-Peterson doesn’t want to fight for trans joy. She wants to fight for what trans people really need: resources, hormones, and surgery. Her latest arena? The US Supreme Court.