15 Comments

The way the judge was able to twist around the meaning of "deeply rooted in our nations history" shows just how absolutely absurd such an argument is, especially when applied to a medical treatment that didn't exist 200+ years ago. Who gives a F if its deeply rooted. Let people get the medical treatments they need.

Expand full comment

I'm going to respectfully agree with you, but in a different point of view. This ruling opens an entirely new front on the "deeply rooted" argument. It's also worth noting that much of the precedent cited were rulings that would be considered "conservative wins", such as the statewide ban on a California law requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets. (that was very well played!)

For the deeply rooted argument this ruling makes clear that the correct way to adjudicate a right is to ask "does the specific right at issue, which may not be deeply rooted, flow from a fundamental right that is?"

We can look at every Supreme Court ruling overturning gun control laws where the weapon at issue had not been invented and was not specifically, in and of itself, deeply rooted. Overturning a law regulating an AR-15 requires that the court presume the right to own one must flow from the 2nd amendment, even though AR-15 (or indeed any similar weapon) is never specifically mentioned or even postulated in the text of the Constitution.

In that same way, the right to a specific medical treatment that was not specifically mentioned in fact flows from the fundamental right of parents, with medical consultation, to choose the best medical care available for their children. This would also imply that an individual (adult) right to a treatment under the terms of "best available medical care" would also flow from that fundamental right.

To rule against this position would unleash challenges to every narrowly tailored right (such as AR-15 ownership, and so many others) since eliminating the "connection" between narrow rights flowing from general rights destroys nearly ALL rights.

A ruling upholding this position though would strengthen and reinforce the 14th amendment right to privacy for individual and family decisions. And we can make the argument that the right to abortion, and contraception, and gender affirming care for children and adults all flow from the fundamental right of individual autonomy in personal decisions.

Things kinda just got real in support of gender affirming care. The oral arguments before the supreme court on this will be very interesting indeed.

Expand full comment

I’m so happy! Unfortunately, this is not the highest court, and I fear the worst from the inevitable appeal. 😢

Expand full comment

Thanks again for your amazing reporting. It is a critical need met.

Expand full comment

phenomenal news- especially since it not only upholds parental and child rights, but calls out the bullcrap of saying the 14th amendment doesn't apply to reproductive freedom and gender affirming care. After all, the judge says, using that narrow standard would rule out penicillin and the polio vaccine as constitutionally protected care. Also calling bullcrap on "the Swedish Study" and other pseudoscience is critical to any cogent discussion on the topic of gender affirming care. Well done.

Expand full comment

Conservatives like to fight for Parents' Rights! except when those parents are doing things they don't like.

Expand full comment

Finally. A court not just rendering an appropriate decision but calling out the falsehoods cited as evidence in conflicting cases.

This will still end up with SCOTUS and that is scary given current composition.

Expand full comment

We get so few victories I am going to take this one. Especially that this ruling was accomplished in Idaho.

Expand full comment

Judge Winmill's arguments are reasoned and clearly articulated. His refutation of the 6th and 11th courts' bizarre logic is a thing of beauty and it's a clear exposition of the constitutionality of his reasoning. It's common sense. George Washington on his deathbed was being attended by a physician who was trying to save his life by bleeding him out. That's the 'history and traditions' of medicine our founders enjoyed.

One would think that judge Winmill's logic would win out. But it's not about the law or logic or even the Constitution. Republicans in the Congress and in the courts are at war. It's not hidden, they talk about their culture war all the time. They intend to persecute transgender people--especially children--and they have no qualms about twisting the law or trampling human rights to do it.

If the Constitution stands in the way, they will just reinterpret it to mean what has never been intended. The Supreme Court stepped off the slippery slope with the Dobbs decision against abortion. Now Republican judges justify persecution of transgender people using the same hammer.

I hope Judge Winmill's logic prevails. But I have no illusions. There are those who believe the Constitution be damned if it keeps them from forcing their ideologies upon us all.

Expand full comment

Excellent news, and a very persuasive and reassuring rebuttal of this court vis-a-via the conservative rulings from the 6th and 11th. Of course, it’s too early to celebrate because the GAC issue is inevitably heading to the Supreme Court with its 6-3 conservative majority. Though I very much fear that GAC will fail there in a 5-4 or 6-3 ruling, the reasoning in this decision about what is “deeply rooted in our nation’s history” gives a glimmer of hope for the inevitable appeal.

Expand full comment

😭tears of joy from this parent at this very smart cookie judge’s ruling. So many fine comments here as well and, well, then there is you, Erin. I take the happiness when we get it. It helps shore up the resolve to keep at it! Love to ALL.

Expand full comment

When I read of a judge that may be reasonable I like to contact them and express either my thanks or concerns. Usually I can find an email address or phone number.

https://www.id.uscourts.gov/district/judges/winmill/General_Information.cfm

Expand full comment

Glad to see there are pockets of sanity in this country. Thank you for a sliver of good news Erin ❤️

Expand full comment

Without your reporting we’d be in the blind . Glad to have re uped my subscription. This ruling is only a start . There are many more newly passed state laws that are blatantly unconstitutional . We all need to stay informed on our local and state politics , not just national politics . We need to vote and get out the vote .

While this ruling is heartening , many of our parents are less than fully affirming . Depending on circumstances bootstraps of stubborn independence and personal agency , not to mention a rainmaker’s skill at bankrolling are still necessary :)

Expand full comment

Yes, that damn penicillin is just not rooted in the traditions of the USA!? A very interesting judgment, but like so many of these matters there’s still a way to go. Good to hear the cranks’ nonsense taken down.

Expand full comment