The ruling is complicated and is more about broad injunctions than it is about trans people. Still, it will have an immediate impact for trans youth in Idaho and could have national repercussions.
I wish there were any cause for optimism but I struggle to see it. With the Kavanagh and Barrett comments it is clear where the majority of the court will go on permitting bans in entirety. Exactly what the Matt Walsh’s of the world were predicting and hoping for - get these cases to SCOTUS as quickly as possible knowing they have a biased bench. It’s beyond disgusting what has happened to the US judiciary.
People need to see this and make the connection to how it could affect them. The issue writ large concerns individual freedom, even if viewed narrowly as parental rights. This should be the conservative position, if I'm being honest.
It’s becoming quite clear that the “conservative position” doesn’t have a platform at all in the current right wing movement. They are motivated by hate, not conservatism. “Conservatives” get called RINOs and are voted out or otherwise deplatformed, and the only voices on the right that are left are extremists who feel NO obligation to connect their policies to their stated political ideals
For sure, and there are plenty of newcomers in the RINO category. Lots of people who have lived through seeing gay marriage and other advances, and who are pro-choice though they are not public about it. Yet somehow they have voted for Republicans, but that could change this year.
If a gender affirming care ban (whether adult or minors) makes it to SCOTUS, I don’t know for sure what will happen but I suspect that GAC will fail there by a 5-4 or 6-3 margin. My hope is that no national bans get passed, which would mean that such a SCOTUS ruling hopefully would be analogous to Dobbs in leaving it up to the states - far from an ideal outcome, but at least GAC would be available somewhere in the US.
I do very much believe that the ultimate goal of most GOP politicians is to get national GAC bans passed, both kids and adult. The concept is very scary, but despite how badly they want these bans, I don’t see how they would be a slam dunk. Estrogen, for example, is used by AFAB cis women for all sorts of reasons, and if a ban ever interfered with the ability of non-trans women to get their medication, you can easily imagine the howls of protest. Similarly, many trans-related surgeries have counterparts in plastic surgical procedures that non-trans people also undergo, meaning that to make a ban practical, you’d have to heavily parse out and target trans individuals in the medical pipeline - which seems highly unconstitutional.
Yes. People need to understand that there is no such thing as "gender-affirming healthcare". It's just healthcare when administered to transgender individuals.
Banning GAC for trans people would be akin to banning insulin for a specific racial minority. It's insane, highly discriminatory, and unconstitutional.
So if the parties to the case are still under the injunction, then why not just have every trans kid and parent of trans kids in the state join in on the case? (unless there are only 2 who are out and receiving care which I suppose is a possibility)
Good job explaining the complexity and implications of this ruling. No other news source seems invested in helping their readers understand these things. It's always bothered me that some local federal judge under the right circumstances can have the power to put an injunction on something that may impact the entire country.
I so appreciate Erin’s ability to explain complex legal issues. As a recovering attorney, I struggle to explain to others how convoluted these decisions are. What a time we are living in!!
Oh, goodie, yet another cloud of impending doom for the Supreme Court to dangle over all of us! Just what I needed to get rid of that last little pesky bit of restful sleep.
I wish there were any cause for optimism but I struggle to see it. With the Kavanagh and Barrett comments it is clear where the majority of the court will go on permitting bans in entirety. Exactly what the Matt Walsh’s of the world were predicting and hoping for - get these cases to SCOTUS as quickly as possible knowing they have a biased bench. It’s beyond disgusting what has happened to the US judiciary.
People need to see this and make the connection to how it could affect them. The issue writ large concerns individual freedom, even if viewed narrowly as parental rights. This should be the conservative position, if I'm being honest.
It’s becoming quite clear that the “conservative position” doesn’t have a platform at all in the current right wing movement. They are motivated by hate, not conservatism. “Conservatives” get called RINOs and are voted out or otherwise deplatformed, and the only voices on the right that are left are extremists who feel NO obligation to connect their policies to their stated political ideals
For sure, and there are plenty of newcomers in the RINO category. Lots of people who have lived through seeing gay marriage and other advances, and who are pro-choice though they are not public about it. Yet somehow they have voted for Republicans, but that could change this year.
If a gender affirming care ban (whether adult or minors) makes it to SCOTUS, I don’t know for sure what will happen but I suspect that GAC will fail there by a 5-4 or 6-3 margin. My hope is that no national bans get passed, which would mean that such a SCOTUS ruling hopefully would be analogous to Dobbs in leaving it up to the states - far from an ideal outcome, but at least GAC would be available somewhere in the US.
I do very much believe that the ultimate goal of most GOP politicians is to get national GAC bans passed, both kids and adult. The concept is very scary, but despite how badly they want these bans, I don’t see how they would be a slam dunk. Estrogen, for example, is used by AFAB cis women for all sorts of reasons, and if a ban ever interfered with the ability of non-trans women to get their medication, you can easily imagine the howls of protest. Similarly, many trans-related surgeries have counterparts in plastic surgical procedures that non-trans people also undergo, meaning that to make a ban practical, you’d have to heavily parse out and target trans individuals in the medical pipeline - which seems highly unconstitutional.
Yes. People need to understand that there is no such thing as "gender-affirming healthcare". It's just healthcare when administered to transgender individuals.
Banning GAC for trans people would be akin to banning insulin for a specific racial minority. It's insane, highly discriminatory, and unconstitutional.
So if the parties to the case are still under the injunction, then why not just have every trans kid and parent of trans kids in the state join in on the case? (unless there are only 2 who are out and receiving care which I suppose is a possibility)
Good job explaining the complexity and implications of this ruling. No other news source seems invested in helping their readers understand these things. It's always bothered me that some local federal judge under the right circumstances can have the power to put an injunction on something that may impact the entire country.
I so appreciate Erin’s ability to explain complex legal issues. As a recovering attorney, I struggle to explain to others how convoluted these decisions are. What a time we are living in!!
Oh, goodie, yet another cloud of impending doom for the Supreme Court to dangle over all of us! Just what I needed to get rid of that last little pesky bit of restful sleep.