Red states urge SCOTUS to support Idaho’s transgender surgery ban, citing Daily Wire’s report
Republican-led States Urge Supreme Court to Protect Children from Transgender Medical Treatments
Republican-led states across the country are urging the Supreme Court to allow Idaho to enforce its ban on transgender medical treatments for children, issuing a fact-filled take-down of the burgeoning industry that cites The Daily Wire’s reporting to the high court.
Nineteen Republican attorneys general told the Supreme Court that it would be a “devastating medical scandal” if Idaho was not allowed to protect children from transgender procedures in a Wednesday legal filing that takes aim at the transgender medical industry.
Led by Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, the attorneys general filed a 36-page amicus brief in support of Idaho’s petition to the Supreme Court to allow it to broadly enforce its ban on giving children life-altering puberty blockers and transgender surgeries. The briefing argues that so-called “gender-affirming care” for children is dangerous, irreversible, and being pushed for ideological and financial reasons — highlighted in the brief, in fact, is the admission by officials at Vanderbilt University’s hospital that transgender surgeries are “huge money makers,” which was first exposed by Daily Wire host Matt Walsh.
A federal judge ruled in December, days before Idaho’s law was set to take effect, that it violated the 14th Amendment, blocking the state from enforcing any aspect of the bill. It filed an emergency motion to the Supreme Court on Tuesday challenging the lower court’s decision, in which the judge claimed that the outlawed medical treatments were “safe, effective, and medically necessary for some adolescents.”
Wednesday’s brief from the attorneys general, however, highlights the medical complications children face from transgender procedures and says that the lower court’s decision “puts children’s health and safety in danger.”
Concerns Over Children’s Health and Safety
The Supreme Court has never issued a ruling regarding bans on transgender medical treatments for children, though several federal appeals courts have upheld laws similar to Idaho’s. Leftist groups such as the ACLU have asked the Supreme Court to strike down similar laws after losing challenges to them in appeals courts, but it is still yet to weigh in.
The amicus brief to the court says that the states supporting Idaho’s appeal “are concerned that a devastating medical scandal is at hand.”
“[T]he medical establishment’s fast-tracking of vulnerable youth suffering from gender dysphoria — and, almost always, a host of other psychiatric ailments — for hormonal and surgical sex-modification procedures that can leave them sterilized and permanently harmed,” the brief says. “In response, over twenty States have joined Idaho in generally requiring children to reach the age of majority before undergoing medicalized sex-change procedures.”
Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia all signed onto the brief. A decision to allow enforcement of Idaho could indicate where it would rule on other ongoing challenges to the other state bans.
The brief blasted the district court for relying on “activist-drafted” guidelines on transgender procedures. In his decision, District Judge B. Lynn Winmill pointed to guidelines from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health that claim that children can be subjected to transgender procedures.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP
Repeatedly referenced throughout the brief were the health risks of putting children on cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers. These two procedures can damage a child’s bone development and cognitive function as well as future fertility.
Winmill is lambasted by the Republican officials for his suggestion that a “neophallus” surgery, a procedure where tissue from a woman’s clitoris is used to fashion a faux-penis, was “freely available” to children who do not identify as transgender.
The brief argues that the decision to block Idaho’s law was compromised by the financial interests of activist medical societies such as the one cited in Winmill’s decision.
“The court was obviously wrong to outsource the regulation of medical procedures to interest groups whose members are financially dependent on providing the procedures at issue; the Constitution puts States, not medical societies, in charge of regulation for a reason,” the brief says.
Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador filed his petition before the court on Friday with support from lawyers with the Alliance Defending Freedom. The petition, addressed to Justice Elena Kagan, is expected to be discussed by the full court.
Why are Republican-led states urging the Supreme Court to protect children from transgender medical treatments?
Republican-led States Urge Supreme Court to Protect Children from Transgender Medical Treatments”
Republican-led states are calling on the Supreme Court to allow Idaho to enforce its ban on transgender medical treatments for children. In a legal filing submitted on Wednesday, nineteen Republican attorneys general presented a fact-filled brief that exposes the potential dangers of the burgeoning transgender medical industry. The amicus brief references The Daily Wire’s reporting in an effort to support Idaho’s petition to broadly enforce its ban on life-altering puberty blockers and transgender surgeries for minors.
Led by Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, the attorneys general argue that the provision of so-called “gender-affirming care” for children is not only dangerous and irreversible but also primarily driven by ideological and financial motivations. The brief highlights the shocking admission from officials at Vanderbilt University’s hospital that transgender surgeries are a “huge money maker.” This revelation, brought to light by Daily Wire host Matt Walsh, exemplifies the profit-driven nature of the transgender medical industry.
In December, a federal judge ruled that Idaho’s law, which aimed to protect children from transgender procedures, violated the 14th Amendment. This ruling prevented the state from enforcing any aspect of the bill. Idaho subsequently filed an emergency motion challenging the lower court’s decision, stating that the prohibited medical treatments are safe, effective, and medically necessary for some adolescents.
The amicus brief filed by the attorneys general asserts that the lower court’s ruling places children’s health and safety in danger. It emphasizes the potential complications and risks associated with transgender procedures for minors. Although federal appeals courts have upheld similar laws to Idaho’s, the Supreme Court has yet to issue a formal ruling on bans on transgender medical treatments for children. Leftist groups, including the ACLU, have urged the Supreme Court to strike down these laws after losing challenges in appeals courts.
According to the amicus brief, the supporting states are deeply concerned about the possibility of a devastating medical scandal. It criticizes the medical establishment’s rapid approval of hormonal and surgical sex-modification procedures for vulnerable youth suffering from gender dysphoria, often alongside other psychiatric conditions. The brief notes that over twenty states, including Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia, require children to reach the age of majority before undergoing medicalized sex-change procedures.
The brief also challenges the district court’s reliance on guidelines from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, which assert that children can undergo transgender procedures. The attorneys general argue that these guidelines were drafted by activists and therefore lack proper scientific grounding.
If the Supreme Court grants Idaho the ability to enforce its ban, it may provide insights into how the Court could rule on similar challenges to other state bans. This case serves as a crucial opportunity to protect the health and welfare of children, ensuring that they are not subjected to irreversible medical treatments at a young age.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...