A 6th Circuit Panel of Republican appointed judges cited Dobbs nine times and stated that because trans care is not "deeply rooted in this country's history and tradition," it can be banned.
The 6th Circuit Court upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors, overturning a lower court ruling. The majority opinion cited the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision multiple times, arguing that transgender care is not deeply rooted in U.S. history and thus not constitutionally protected. The dissenting judge argued that the ban amounts to sex discrimination and goes against precedent. This ruling breaks from other federal courts that have deemed similar bans unconstitutional, potentially setting the stage for the Supreme Court to weigh in on the issue. Advocates worry this ruling signals an erosion of constitutional protections for transgender people following Dobbs.
This is particularly galling as the standard applied originally came from Glucksburg. Glucksburg was a case on physician assisted suicide where the Court applied the “not deeply rooted in and offensive to US tradition” standard being cited here, but also held that the state had a rational and compelling interest in banning physician assisted suicide for the preservation of life and to protect the mentally disabled or ill from medical malpractice or coercion. But in the case of gender affirming care the science and medical practice supports the opposite–gender affirming care drastically reduces suicide rates and provides significantly better outcomes for those with gender dysphoria. They appear to be applying half of the reasoning of Glucksburg while directly going against the second half. That’s not even touching the sex discrimination argument, which is compelling in its own right. I’m ashamed to live in the 6th Circuit today.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !politics@beehaw.org
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it’s a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
This is particularly galling as the standard applied originally came from Glucksburg. Glucksburg was a case on physician assisted suicide where the Court applied the “not deeply rooted in and offensive to US tradition” standard being cited here, but also held that the state had a rational and compelling interest in banning physician assisted suicide for the preservation of life and to protect the mentally disabled or ill from medical malpractice or coercion. But in the case of gender affirming care the science and medical practice supports the opposite–gender affirming care drastically reduces suicide rates and provides significantly better outcomes for those with gender dysphoria. They appear to be applying half of the reasoning of Glucksburg while directly going against the second half. That’s not even touching the sex discrimination argument, which is compelling in its own right. I’m ashamed to live in the 6th Circuit today.