Aiden Craver / Unsplash
CV NEWS FEED // The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Dec. 5 in United States v. Skrmetti, a case addressing whether Tennessee can protect children from puberty blockers, which chemically sterilize, and sexual surgeries that mutilate and castrate.
Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) prohibits these experimental procedures on minors, asserting the state’s compelling interest in safeguarding minors from irreversible and harmful medical practices. The law has faced opposition from the Biden Department of Justice (DOJ) and transgender activist groups, which argue it is unconstitutional.
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the DOJ, argued that Tennessee’s law discriminates based on sex but admitted that states have authority to regulate these procedures. She highlighted West Virginia’s law, which allows limited exceptions for alleged “at-risk” youth, as a narrower approach.
“We do think there is a real space for states to regulate here,” Prelogar stated, while criticizing Tennessee’s broader prohibitions.
Justice Samuel Alito questioned Prelogar about international trends, emphasizing that nations like the United Kingdom and Sweden have curtailed such procedures on minors due to concerns over their long-term effects. Prelogar acknowledged these developments but argued that neither country had entirely prohibited the procedures and claimed some experts consider them “medically necessary.”
Tennessee Solicitor General J. Matthew Rice defended SB 1, asserting that the law addresses the purpose of these procedures rather than any identity marker. He argued that using puberty blockers and surgeries to attempt “gender transitions” is fundamentally different from their use in treating physical medical conditions. Rice compared this to regulating morphine: permissible for pain management but not for assisted suicide.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson compared Tennessee’s law protecting children from mutilation and sterilization to bans on interracial marriage, which the Supreme Court struck down in 1967. Rice rejected the analogy, emphasizing that SB 1 focuses on protecting children from harmful and experimental surgical procedures rather than targeting any individual characteristic. He further argued that such decisions should be left to legislatures, not courts.
>> AMERICAN SOCIETY OF PLASTIC SURGEONS CHALLENGES TRANSGENDER SURGERIES FOR MINORS <<
Chase Strangio, representing the plaintiffs and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), claimed the law is discriminatory and overly broad. Strangio claimed that transgender identity has a biological component, equating it to immutable traits like race.
Strangio argued that courts must intervene in cases involving medical care and constitutional rights, likening this to Supreme Court decisions on COVID-19 restrictions. Chief Justice John Roberts expressed concern about courts determining the fate of laws amid ongoing medical debates.
Tennessee’s SB 1, enacted in March 2023, forbids healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers, which chemically sterilize, or performing sexual surgeries that mutilate and castrate children. The law asserts that these procedures harm the integrity of the medical profession and lack support from reliable, long-term studies. It emphasizes the state’s duty to protect minors from physical and emotional harm, arguing that children cannot fully consent to life-altering treatments they may later regret.
Despite lawsuits from progressive groups and the DOJ, a Sixth Circuit panel allowed the law to take effect. Circuit Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton upheld the legislation in a 2-1 decision, highlighting states’ longstanding authority to regulate medical practices.
“There is a long tradition of permitting state governments to regulate medical treatments for adults and children,” Sutton wrote.
In dissent, Circuit Judge Helene White argued that the law discriminates based on sex and infringes on parental rights.
Jon Brown, a reporter for the Christian Post, described the atmosphere in the courtroom to CatholicVote.
“I had a clear view of Moses with the Ten Commandments in the frieze along the ceiling. It was all I could see,” he said. “I kept looking at it as the highest court debated the basic definitions of reality, and I was overcome with the thought that all of this chaos and pain are the result of ignoring God’s law.”
Brandon Showalter, host of Generation Indoctrination: Inside the Transgender Battle, commented on the critical nature of exposing the harm caused by such procedures.
“I’m encouraged that in the last two years, awareness about this gruesome medical scandal among the general public has risen substantially,” he told CatholicVote. “Whatever happens regarding the Skrmetti ruling, journalists at CP and other publications will continue our relentless truth-telling, drawing attention to the horrendous, lifelong effects of experimental drugs and medically unnecessary surgeries carried out in pursuit of the lie known as an amorphous ‘gender identity.’”
The case is set against revelations of questionable practices by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall recently exposed in a Wall Street Journal op-ed how WPATH’s so-called “standards of care” were crafted to win legal battles, not reflect rigorous science.
>> IN WSJ OP-ED, ALABAMA AG REVEALS TRICKS USED TO PRESSURE SCOTUS TO APPROVE ‘TRANSGENDER CARE’ <<
Emails obtained during Alabama’s litigation revealed that WPATH deliberately avoided evidence-based reviews, fearing such scrutiny would expose a lack of support for their recommendations. Marshall argued that WPATH’s standards are being used by the Biden administration and the ACLU to push an ideological agenda, bypassing democratic processes.
Marshall also accused the administration of pressuring WPATH to eliminate proposed age minimums for puberty blockers and surgeries, with political priorities taking precedence over scientific integrity. A Johns Hopkins review commissioned by HHS found “little to no evidence” supporting WPATH’s recommendations for minors, findings WPATH reportedly tried to suppress.
Marshall contended that states like Tennessee and Alabama are exercising their constitutional authority to protect children from dangerous and experimental procedures.
“Children suffering from gender dysphoria,” he said, “deserve better than sterilizing hormones and irreversible surgery — even if groups like WPATH and the current administration think otherwise.”
