Supreme Court Skrmetti Decision Permits Ban on Gender-Affirming Care for Children
How the decision of supreme trans health care will affect children
The Supreme Court has decided to maintain the prohibition of the state on the stakes of the care for minors US c. Skrmetti
Hundreds of trans people, activists and supporters gather outside the United States Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on December 4, 2024, while the Supreme Court hears the US c. Skrmetti case.
Marvin Joseph / The Washington Post via Getty Images
The United States Supreme Court has confirmed a Tennessee law prohibiting the healing care for minors in the case US c. Skrmetti. In a decision of 6 to 3 of the conservative supermajure, the Court judged that the law of the State, called Bill 1 of the Senate (SB1), does not violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution by discriminating the basis of sex – despite the fact that the law prohibits certain medical treatments for young people on the basis of their gender attributed to birth.
Why this counts
The decision is a blow for the rights and protections of transgender Americans, which have been attacked at the level of the state and the federal government. The challenge for the Tennessee SB1 had been brought by three transgender teenagers, their families and a doctor. “It may seem a small question for others, but it affects my whole world,” said one of the complainants, a 12 -year -old transgender boy, in a statement subject to the district court. “I went through a lot to finally get to the happy and healthy place where I am and I hope desperately that everything will not be removed from me.”
On the support of scientific journalism
If you appreciate this article, plan to support our award -winning journalism by subscription. By buying a subscription, you help to ensure the future of striking stories about discoveries and ideas that shape our world today.
For anyone under the age of 18, SB1 has prohibited medical treatments that aim to alleviate the symptoms of gender dysphoria – a feeling of disparagration between the perceived sex of a person and their sex assigned to birth. The law prohibits medical treatments affirming sex, including puberty blocking drugs and hormonal therapies. There is no evidence of serious negative effects of these drugs, although the long -term use of puberty blockers can limit the accumulation of bone mineral density.
These drugs have also long been used by adolescents and non -transgender children to treat a variety of conditions. Their use for gender dysphoria is currently supported by the American Medical Association, the American Association of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association and other important medical institutions.
Research has shown that young people who experience dysphoria between the sexes run a high risk of depression and suicide. Those who receive care have better results for mental health, including a decrease in suicidal ideas, have revealed several studies. On the other hand, between 2018 and 2022, when the states adopted anti -strainsgenres laws, attempts to suicide among young transgender people increased up to 72%. In the United Kingdom, a ban on puberty blockers for transgender young people led to a sharp drop in mental health among this group, including increased depression, social isolation and suicidal ideas, a recent study revealed.
The decision
In the majority decision of the Supreme Court, chief judge John Roberts stressed “fierce scientific and political debates on security, efficiency and convenience” of treatments. However, many of these debates have been largely political, and not scientific.
The court was responsible for deciding whether the law constituted sexual discrimination under the equal protection clause and should therefore be subject to a higher level of judicial control. The applicants argued that SB1 prohibits medical treatments established for some people and allows them to others on the basis of sexual relations assigned to individuals at birth. For example, in Tennessee, a teenager who had been assigned to a woman at birth could not receive testosterone therapy, but a teenager who had been assigned to birth could.
“The equal protection clause does not solve these disagreements,” Roberts wrote in majority opinion. “It also does not allow us to decide to decide them as we see best. Our role is not “to judge the wisdom, equity or logic” of the law which is seized for us … but only to guarantee that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the fourteenth amendment. After concluding, we do not leave questions concerning its policy with the population, their elected representatives and the democratic process. ”
In dissent, judge Sonia Sotomayor wrote: “The Law of Tennessee expressly classifies on the basis of sex and transgender status … The majority of the logic and the prohibition of Tennessee on the medical treatment of life … By inexplicably retiring in retirement from the significant judicial of Tadre, the task, the Tadre, the Tadre, Transgences and children are children. dissent. “”
What experts say
The court’s decision means that Tennessee’s SB1 and all the laws of similar states do not deserve an increased examination of the judicial system to ensure that they are appropriate. “This is regrettable because the basis of evidence concerning care affirming the sexes is overwhelming to support access to care,” said Elana Redfield, expert in LGBTQ + politics at the Williams Institute of the University of California in Los Angeles. “However, the legislator ignored this evidence and rather relied on disinformation and conjecture when it adopted the law – and, one can affirm, a bias against transgender people.”
Redfield notes that the result of the case does not prevent the States from adopting laws to protect access to care affirmed by the sexes – like 14 states and Washington, DC, have chosen to do so. She adds that the decision does not prevent future challenges with anti -strain on anti -lines from being brought before the court for various reasons.
Lawrence GOSTIN, co-faculty director of the O’Neill Institute for the National and World Health Law of the Georgetown University Law Center, decreased the court’s decision. “It is breathtaking to see a majority of judges from the Supreme Court turn their eyes while transgender minors are categorically accessible to health services in consultation with their doctors,” Gostin said in a recent press release. “The Court is laws on red states in green light which will deeply affect the lives of marginalized people and victims of health care health, social acceptance and dignity. This decision opens the way to additional restrictions on other essential but politically rich services, especially in sexual and reproductive health. ”
Learn more about the case and the care for transgender
If you need help
If you or someone you know, you have trouble or have suicide thoughts, help is available. Call or send an SMS to 988 suicide & Crifeline Crifeline at 988 or use the line online Lauses line cat.
