It’s Time for Washington to Protect Our Daughters
America wants Republicans to roll back the Left’s “transgender” agenda. Here’s how they can do it.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in United States v. Skrmetti, a case challenging a 2023 Tennessee law banning genital surgery and puberty blockers for minors suffering from gender dysphoria. The case is an important reminder that, despite overwhelming popular opposition to the transgender movement, rolling back the Left’s last four years of transgender ideology won’t come easy.
Consider the flack that Speaker of the House Mike Johnson faced just last month when—prompted by the election of Tim McBride, a “transgender” congressman from Delaware—he announced a new rule ensuring that the women’s restrooms and locker rooms in Congress are reserved for, well, women.
Or take the example of South Carolina Rep. Nancy Mace, who faced death threats recently after she introduced the Protecting Women’s Private Spaces Act, which would prevent men from using women’s private, protected facilities on all federal property.
Despite these attempts at intimidation, conservatives owe it to the American people to keep their eye on the ball.
On Jan. 20, 2021—Joe Biden’s very first day in office—he signed Executive Order 13988, which changed the substance of more than 100 laws by requiring every federal agency to expand its prohibitions on sex discrimination to include “gender identity or expression” discrimination. And for the next four years, Democrats aggressively pushed gender-neutral bathrooms, locker rooms, and dorm rooms; advanced pronoun-related speech codes; and advocated for men to compete in women’s sports.
The predictable result of this radical social experiment was a raft of injuries sustained by teen girls and millions of hardworking Americans throwing their support behind Republicans this election.
Now, with control of the White House and majorities in both chambers of Congress, Republicans have a moral obligation to go on offense and roll back the Left’s transgender agenda. Protecting women on Capitol Hill is a fine place to start, but conservatives can’t stop until we’ve guaranteed the safety of our mothers, sisters, and daughters across the country. --->READ MORE HERE
Supreme Court Case on ‘Transgender’ Procedures for Kids Could Threaten Women’s Sports, Defendant Says
Does the fact that cross-sex hormones affect children differently based on their sex make it unconstitutional for states to protect minors from transgender medical procedures?
This is the key issue of the case heard Wednesday by the Supreme Court, says Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, a Republican who is the named respondent in United States v. Skrmetti.
The Biden-Harris administration filed suit against Tennessee on behalf of other opponents, asking the high court to strike down a state law banning transgender medical treatments for minors.
“The fundamental question of the Supreme Court case is: Does the mere fact that hormones affect kids differently mean that any regulation of hormones for kids is going to be a constitutional issue?” Skrmetti told The Daily Signal in a phone interview Wednesday night.
“We regulate medicine all the time,” Skrmetti said. “The states have been regulating the practice of medicine for hundreds of years. And yet we have this one odd carve-out because boys and girls are different, and that’s such a fundamental fact of human existence, it seems hard to see how we could be boxed in and left unable to protect kids just because we happen to have two sexes.”
U.S. v. Skrmetti will decide whether states may ban irreversible transgender medical interventions for children.
The high court is asked to rule on the constitutionality of SB 1, the Tennessee law that protects children from gender-transition procedures.
In Wednesday’s oral argument, lawyers for the U.S. government and the American Civil Liberties Union contended that the Tennessee law discriminates based on sex because it bans transgender medical procedures only “when inconsistent with the patient’s birth sex.”
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelagor, representing the Biden-Harris administration, argued that so-called puberty blockers are prescribed to boys and girls with early-onset puberty. It is thus sex discrimination to deny puberty blockers based on sex to children with gender dysphoria, she said.
A doctor may prescribe estrogen to an adolescent female with a hormone disorder, but not to an adolescent male who wants to transition to a female, which Prelagor said is facial discrimination— discrimination that is plainly based on protected class or status.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett posed a hypothetical to her: What if a new drug with the sole purpose of blocking puberty was banned? Prelagor admitted that such a ban would not facially discriminate based on sex.
In his interview with The Daily Signal, Skrmetti said the existence of two biological sexes shouldn’t prevent states from “protecting kids.” --->READ MORE HERE
If you like what you see, please "Like" and/or Follow us on FACEBOOK
here, GETTR
here, and TWITTER
here.
No comments:
Post a Comment