As bad as the issue of Girls Rights is here in Washington at the moment, there is hope on the horizon. In December 2024, the US Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether States can ban giving toxic transgender drugs to minors. It might also decide whether tax payers should be forced to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for these toxic drug treatments – which lead not only to sterility but also to cancer and brain tumors.
The issue of banning Transgender drugs is indirectly related to the series of Title IX cases on which the Supreme Court has already spoken in its August 2024 decision. In addition, should the Supreme Court rule that Transgender status is not a protected class, the outcome should help change the radical position of the Ninth Circuit which has recently made several bad rulings based on their assumption that Transgender status was a protected class. Equally important, it will be an opportunity for the Supreme Court to agree with the latest research on the harm of Transgender drugs.
The Fourteen Amendment Equal Protection Clause forbids States from discriminating based on race or sex. However, the Supreme Court has not said whether the Fourteen Amendment Equal Protection Clause extends to “Gender Identity” in cases that do not involve Title VII Employment law. There is good reason to conclude that gender identity is not a protected class and is radically different from sex or race. Both sex and race are objectively measured, biologically determined and unchangeable while “gender identity” is a subjective term which can change from one day to the next. In addition, the Transgender Drug Cult involves lying to minors to convince them to take toxic drugs promoted by drug companies that make millions of dollars off these drugs.
In 2023, Tennessee and Kentucky joined 23 other states to ban the use of puberty blockers and cross sex hormones currently being given to hundreds of thousands of minors in the US with the lie that taking these drugs will magically change a confused and troubled child into the opposite sex. These State Drug Bans led the Biden administration to sue these States. Federal Courts in the Sixth Circuit and Eleventh Circuit found in favor of the State Drug Bans. The Supreme Court will review two decisions from the following cases (both from the Sixth Circuit): US v SKRMETTI, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TENNESSEE and Jane Doe 1 v KENTUCKY.
The Supreme Court decision will also influence an 11th Circuit decision that found in favor of an Alabama Transgender Drug Ban. The Alabama case was called Eknes-Tucker v. Governor, of the State of Alabama. You can read this case at this link: https://casetext.com/case/eknes-tucker-v-governor-of-the-state-of-ala
The Alabama court concluded that Transgender status is not a protected class by the 14th Amendment and that the Alabama Ban “does not further any particular gender stereotype but rather simply reflects the biological differences between males and females.”
Here is a quote from the Alabama decision: “Alabama produced a declaration in which Carol Freitas, a biological female who previously experienced gender dysphoria, claims that "[taking transgender drugs] was the biggest mistake she ever made" and that she instead should have been treated for depression and post-traumatic stress disorder related to her "internalized homophobia and childhood abuse." In terms of medical opinions from foreign countries, Alabama produced documents showing that public healthcare entities of Sweden, Finland, France, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom have raised concerns about the risks associated with puberty blockers and cross-sex hormone treatment… The Supreme Court has instructed courts addressing substantive due process claims to be reluctant to recognize rights not mentioned in the Constitution." Alabama argues that the ban "serves the compelling State interest of protecting children from unproven, life-altering medical interventions."
On July 8, 2023, a judge for the Sixth Circuit overturned a lower court ruling which had found against the Tennessee Transgender Drug ban. You can read this decision here: https://casetext.com/case/l-w-v-skrmetti-2
In summary, the judge found that the Tennessee law has a rational basis of preventing harm to minors as Transgender Drugs have been shown to not be safe. The judge also found that a previous Supreme Court decision called Bostock only applies to a federal employment law called Title VII. In addition, while parents "have a substantive due process right 'to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children'" parents do not have a right to give their minor children “new medical or experimental drug treatments." (quoting Troxel, 530 U.S. at 66, 120 S.Ct. 2054).
On September 28, 2023, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in favor of the Tennessee and Kentucky Transgender Drugging bans. You can read their decision here: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-6th-circuit/115185810.html
Here are quotes from this Sixth Circuit decision:
“Nineteen States have laws similar to those in Tennessee and Kentucky. See Ala. Code § 26-26-4; Ark. Code Ann. § 20-9-1502(a); Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R.64B8-9.019; Ga. Code Ann. § 31-7-3.5; Idaho Code § 18-1506C; Ind. Code § 25-1-22-13; Iowa Code § 147.164; La. Stat. Ann. § 40:1098 (effective Jan. 1, 2024); Miss. Code Ann. § 41-141-1-9; Mo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 191.1720; S.B. 99, 68th Leg., 2023 Sess. (Mont. 2023); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 72-7301-07; H.B. 808, 2023 Sess. (N.C. 2023); N.D. Cent. Code. § 12.1-36.1-02; Okla. Stat. tit. 63, § 2607.1; H.B. 1080, 98th Leg. Sess. (S.D. 2023); S.B. 14, 88th Leg. Sess. (Tex. 2023); Utah Code Ann. § 58-68-502(1)(g); W. Va. Code § 30-3-20 (effective Jan. 1, 2024). At least fourteen other States, meanwhile, provide various protections for those seeking (drug) treatments for gender dysphoria. See Ariz. Exec. Order No. 2023-12; Cal. Penal Code § 819; Colo. Rev. Stat. § 12-30-121(1)(d); Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 52-571n, 54-155b; 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 40/28-10; Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 11 et seq.; Md. Exec. Order No. 01.01.2023.08; Minn. Stat. § 260.925; N.J. Exec. Order No. 326; N.M. Stat. Ann. § 24-34-4; N.Y. Educ. § 6531-b(2); H.B. 2002, 82nd Leg., 2023 Reg. Sess. (Or. 2023); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 150; Wash. Rev. Code § 7.002.002.”
“The government has the power to reasonably limit the use of drugs. If that's true for adults, it's assuredly true for their children. While our longstanding traditions may give individuals a right to refuse treatment, there is no historical support for an affirmative right to specific treatments.”
“The Tennessee and Kentucky laws treat similarly situated individuals evenhandedly.…The laws regulate sex-transition treatments for all minors, regardless of sex. Under each law, no minor may receive puberty blockers or hormones or surgery in order to transition from one sex to another. Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-33-103(a)(1); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 311.372(2). Such an across-the-board regulation lacks any of the hallmarks of sex discrimination. It does not prefer one sex over the other. It does not include one sex and exclude the other. It does not bestow benefits or burdens based on sex.”
The Biden Administration appeal of the Sixth Circuit decision presents two questions to the US Supreme Court:
1. Whether Tennessee’s SB1, which categorically bans gender-affirming healthcare for transgender adolescents, violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
2. Whether Tennessee’s SB1 violates the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the medical care of their children guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
On February 2, 2024, Tennessee filed a 49 page brief supporting the Trangender Drugging Ban. Here is the link to download and read this brief.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-466/299673/20240202161313831_23-466%20-477%20Brief%20in%20Opposition%20Final.pdf
Here are quotes from this brief:
“In recent years, the number of minors receiving gender-dysphoria diagnoses have exploded. States have also seen a corresponding surge in unproven and risky medical interventions for these underage patients. It is undisputed that these hormonal and surgical interventions carry serious and potentially irreversible side effects, including infertility, diminished bone density, sexual dysfunction, cardiovascular disease, and cancer.
States across the country have responded to these developments by enacting laws designed to ensure that potentially irreversible sex-transition interventions of uncertain benefit are not performed on minors who may not be able to fully grasp their lifelong consequences and risks. Tennessee, for example, prohibited three types of medical interventions for minors— puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and sex-transition surgeries.
The questions presented are:
Whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits States from enacting laws protecting children from sex-transition medical interventions with risks of lifelong harm.
Whether the substantive component of the Due Process Clause gives a parent a right to demand cross-sex medical interventions for children that a State has found to be unproven and excessively risky.”
Also on February 2, 2024 Alabama filed a 38 page brief in support of the Tennessee Transgender Drugging ban. This brief provides a summary of why the WPATH Transgender Drugging standards are not supported by any credible science. Here is the link to download and read this brief.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-477/299629/20240202143043426_2024.02.01-%20Ala.%20Amicus%20Br.%20iso%20TN-KY%20BIO%20FINAL.pdf
Here are quotes from this brief:
“For many years, petitioners’ preferred interest groups went unchallenged. Comprised of transgender activists and clinicians interested in—and financially dependent on—sex-modification procedures, groups like WPATH promulgated so-called “standards of care” that promised that providing sex-change procedures to a 12-year-old girl uncomfortable in her body was the only way to treat her discomfort. Never mind that the puberty blockers followed by testosterone would likely leave the girl infertile.”
“Then things began to change. Stories of rushed transitions and regret made their way into the media. Once-lauded multidisciplinary pediatric gender centers were shut down. Gender clinics founded on the promise of helping suffering children saw their patients get worse after transitioning. And healthcare authorities, particularly in Europe, began reviewing the evidence for themselves... These and other countries rejected the WPATH model of “care” and severely restricted the availability of sex-modification procedures for youth.”
“WPATH is no normal medical organization. Its guidelines purport to be evidence-based, but WPATH admits it skipped the foundational step of conducting a systematic evidence review when it crafted its treatment recommendations for adolescents. It routinely suppresses scientific inquiry, silencing scholars who question the WPATH standard of “care” and censuring members who go public with their concerns.”
“The First and Fifth Circuits—and, until recently, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services— found that “the WPATH Standards of Care reflect not consensus, but merely one side in a sharply contested medical debate.”
“As one doctor at Vanderbilt’s gender clinic bragged, transitioning services are “huge money makers.” A surgeon profiled by the New York Times “has built a thriving top surgery specialty” by advertising her services to children on social media… American interest groups that endorse gender-transition procedures are just that— interest groups, with a strong financial interest in promoting the procedures their members make a living by providing.”
“One member of the guidelines authoring committee even bragged that the committee did not even have “some little data”—it “had none”—to justify the language in the guideline allowing doctors to prescribe cross-sex hormones to youth under 16.”
On September 3, 2024, the Society of Evidence Based Medicine filed a 50 page brief further explaining that giving kids toxic trans drugs is not supported by scientific evidence. Here is the link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-477/323919/20240903143746537_23-477%20Amicus%20Brief%20SEGM.pdf
Here are some quotes from their brief: “The practice of youth gender medicine has no parallels in modern medicine. Every aspect of the practice—from the diagnosis, which is unable to differentiate those who may be helped by treatment from those who will be harmed, to the highly invasive interventions themselves, which cause certain harms, such as sterility, while producing only uncertain benefits—challenges the conventions of evidence-based medicine.
In 2020, when systematic evidence reviews began to send a strong signal that the harm-benefit ratio of gender transitions is unfavorable for most youth, the prior medical consensus regarding treatments of youth gender dysphoria collapsed. Several European health authorities sharply restricted the practice of medical gender transition for minors. At the same time, in the U.S., the medical establishment chose to ignore this new scientific evidence. Research shows that among children whose gender dysphoria emerged before puberty, 61% to 98% come to identify with their sex before adulthood. In the last year, several studies have shed light on the fact that gender dysphoria in adolescence is not a permanent diagnosis. At least three re- cent studies examined the diagnostic prevalence of the gender dysphoria diagnosis in youth. These studies found that as few as 40% to 50% of ad- olescents with a gender-related diagnosis retain that diagnosis after five to seven years, and trends indicate this number will continue to go down with longer follow-up. Here are the three recent studies:
Christian J. Bachmann,, Yulia Golub, Jakob Holstiege, Falk Hoffmann, Gender Identity Disorders among Young People in Germany: Prevalence and Trends, 2013–2022. An Analysis of Nationwide Routine Insurance Data, Deutsches Ärzteblatt International, (May 31, 2024).
The Gender Dysphoria Diagnosis in Young People Has a “Low Diagnostic Stability,” Finds a New German Study, Society for Evidenced Based Gender Medicine (July 19, 2024) https://segm.org/gender-dysphoria-diagnosis-desistance-germany
Leor Sapir, Adolescent Gender Dysphoria Is a Temporary Diagnosis for Most Teens, The City Journal, (August 30, 2024), https://www.city-journal.org/article/adolescent-gender-dysphoria-is-a-temporary-diagnosis-for-most-teens
A recent analysis by Sapir of insurance records of 85% of insured US population found that only 42.3 to 49.9% percent of youth retain their gender dysphoria diagnosis over a seven-year period (see graph below).
WPATH removed minimum age requirements for hormones and most types of surgery due to last-minute political pressures from the U.S. government (Admiral Levine), “social justice” attorneys, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, as recent court disclosures reveal.
The studies emerging from the NIH-funded research reveal a concerning picture. The psychological benefits appear marginal, at best, with an alarming finding of young people committing suicide during treatment at the rate that is at least forty times the expected rates (2/315). Here is the recent study: D. Chen, et al, Psychosocial Functioning in Transgender Youth after 2 Years of Hormones, New England Journal of Medicine, (2023) at 240–250, 288.
The studies of the harms of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones are reporting changes in the young people’s bodies that are consistent with heightened risk of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and potential bone health issues. Here are the recent studies:
Natalie J. Nokoff, et al, Body Composition and Markers of Cardiometabolic Health in Transgender Youth on Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Agonists, Transgender Health 6, no. 2 (April 1, 2021) at 111–19
Natalie Nokoff, et al., Body Composition and Markers of Cardiometabolic Health in Transgender Youth Compared With Cisgender Youth, The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 105, no. 3 (March 1, 2020) at e704–14
Despite the increasing mountain of scientific evidence on the harm of giving kids toxic transgender drugs, on September 3, 2024, Washington AG Bob Ferguson filed an Amicus brief with other states siding with the Transgender Drug Cult. You can read this brief here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-477/323942/20240903152555724_U.S.%20v.%20Skrmetti%20California%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf
Needless to say, Ferguson and his accomplices ignore all of the real scientific evidence.
Will the US Supreme Court even get a chance to render an opinion?
The outcome in this Supreme Court review could be affected by the presidential election in November 2024.
If Donald Trump wins the election, he has stated he will withdraw the Biden administration’s pair of appeals once in office. This would have the effect of allowing the lower court rulings in favor of State Transgender bans to stand.
On the other hand, if Harris wins the election, the Supreme Court will be forced to issue an Opinion. Either way, it is likely this issue will be resolved some time in 2025.
Our goal at Washington Parents Network is to help States and the US Supreme Court make the right decision using the latest available science. We will keep you posted. In the meantime, we look forward to your questions and comments.
Regards,
David Spring M. Ed.
Washington Parents Network