Whether some know it or not, we are all in a war over the future of our children. On the one side are powerful forces such as greedy Trans Drug corporations - that make billions pushing toxic trans drugs on our kids, the dishonest corporate media and the drug pushing American Medical Association – both of which are controlled by these drug corporations, diabolical billionaires like Bill Gates - who own the drug corporations, arrogant lawyers of the Bar Association, corrupt leaders of the Democratic Party – run by power hungry people like Bob Ferguson, Woke Leaders of the Teacher Unions and their brainwashed followers in the PTA.
On the other side are devoted parents - whose kids are threatened by the Trans Drug Cult, active church members - who are morally opposed to the Trans Cult, Independent locally controlled media – who see the harm of Transgenderism in their communities, Womens Sports advocates – opposed to the Trans Takeover of Girls Sports, conservative Republican Party leaders – who are sensitive to the concerns of parents, alarmed school board members – who see the harm Transgenderism inflicts on students and concerned scientists – who are reporting the biological facts that it is not possible for either sex to be magically transformed into the other sex and that giving kids drugs does not resolve their mental health problems. Thankfully, we can now add the US Supreme Court to the list of groups working to protect our children from the harm of Transgenderism.
In this article, we will review one of the most important turning points in the Trans Drug War being waged against our kids – namely a US Supreme Court hearing that took place on Wednesday, December 4, 2024. The hearing was for the Biden administration to explain why they oppose the Tennesee Trans Drug Ban (as well as the ban in 24 other states) which prevents giving toxic trans drugs to children under the age of 18. The hearing was scheduled for one hour. It went on for 2 hours and 21 minutes.
You can download and read the 169 page transcript of the hearing at this link:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-477_2c8f.pdf
You can download and listen to the audio tape of this 2 hour 21 minute hearing at this link:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2024/23-477
The Supreme Court has up to six months to make a ruling on this case. However, given the harm that the Trans Drug Cult is currently inflicting on tens of thousands of kids, it is likely that the Supreme Court will issue a ruling in the next 30 days. Five Justices spoke in favor of the Tennessee Ban, 3 Justices spoke against the Tennessee Ban and one Justice said nothing but was listening carefully to the shocking arguments and is likely to vote with the five justices in support of the Tennessee Trans Drug Ban.
Here are a few quotes from the five Supreme Court Justices indictating that they were not drinking the Biden Trans Cult Koolaid:
Justice Thomas:
“You suggest that there's an outright ban on this treatment. But that not the case. It's really for minors. So why isn't this simply a case of age classification when it comes to these treatments as opposed to a ban, as you suggested in your opening statement?”
“Is there no difference if a girl takes testosterone or if a boy takes testosterone?”
Chief Justice John Roberts
“They're intensely affected by medical considerations. And if that's true, doesn't that make a stronger case for us to leave those determinations to the legislative bodies rather than try to determine them for ourselves?"
Justice Samuel Alito
“The Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare wrote the following: They currently assess "that the risks of puberty blockers and gender-affirming treatment are likely to outweigh the expected benefits of these treatments… the Cass report in the United Kingdom, which found a complete lack of high-quality evidence showing that the benefits of the treatments in question here outweigh the risks... The judgment at the present time of the health authorities in the United Kingdom and Sweden is that the risks and dangers greatly outweigh the benefits… The restriction that I mentioned was imposed by the British government some months ago. It was reaffirmed by the current Labour government, was it not? It was upheld by the High Court of Justice as based on sufficient medical evidence? Isn't all of that true?”
“Why should we look to Bostock here? Bostock involved the interpretation of particular language in a particular statute. And this is not a question of statutory interpretation. It's a question of the application of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Court has addressed the question of how an equal protection claim should be analyzed when the law in question treats a medical condition or procedure differently based on a characteristic that is associated with just one sex…”
“Let's just talk about puberty blockers. Suppose the statute said that puberty blockers may not be prescribed or administered to any minor for the purpose of preventing the onset of puberty prior to the time when puberty generally occurs. That statute makes no reference whatsoever to anybody's sex. It applies to all minors.”
“A lot of categorical statements have been made this morning in argument and in the briefs about medical questions that seem to me to be hotly disputed, and that's a bit distressing. One of them has to do with the risk of suicide. Do you maintain that the procedures and medications in question reduce the risk of suicide? Do you think there is reason for disagreement about that?... On page 195 of the Cass report, it says: There is no evidence that gender-affirmative treatments reduce suicide.
“Whether transgender status should be regarded as a quasi-suspect classification.. one of the things that our cases have mentioned in explaining when something should be specified as a quasi-suspect classification, and that is a history of discrimination. Another one is immutability. Is transgender status immutable?.. It is not an immutable characteristic, is it?
Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised concerns about scientific studies confirming the harm of giving kids toxic trans drugs:
“Twenty plus states put forth very forceful arguments against allowing these medical treatments for minors… If there's strong, forceful scientific policy arguments on both sides in a situation like this, why isn't it best to leave it to the democratic process?"
“The State says its justification here is health and safety for minors. You say there are benefits from allowing these treatments. But there are also harms from allowing these treatments -- at least the State says so -- including lost fertility, the physical and psychological effects on those who later change their mind and want to de-transition, which I don't think we can ignore.”
"It is obviously an evolving debate. England is pulling back, Sweden is pulling back. It strikes me as a pretty heavy yellow light, if not red light, for this Court to come in, the nine of us, and to constitutionalize the whole area when the rest of the world, or at least the people who the countries that have been at the forefront of this are pumping the brakes on this kind of treatment because of concerns about the risks.”
“What would that mean for women's and girls' sports in particular? Would transgender athletes have a constitutional right to play in women's and girls' sports, basketball, swimming, volleyball, track, etcetera, notwithstanding the competitive fairness and safety issues that have been vocally raised by some female athletes seen in the amicus brief of the many women athletes in this case?
Justice Barrett:
“If we just head-on confront the question which you raise in the second part of your brief about whether transgender status should be a suspect class, one question I have is: we don't have a history of de jure discrimination against transgender people.. And my concern about it is this. All of the other suspect classes that we've recognized so far do have that long de jure history of discrimination. And, you know, the Equal Protection Clause applies to state action, so it feels like an odd fit to say that in their private lives, people have discriminated against transgender people; therefore, we're going to treat it as a suspect class for purposes of the Equal Protection Clause.”
“I have one factual question and one legal question. The factual question is the Sixth Circuit mentioned that there is an off-label use that the FDA has not authorized. Is that still true? And is that just for children or is it for adults too? (It is true for children and adults.)
My legal question is if you had a response -- about de jure discrimination and what we should take account of if we're thinking about whether transgender people should be a suspect class for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.
And -- last legal question -- Justice Kavanaugh's questions about what the implications of this case would be for the athletic context or the bathrooms context?”
Matthew Rice, arguing in favor of the Tennessee Trans Drug Ban stated:
“Tennessee lawmakers enacted SB1 to protect minors from risky, unproven medical interventions. The law imposes an across-the-board rule that allows the use of drugs and surgeries for some medical purposes but not for others. Its application turns entirely on medical purpose, not a patient's sex. That is not sex discrimination.”
“The Equal Protection Clause does not require the states to blind themselves to medical reality or to treat unlike things the same, and it does not constitutionalize one side's view of a disputed medical question. Half of the states, Sweden, Finland, and the U.K. all now restrict the use of these interventions in minors and recognize the uncertainty surrounding their use. These interventions carry often irreversible and life-altering consequences. And the systematic reviews conducted by European health authorities have found no established benefits.”
“Given the high desistance rate among minors and the tragic regret of detransitioners, that there is an interest in making sure that minors have enough time to appreciate their sex before undergoing life-altering changes.”
“There are numerous studies where the mental health of minors and suicidality got worse after taking these interventions.”
Dangerous drugs can not be used unless there is a legitimate viable medical purpose
“You cannot use testosterone for purely cosmetic reasons. It's a Schedule III drug. You are not allowed.”
““We have a separate law that prohibits the use of testosterone for hormonal manipulation intended to increase muscle mass strength or weight without medical necessity. We have -- like every state, we regulate medicine and we regulate the use of drugs. You cannot use drugs in the state of Tennessee, if it's not for a legitimate viable medical purpose. Here through this law, all that we have done is make clear that these treatments, which are irreversible often, have significant effects on minors and often leave them with bodies that are infertile and -- and permanently damaged, that you have to wait until you turn 18 to receive those type of treatments.”
Two Judges failed to do any research
Sadly, there were also two Supreme Court judges who had clearly failed to read any of the legal briefs.
On page 118, Justice Sonia Sotomayor compared deadly life-destroying Trans Drugs to Aspirin and claimed that millions of kids will benefit from taking toxic trans drugs and that girls should have a right to get rid of “unwanted breasts”:
“Every medical treatment has a risk, even taking aspirin.. So the question in my mind is not do policymakers decide whether one person's life is more valuable than the millions of others who get relief from this treatment.”
“The legislature didn't even take into account the significant health benefits that can come from providing gender-affirming care, including reduced suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.”
Note: There have been no studies showing reduced suicide attempts. In fact, several studies have shown that over time giving kids trans drugs greatly increases suicide attempts!
Justice Jackson claimed that banning giving kids toxic trans drugs was no different than states that had banned inter-racial marriages. She also agreed that girls should have the right to get rid of unwanted breasts:
“Her hypothetical is: I do not want to grow breasts. The same medical purpose. I am trying to stop the development of breasts… A girl who does not want to grow breasts for whatever reason could not get it?
Conclusion… Parents just got a new important ally in their struggle to protect their kids from the harm of Transgenderism
We should not underestimate the power of greedy drug corporations, the corporate media or the corrupt leaders of the Democratic Party. We parents are now facing a war against our kids and their future. It will be up to all of us to do everything we can to stop the Trans Drug Cult here in Washington state. But it looks like we have just gotten a new ally in this historic battle. A favorable decision from the US Supreme Court will give us a greater ability to hold the Trans Drug Cult accountable for the harm they have been inflicting on all of our children.
As always, we look forward to your questions and comments.
Regards,
David Spring M. Ed
Washington Parents Network