The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) began hearing oral arguments on Wednesday for the case involving Tennessee's ban on transgender medical procedures for minors, officially titled U.S. v. Skrmetti. This landmark case will determine if the Tennessee law is constitutional, and legal experts are warning it could have far-reaching repercussions for similar laws across the United States.
According to Mat Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel, the organization supporting the Tennessee Attorney General's position, the case demonstrates how the tides are shifting against gender-affirming medical interventions. "I think you're finding more of these people willing and certainly wanting to sue the pharmaceutical companies, as well as the doctors who prescribe medication or did the surgery," he shared with Fox News Digital.
Outside the SCOTUS building, advocates on both sides of the debate gathered, displaying transgender Pride flags and slogans like "Kids' Health Matters." Over two hours of arguments provided the justices with perspectives from both supporters and opponents of the ban.
One of the most influential arguments is being presented by the Biden administration. The Department of Justice has intervened, asserting the Tennessee law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which mandates equal treatment under the law for all individuals. "The Constitution allows the states to protect kids from unproven, life-altering procedures based on uncertain science," Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti argued following the oral statements.
Staver asserts states have established bans on gender-affirming care for minors, notwithstanding some challenges lodged against these laws. He responded to questions concerning constitutional protections: "I think it's really a question of whether or not this rises to a level of constitutional protection, which I don't think it does."
The case has emerged amid heated debates surrounding transgender rights, including regulations around bathroom access and participation in youth sports. Legal experts have expressed concerns over the implication of the court's ruling, which could serve as the foundation for future discussions about LGBTQ rights. Several significant medical organizations, including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, support gender-affirming procedures, which have become increasingly contentious.
Meanwhile, on December 5, another significant development occurred as the doctor who oversaw Kaya Clementine Breen's gender transition filed against Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy. The suit alleges negligence on Dr. Olson-Kennedy's part, claiming Breen was swiftly guided through her transition without adequate consideration of her mental health.
Diagnosed with gender dysphoria at age 12, Breen underwent hormonal treatments and even had her breasts removed at just 14. Her medical negligence complaint asserts Dr. Olson-Kennedy pushed for rapid intervention, assuring her parents it was safer to proceed immediately. "If they would rather have a living son or a dead daughter" were purportedly words from Olson-Kennedy, which the lawsuit states was said to coerce the family.
Now 20 and reflecting upon her decisions, Breen has expressed her regret over undergoing such drastic measures at such young ages. "It wasn’t until earlier this year, when I actually started doing research about my own doctor and the things she said...that I started to realize what happened to me wasn’t right and isn’t actually the standard, or shouldn’t be," she noted.
The turmoil surrounding her care has led to calls for more transparency, particularly concerning Dr. Olson-Kennedy's federally funded research on puberty blockers. The investigation has garnered attention from Congress, demanding the release of study results funded by nearly $10 million from the National Institutes of Health.
Rep. Lisa McClain expressed her unease over the situation, indicating Congress's concern about Dr. Olson-Kennedy's withholding of research findings which this year reportedly revealed "no improved mental health" after two years of treatment. Describing it as politicization of scientific research, she raised alarms about potential biases compromising patient safety.
A stark rise has also been observed, with at least 17 detransitioners filing lawsuits against their medical providers over regret following gender-affirming treatments. Breen's case, due to her young age and the prominent position of her medical provider, stands out among these legal actions.
"You actually do have to interrogate why children are thinking the way they do, and you cannot take children at their word all the time," Breen advised, emphasizing the importance of cautious and thorough evaluation of children expressing feelings of gender dysphoria.
While the Supreme Court case remains pending, it is set against a backdrop of increasing legal challenges and societal scrutiny surrounding gender-affirming care for minors. A ruling is expected by July 2025 and could greatly influence similar legislation across other states, potentially leading to shifts in public health policy and the future of transgender medical treatments.
For now, conversations about gender identity and the youth treatment spectrum will continue to permeate the national discourse, as advocates on both sides brace for the consequences of the court's decisions.
