Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor is under fire today for seemingly dismissing medical concerns over the risks of puberty blockers and gender surgeries for minors with a comparison to taking Aspirin. In the oral arguments in United States v. Skrmetti, Sotomayor pointed out that there are risks to any medical procedure or drug. However, the analogy belittled the concerns of many parents and groups over the research on the dangers of these treatments. It also highlighted how the Biden Administration and liberal justices were discarding countervailing research inconveniently at odds with their preferred legal conclusion.
The Biden administration is challenging Tennessee’s law banning gender-changing drugs and procedures for minors. That state cites studies that indicate serious complications or risks associated with the treatments for children.
While the conservative justices acknowledged studies on both sides of the debate over risks, the liberal justices seemed to dismiss studies that were inconsistent with striking down the law as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. That issue produced a difficult moment for Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar when Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito confronted her about statements made in her filing with the Court.
Alito quoted Prelogar’s petition to the Court that claimed that there was “overwhelming evidence” supporting the use of puberty blockers and hormone treatments as safe with positive results for children.
Justice Alito, however, cited extensive countervailing research from European countries showing significant risks and potential harm. The World Health Organization has recognized these risks and lack of evidence supporting these procedures and researchers in Finland recently published a study showing that suicides among kids with gender dysphoria are extremely rare in contradiction to one of the common arguments made for adolescent treatment.
Alito also cited the United Kingdom’s Cass Review, released shortly after her filing. The Cass study found scant evidence that the benefits of transgender treatment are greater than the risks. He then delivered the haymaker: “I wonder if you would like to stand by the statement in your position or if you think it would now be appropriate to modify that and withdraw your statement.”
American Civil Liberties Union attorney Chase Strangio (who has previously argued that children as young as two years old can identify themselves as transgender) seemed to later acknowledge that very few gender-dysphoric children actually go through with suicide, but insisted that the procedures reduce suicidal inclinations.
Justice Sotomayor seemed intent on defusing the problem with the opposing scientific research in her exchange with Tennessee Solicitor General Matthew Rice. In his argument, Rice stated that “they cannot eliminate the risk of detransitioners, so it becomes a pure exercise of weighing benefits versus risk. And the question of how many minors have to have their bodies irreparably harmed for unproven benefits is one that is best left to the legislature.”
That is when Sotomayor interjected: “I’m sorry, counselor. Every medical treatment has a risk — even taking Aspirin. There is always going to be a percentage of the population under any medical treatment that is going to suffer a harm.”
According to studies, aspirin can have potential side effects that are largely quite mild. The studies cited by the state are raising far more serious risks and medical changes, including irreversible double mastesctomies, genital surgeries, sterilization and infertility. There can also be long-term effects in bone growth, bone density, and other developmental areas. Those risks have led European countries to change their policies on the treatments pending further study.
The point is not that the justices should resolve this medical debate, but that it is properly resolved elsewhere, including in the state legislative process.
Sotomayor’s aspirin analogy seemed gratuitously dismissive for many and reminiscent of the response to scientists who questioned Covid protocols and policies from the six-foot rule to mask efficacy.
Stanford Professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya (who is now nominated to lead the National Institutes of Health) and others were vilified by the media over their dissenting views on the pandemic and efforts to show countervailing research. He and others signed the 2020 Great Barrington Declaration that called on government officials and public health authorities to rethink the mandatory lockdowns and other extreme measures in light of past pandemics.
All the signatories became targets of an orthodoxy enforced by an alliance of political, corporate, media, and academic groups. Most were blocked on social media despite being accomplished scientists with expertise in this area.
Some scientists argued that there was no need to shut down schools, which has led to a crisis in mental illness among the young and the loss of critical years of education. Others argued that the virus’s origin was likely the Chinese research lab in Wuhan. That position was denounced by the Washington Post as a “debunked” coronavirus “conspiracy theory.” The New York Times Science and Health reporter Apoorva Mandavilli called any mention of the lab theory “racist.”
Federal agencies now support the lab theory as the most likely based on the scientific evidence.
Likewise, many questioned the efficacy of those blue surgical masks and supported natural immunity to the virus — both positions were later recognized by the government.
Others questioned the six-foot rule used to shut down many businesses as unsupported by science. In congressional testimony, Dr. Anthony Fauci recently admitted that the 6-foot rule “sort of just appeared” and “wasn’t based on data.” Yet not only did the rule result in heavily enforced rules (and meltdowns) in public areas, the media further ostracized dissenting critics.
Again, Fauci and other scientists did little to stand up for these scientists or call for free speech to be protected. As I discuss in my new book, “The Indispensable Right,” the result is that we never really had a national debate on many of these issues and the result of massive social and economic costs.
For scientists attacked and deplatformed for years, Sotomayor’s statements were painfully familiar. They also cited European and countervailing studies that the media dismissed as fringe views or conspiratorial viewpoints. In the same way, Justice Sotomayor’s analogy seemed to treat those raising these concerns (including parents) as akin to questioning the risks of aspirin. The import seemed to be that stopping taking aspirin based on minor concerns would be ridiculous and so too are objections to gender changing treatments and procedures.
The fact is some analogies are poorly chosen or misunderstood. However, the thrust of the comments from the justice were dismissive of the science supporting Tennessee and the 23 states with similar laws. That is roughly half of the states which want to adopt a more cautious approach. No one was arguing against adults being able to opt for such treatment, but these states do not want children to be subject to the treatments in light of this ongoing debate.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
Is a Biden justice who confesses to the Senate she doesn’t know what a woman is, have any qualifications to hear any case concerning the two sexes?
The Obama/Biden Judicial DEI cultural Marxism freak show continues… get your tickets to the big Democrat tent!
Justice Ketanji Jackson Makes a Fool of Herself During Oral Arguments Claiming a Parallel Between Banning Transgender Procedures For Minors And Banning Interracial Marriage
https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2024/12/04/justice-ketanji-jackson-makes-a-fool-of-herself-during-oral-arguments-n4934831
The fact that Jackson attempted to equate Loving v. Virginia to this case shown that she is clueless about the destruction of children.
Butterfly McQueen Jackson ( I don’t know nothin’ ’bout birthin’ babies!) got lost in the weeds. Tennessee argued that their law did not discriminate between the sexes because neither sex could get “gender-affirming” drugs for the purpose of changing their birth gender. Let’s call that the macro view.
The SCOTUS females went micro instead, to Johnny can get testosterone for medical reasons, while Mary can not get testosterone for a non-medical purpose. The answer being, both sexes could get the drug for medical purposes, but gender-affirming care is not a medical purpose, anymore than getting testosterone for muscle building is for a medical purpose.
The analogy to Loving was what if Virginia said their law was not discriminatory because it applied equally to black and whites – neither race could intermarry.
IMHO, they, the women, missed the point. Which the immutability of race got brought up in response.
* The word transgender is misleading. The hormone therapy and surgeries alter secondary sexual attributes only and does nothing genetically. Secondary sexual characteristics alteration is more to the point.
Bruce Jenner is an example of a man who has altered the secondary characteristics. He’s a man who chose to mutilate his body because he didn’t want an actual identity at all. On some days he’s a man and other days a woman. He erases his identity.
Jackson actually thinks gender is mutable. She actually thinks gender doesn’t exist at all and by convincing herself of that as fact she has deleted gender discrimination. There’s only one gender. That gender is people. All, ALL things are then equally open to all people EQUALLY. There is then not a gender identity and that idea is taught to children.
Jackson also thinks genetics is random and causes race discrimation. Marriage is about genetics in the interracial marriage. Here again is the belief genetics is the problem and by deleting race classification for any reason is prohibited and racism is deleted.
The connection she ineptly tried to convey is there is no race nor gender at all and ALL things are open to all PEOPLE. AGE is also discrimination so she must , shall include children in all things.
She is ineptly attempting to erase genetics by imposing the LAW upon genetics. There is no identity at all and therefore no discrimination possible within the law.
It’s like complex OCD and it must all be erased. Bathrooms, gyms, sports, clothes, toys must be for people and not genders or races or religions or ages, or nationalities, ethnicities or citizens etc and in her mind she’s magically solved racism because genetics is random, meaningless and causes pain for her.
She’s nuts but fully believes if you train children from birth to think this it’ll be true. She’s very ill unfortunately but that’s what happens when the pain of racism is too great to bear. You crack up.
Unless there’s a known birth defect that can be corrected by physicians children should mature naturally. It’s that simple in reality. Maturing naturally in a healthy body is a gift of nature.
The court might say to Skremiti – see a doctor and to Tennessee why were your doctors engaged in making healthy children ill and consult with Tennessee’s board of physicians.
Dismissed.
Genetics
I listened to the arguments, and I was appalled by how facile the questions were coming from the female justices. Let’s see 12-year-old Bob is given testosterone because of late onset puberty, and wants his voice to deepen, but little 12-year-old Mary wants testosterone so her voice will deepen, and she can pretend to be a boy, and she can’t get it! Waaaaah discrimination because of sex.
What is with these idiots???
Floyd: “What is with these idiots???”
You know. DEI. You just get to see them in this forum.
The scary thing is that the same incompetents are littered through state and federal agencies, universities, medical schools and corporations, and we don’t see them but we do live through the waste, harm and chaos they cause.
A couple of sessions with Nurse Diesel will fix this.
There is no thing as “trans” and it is disappointing that it is used so often. I refuse to use the term.
* There is alteration of secondary sex characteristics. Correct
I believe that Justice Sotomayor was commenting on aspirin as a fairly insignificant drug that could cause serious reactions in people, including death. There is no need to minimize anything that can cause harm.
Professor Turley, this is not the viewpoint legal column I expected today. I assumed you would complete a trilogy examining the infamy and corruption of issuing pardons to the Biden father/son corruption.
You have provided two columns focused on Biden attempting to defend his corruption as Vice President by pardoning his son. The missing column should be covering the earlier initial attempt to provide this blanket amnesty of both father and son. A column critically focused on the person at the center of planning that earlier attempted blanket amnesty and attempting to grift that initial attempt through the courts: Attorney General Merrick Garland.
So when can we see your column of analysis on Garland, the man who approved the Get Out Of Jail For Free For All Crimes You Committed In Return For Nothing plea deal for Hunter Biden?
Merrick Garland left his legacy in infamy with his initial attempted Hunter Biden blanket amnesty attempting to help The Big Guy salvage whatever was left of his reputation and credibility.
Merrick Garland completed the final corruption of the Attorney General’s office and the Department of Justice with that initial attempt to provide Hunter Biden with amnesty for any and all crimes known and unknown up to the date of the plea deal,
There is no substantive difference between Merrick Garland’s outrageous and corrupt plea deal amnesty that failed and Joe Biden’s presidential pardon that was forced when Garland’s attempt failed due to an ethical judge.
Merrick Garland didn’t just wake up one morning and decide that never seen before plea deal was a good idea, and make a phone call to suggest it to the prosecutors to offer to Biden’s lawyer. That Merrick Garland plea deal for Hunter Biden that failed was negotiated not only with Biden’s lawyer, but also Merrick Garland’s boss: The Big Guy in the White House.
You WILL be writing that column to analyze and summarize this penultimate betrayal of the Attorney General’s office and abuses of the plea deal power by Merrick Garland as you wrote about Biden later on corrupting the power of the pardon, will you not Professor Turley?
Or you going to hide your good friend and fellow lawyer, Merrick Garland, from the same public scrutiny for the same infamy and corruption as Biden is so obviously guilty of?
As you wrote a few days ago, lawyers attempting to influence public opinion based on their assumption that the public are naive gullible fools can blow up in their faces.
Maybe a short getaway weekend to the beach with Merrick Garland (as you did with that other paragon of impartial professionalism, George Will) will provide you with some ideas on how to structure that final column on the trilogy examining the infamy and corruption of the two men who corrupted their offices with this pardon.
Old Airborne Dog-Well said and very lucid, point by point. Merrick Garland seems to have pulled the wool over many eyes prior to his appointment. The only person that seemed to recognize his shortcomings was the Senior Senator from Kentucky. The whole reason he kept the appointment from the Senate floor was that many Republicans were going to vote for Mr Garland. I just wonder what this says about McConnell and what it says about the other Republican Senators of the time.
@GEB The only person that seemed to recognize his shortcomings was the Senior Senator from Kentucky.
I have never understood why so many people give Mitch McConnell that undeserved praise for not allowing Garland’s nomination to be brought forward. He deserves none.
When you look over the history of nominations by a lame duck president during the last year of their presidency to a Senate controlled by the opposing party, the record is clear. They ALWAYS fail. Whether a nominee by a lame duck Democrat or lame duck Republican. That’s true from all the way back to George Washington and forward to today.
With that history in mind, McConnell as Majority Leader did nothing that was any different than any Democrat or Republican in his position has done before with a lame duck nominee by a president from the other party.
That is also true for lower level judicial nominations to lower level appellate courts. Bush’s final three nominations to those courts during the 2008 election year were kicked to the curb to sit waiting by the then Democrat Majority Leader. After Obama’s election, he filled those three positions with his own nominees. Odd how nobody seems to remember that!
You don’t (or shouldn’t) get credit for simply following precedent followed by both parties before. To my view, McConnell simply had no choice. Not to do so would have resulted in Republicans and real journalists pointing out he had just blown up Senate precedent in one final act of giving Obama what he wanted. It probably would have ended his tenure and power as GOP leader in the Senate.
@GEB: My point is that this lawfare, suppression of free speech, constitutional violations, deprivation of rights through color of law is the machinations of people who are Professor Turley’s fellow lawyers who have become bureaucrats with political power to abuse. Some, like Merrick Garland, are people he has regularly lauded with respect as a friend. Others like James Comey, Robert Mueller, etc he is almost certainly on a first name basis with if not friends.
Lawfare began as far back as when James Comey as Deputy Attorney General appointed Fitzgeral as Special Counsel in hopes of destroying and taking out VP Dick Cheney. An appointment made when they already knew it was a Colin Powell staffer who had “outed” Valery Plame. Scooter Libby became their designated victim when they failed to bag Cheney.
Then there’s all the Obama Attorney Generals and FBI Directors who perjured themselves and uttered false documents repeatedly. And now our host’s friend Merrick Garland.
Not one of them has faced sanctions in law or even from their bar associations.
And Professor Turley reserves all his pejorative shock and condemnation for the citizen rioters of J6 and the Bidens. His fellow lawyers and friends behind all of this never shock him to the core; his analysis of their actions come up with little more than mild rebukes and questions of how they could make such mistakes!
Biden isn’t the only one attempting to cover wrongdoing.
On January 21st, 2025, don’t you think the DOJ will inform the Supremes that it is dropping this stupid lawsuit?
What a bizarre case to bring to the Federal Courts. Going through puberty is hard enough for every kid, why confuse them with irreversible, dead-end alternatives?
It’s pretty wild how many people don’t realize just how rare these procedures actually are. Some folks seem to think they’re as routine as getting your appendix or tonsils taken out.
Parents genuinely trying to make the best choices for their kids are put in a tough spot. Meanwhile, it feels like Republicans are handling these decisions like it’s a last-minute shopping spree—totally ignoring the full scope of what’s involved. They fixate on the more extreme parts of diagnosing Gender Dysphoria, turning it into just another culture war issue to rally voters and stir up social conservatives over other people’s choices that really aren’t their business. They act super worried about these children and parents, like they’re somehow involved. These are the same people who gripe about funding free school lunches, questioning why they should pay to feed kids who aren’t theirs and why those parents can’t handle it. It’s almost like they get a kick out of judging others. Seriously, what’s with all the concern over choices that don’t even impact them? You know they’d be flipping out if the tables were turned, right? After all, these are the keep-government-out-of-our-lives crowd. Many individuals appear to be completely comfortable with the notion of government intervention in personal choices, as long as those policies do not directly affect them. There’s a certain selectivity in their stance; they support such interference when it seems directed at others, but readily oppose it when it encroaches upon their own freedoms.
“Parents genuinely trying to make the best choices for their kids are put in a tough spot.”
No, they aren’t. They have been lied to by the pro-trans people, who have convinced them that their kid will kill themselves. That is pretty much bullshyte. Take that suicide blackmail threat out of the equation, and it becomes easier. This is the alternative:
Floyd, how do you know? How does this affect you? If parents are in that position they are certainly making sure they are considering everything. You seem to think YOU are in a position to make a better decision, but not them? Quite the arrogant stance.
Have you personaly been involved in such a situation that it allows you to judge their decisions? I don’t think so and that’s the problem. It’s not your decision, your choice, and your business. I’m sure you wouldn’t tolerate others telling YOU how to decide things and telling government what you can’t decide for yourself. You would be the first to cry foul.
It’s called a guilt tripping parents. God forbid it should come true… such negligence from the left is unacceptable
It’s pretty wild how many people don’t realize just how rare these procedures actually are.
Apparently those involved in profiting from gender dysphoria realize there’s gold in them thar hills.
The U.S. sex reassignment surgery market size was estimated at USD 2.1 billion in 2022 and is anticipated to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 11.25% from 2023 to 2030. The rising prevalence of gender dysphoria and the increasing number of individuals in the U.S. opting for gender affirmation surgeries are expected to boost market growth over the forecast period. As per the study conducted by Cedars Sinai in June 2020, approximately 78% of transgender males in the U.S. reported signs of gender dysphoria by the age of 7 years. In addition, the mean age to experience gender dysphoria in transgender males was around 6.2 years, comparatively less than that in transgender females.
https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/us-sex-reassignment-surgery-market
After all, these are the keep-government-out-of-our-lives crowd. Many individuals appear to be completely comfortable with the notion of government intervention in personal choices, as long as those policies do not directly affect them.
As a conservative, there’s two issues that are of extreme concern for me. 1. The physical gender alteration of minors due to a mental disorder known as gender dysphoria. It’s our duty as adults to protect children. 2. Preventing social engineering schemes that have an impact on our national security, such as is being done within our military.
Olly, your stats are regarding adults who can make their own choices. The “rising prevalence” is the increasing recognition that the condition exists. They’ve always existed, just like homosexuality. People were freaking out when homosexuality was becoming more open and normalized, and religious zealots and bigots couldn’t handle the idea that they were being allowed to exist openly.
Surgeries on minors are extremely rare. Why is it a concern to you? How does it affect you? Is it your duty to raise other people’s children, too? Are you going to be the first to spend extra on taxes to feed and clothe children and pay for their healthcare? I suspect you won’t. People who have kids are the ones who decide what is best for them, not you or anyone else. You wouldn’t stand for others dictating what is best for your children.
People were freaking out when homosexuality was becoming more open and normalized, and religious zealots and bigots couldn’t handle the idea that they were being allowed to exist openly.
True. But in the case of homosexuality, we went from medical intervention, to effectively no intervention.
The “rising prevalence” is the increasing recognition that the
conditiondiagnosis exists.While it’s true that this mental condition has existed for millennia, what has increased astronomically over the last 10 years is the “diagnosis” and physical (not mental) intervention to treat it.
Is it your duty to raise other people’s children, too? Are you going to be the first to spend extra on taxes to feed and clothe children and pay for their healthcare? People who have kids are the ones who decide what is best for them, not you or anyone else.
Been there, done that. As I stated in a comment this morning, I am a licensed foster care provider. The system is overwhelmed by the number of children needing qualified people to “raise other people’s children”. Why? Because not “all people who have kids” are competent to decide what is best for them. The birth parents of these children rarely “stand for others dictating what is best for them”. But when they behave in ways that put their own children at risk of physical and emotional harm, or actually do physical and emotional harm to their own children, the state must act to protect them.
@George “Olly, your stats are regarding adults who can make their own choices.”
One of your most common ways to propagate your lies is through misrepresenting stats. When you aren’t making them up on the spot.
“Apparently those involved in profiting from gender dysphoria realize there’s gold in them thar hills. ”
I posted a comment earlier asking (cryptically) whether Big Pharma might not be the ultimate driving force behind this movement. I wonder what the profitability of puberty blockers is? NTM ameliorating previous losses on the drugs if they were initially developed for a different purpose, at which they utterly failed, which is about par for the industry. Make it, if it doesn’t work, we’ll find some other group of suckers we can foist it on.
Yep, create a problem that you’ll fix. Old, old ploy.
The internet is very convincing…yes, thoughtless and bizarre
Wow, I learned today that taking aspirin can result in losing reproductive organs. So thankfuly for Justice Sotomayer’s insight.
I’m tired of the Left’s manipulative attacks on language. I refuse to play along.
Example: “gender assigned at birth”
Bull! Gender is for French nouns. Sex is not “assigned at birth” it is determined, somewhat randomly, at conception.
The scale of the trans-surgery industry in the US, from elementary school propagandizing to criminally negligent counseling and twisted surgeons, is positively Mengeleian. Oh, and the liberal justices sound like total nitwits.
It seems like the Dobbs decision ought to form the basis for this case’s resolution.
Note: I’m not saying everyone is the same and should fit into narrow lifestyles. The tiny fraction of people born as intersex deserve compassion and carefully considered medical care. This care has nothing in common with the Left’s panpoliticoeducational translunacy.
True, with one small exception. At conception, one out of every 5000 will develop as “intersex” at birth (ambiguous genitalia). The design of nature is binary, but the actual biology is imperfect at some low frequency. We should be able to state these truths — we can afford to be honest. Candor is the mark of a winner.
It’s up to parents and their medical advisors to decide what gender to “assign” when an intersex birth occurs, or whether to allow the infant to develop more before deciding. These are true exceptions, and must be acknowledged. It has nothing to do with teens claiming dysphoria, and how that is best handled.
We are in agreement on the intersex issue. Oddly, with a rational approach the scale of the trans-surgery industry would be drastically reduced. Hmmmm…$$$
I seriously question your assertion of 1 out of 5,000. Please provide some (any) evidence of this garbage.
“The studies cited by the state are raising far more serious risks and medical changes, including irreversible double mastesctomies, genital surgeries, sterilization and infertility. There can also be long-term effects in bone growth, bone density, and other developmental areas. Those risks have led European countries to change their policies on the treatments pending further study.”
Turley and the conservative justices on the court fail to acknowledge that the medical procedures in question are extremely rare in children. The states attempting to ban these procedures are creating the impression that they are common, which misrepresents the studies cited by Alito. His characterization of these studies is disingenuous. Additionally, in Europe, there are no outright bans on these procedures for children. Instead, they advocate for more careful deliberation and case-by-case decision-making regarding these medical interventions. They also acknowledge that the debate on the issue is becoming politicized and used as means to push an agenda instead of debating the merits.
The conservative justices on the Supreme Court are skirting the critical issue at hand: “Are the bans rooted in sexual discrimination as a class?” Justice Jackson highlighted this concern, pointing out that the court’s conservatives are approaching the case in a way that disregards the fundamental question. Alito and his colleagues seem determined to steer the narrative toward a predetermined outcome. Their discomfort with the notion that some parents opt for these medical decisions for their children is apparent; it reflects a deeper unease with progressiveness that they find… unsettling.
Conservatives are very enthusiastic about parental rights and strongly assert that parents should make the ultimate decisions regarding what is best for their children. It’s pretty obvious when it comes to education, yet those same parents suddenly act like they can’t make smart choices. They end up insisting that the state knows better about what their kids need regarding medical choices tied to Gender Dysphoria. It’s funny how the state is totally okay with parents having their kids skip vaccines or make other important medical choices, except when it comes to treating Gender Dysphoria. Everyone knows this isn’t really about parental rights. It’s about conservatives shoving their noses into other people’s business because they don’t like the idea that some parents decide that their child may not be a boy or a girl and want to do what is best for their child. The question is, why is the interest of the state in someone’s child? Republicans constantly oppose free lunches and child health insurance because they claim it’s not the state’s responsibility to feed and take care of them; it’s the job of the parents. Now, they are concerned because some parents are making decisions about their child’s medical needs that the state doesn’t like. It sounds more like Christians wanting to dictate and judge what parents should be deciding for their children and using the government to enforce those beliefs.
There are evolving norms in a free society. Parents are essential for passing along these norms to their children, as are teachers and other adults. This is a battle over the left’s attempt to erase norms of gender going back millions of years and rooted in biology. Parents that decide to defy those norms are not “helping” their child — they are complicit in setting the child on a course of lifelong anguish and depression. The state intervenes to protect the child from such incompetent parenting, the same way it does when the parent is a dysfunctional drug or alcohol addict.
Erase norms? Norms according to who? It was normal to have slaves and beat them and treat women as property. Was it wrong to erase those norms?
This is about the inability of conservative ideologies to accept the fact that there are others who do not share or hold the same values they do. In this free society, they believe it’s a good and just free society as long as they abide by their preferred values. Anyone else who doesn’t should be punished or denied the right to make choices that they find objectionable because they don’t conform to what they consider ideal.
You think it’s incompetent parenting, yet it’s conservatives and Republicans who are the biggest champions of parental rights, no matter what their choices are. Keep in mind that they fought hard for the right of parents to refuse to vaccinate their children because THEY should be the ultimate decision-makers even if refusing to vaccinate endangers their children or others. Right?
Comparing parents who are making these decisions with drug addicts is a false equivalence. Who are you to decide that these parents are abusers or incompetent because you disagree with their choices? These parents are not drug addicts or incompetent. Many are educated professionals and wealthy families, too. Comparing them to drug addicts or dysfunctional is just an excuse for you to object because they don’t conform to YOUR values. You would never tolerate being compared to an incompetent parent if you chose not to vaccinate your children or give them medical treatment you don’t believe is necessary despite doctors’ or experts’ recommendations. YOU would be the only one who has the power to decide. By your logic, YOU would be considered an incompetent or unfit parent because you are not making decisions others would prefer you make. Right?
This is about the inability of conservative ideologies to accept the fact that there are others who do not share or hold the same values they do.
George is his terrified his Democrat cultural Marxist theology and values are at risk after he’s had them for only a few years.
George is fearful that he will no longer be allowed to go into little girls’ change rooms to put his wedding tackle on display to those little girls as he tells them he self identifies as one of them.
George is fearful that his fellow beta male Birthing Person friends won’t be able to self-identify as female and then be allowed to compete against women in swimming, boxing, etc in order to get those scholarships or win a spot on the Olympic Team.
This is George’s logic.
George is a pedophile pervert, not just a sophomoric liar and propagandist.
Turley and the conservative justices on the court fail to acknowledge that the medical procedures in question are extremely rare in children.
George’s first attack on his host and first lie of the day.
Given that George is held in complete revulsion by other participants in this blog… what kind of self gratification does he get by coming here every day to insult and lie?
George is at the “it is rare” stage of the argument and will now progress to “it is good that it is happening” which will be followed by “the right is pouncing on it” stage.
I go back and forth on this one. The Left seems to have a weird propensity to exterminate itself, with its maniacal advocacy of abortion and now its determination to neuter those children lucky enough to survive the womb intact. As abhorrent as all of this is, I’m not sure these people should bequeath their DNA to future generations anyway. Everybody talks about Darwin, but nobody wants to give him room to work.
As far as Sotomayor’s aspirin comment, I suspect she heard some KBJ’s obtuse comments and had a “hold my beer” moment. DEI hire, whatchagonna do?
If adults want to transition, so be it. But for children, anyone who allows it I think is committing child abuse and needs to be held accountable by the law.
What if the adults are mentally ill??? Decent societies don’t let mentally ill people do whatever they want to do just to satisfy some dumb delusion.
@Floyd: What if the adults are mentally ill???
Floyd, these adults are the same adults as George, Gigi, and Dennis here: They just spent the last 4+ years repeatedly telling little children who still believe in Santa Clause that little boys can menstruate and get pregnant. And that pervert Drag Queens who can only read stories to them while dressed as cheap back alley whores are normal adults( that can’t bring themselves to have the same “story hour” for disabled veterans in DVA care facilities).
We’re left with two options:
1. George, Gigi, Dennis and the rest of the adults pushing and defending this are simply unfortunate people who are mentally ill.
2. They are clearly and patently evil, and if harming little children, girls, women, etc is the cost their victims must pay to achieve the Democrat agenda, it isn’t them that will be paying the price so they’re good with that.
Here is the hidden fact — all these hormones have to be taken for a life time and there is little information as to the psychological and physical damage hormones will have upon these kids for continuous extended use. These kids are not Petrie dishes — they are human beings and to stop puberty at young ages can ruin a developing body. Evidently politics play a higher regard than the well-being of these kids — at any age. If kids are seriously thinking of becoming trans, time should be taken to evaluate and then, let the choice be one of true informed consent. Taking puberty blockers stops the body from growing and that time lost can never come back. It is a very high price to pay for young bodies. If you want an analogy, compare making the wrong choice to botched plastic surgery. Once damaged, the fix can be painful and rarely perfectly reversed.
Hormones are no joke — just ask any woman who has gone through menopause! BTW – continued use of aspirin has effects … especially over a lifetime.
I am
These people are demented and will surely destroy the lives of thousands of children if they get their way. They will then just move on to the next progressive fad. The obsession with transgenderism is about as scientific as Lysenkoism and these experiments on prepubescent children are no less despicable than what Dr. Mengle did 85 years ago.
Sotomayor is a liberal Democrat, and thus prone to foolish reasoning. Instead of an aspirin, she should take the red pill…. the Court and the Republic would be better off.
Sotomayer, Kagan, and Jackson – the most unintelligent people to ever where the robes of a SC judge.
Memo to Government: Whenever you hire an academic, the first things they pack are their old theories, ideas, and their personal “argumenta ad ignorantiam”. There is no escape as they’ve built careers upon all.
Hey! Justice! Leave them kids alone! –Pink Floyd
Together with Kagan and Jackson, they make up the stupidest SC judges ever to be nominated and confirmed.
Not stupid, but crazy like a fox. They know exactly what they’re doing. They’re pushing an insane ideology.
I wonder what life is like at the Jackson house, considering mom is playing with children”s lives.
True, but they are also stupid.