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.”
Turley keeps stirring the culture wars, because that’s part of the MAGA agenda–MAGAs have been indoctrinated to believe that they know more than doctors do about everything–abortion, treatment for transgender people–everything, and so do the MAGA judges. And, aspirin is not a drug without serious risks and dangerous side effects. Reyes Syndrome has killed children, and people have died from gastrointestinal bleeding. So, now, Turley has taken it upon himself to declare that the risk of taking aspirin is minimal, just to criticize Justice Kagan. How pathetic. From “Drugs.com”:
“Do not give this medicine to a child or teenager with a fever, flu symptoms, or chickenpox. Aspirin can cause Reye’s syndrome, a serious and sometimes fatal condition in children. You should not use aspirin if you are allergic to it, or if you have: a recent history of stomach or intestinal bleeding; a bleeding disorder such as hemophilia; or if you have ever had an asthma attack or severe allergic reaction after taking aspirin or an NSAID (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug) such as Advil, Motrin, Aleve, Orudis, Indocin, Lodine, Voltaren, Toradol, Mobic, Relafen, Feldene, and others. To make sure this medicine is safe for you, tell your doctor if you have: asthma or seasonal allergies; stomach ulcers; liver disease; kidney disease;
a bleeding or blood clotting disorder; gout; or heart disease, high blood pressure, or congestive heart failure. Taking aspirin during late pregnancy may cause bleeding in the mother or the baby during delivery. Tell your doctor if you are pregnant or plan to become pregnant. Aspirin can pass into breast milk and may harm a nursing baby. You should not breastfeed while using this medicine.”
Cynical MAGA a-holes think that they know better than parents and treating physicians about what is best for transgender youth, AND that they should have some voice in treatment options, as if parents and treating doctors are motivated by anything other than the patient’s best interests. It’s all part of the MAGA indoctrination—you MAGAs are smarter than doctors and those uppity college-educated “wokes”. It’s the same with abortion–if there’s a heartbeat–no termination–even if the woman is hemorrhaging, has a high fever due to sepsis, the placenta is separating—doesn’t matter–the MAGAs in red state legislatures will put you in prison and take away your medical license unless you stand there and wait until she is nearly dead.
Turley claims: “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.” NO, Turley, the point is that the “medical debate” properly belongs with the treating physician and his/her patient–for transgender care, and with any other care or choice to forego care. Virtually any treatment or choice not to provide treatment has a risk/benefit ratio that must be disclosed to the patient who decides what course they wish to pursue. Those choices do not belong in the Tennessee Legislature or any other legislature. The entire argument in this case is whether the State of Tennessee or any other state has any business sticking its nose into treatment decisions to be made by a patient.
From the AP:
“WHAT IS TRANSGENDER MEDICAL TREATMENT?
Guidelines call for thorough psychological assessments to confirm gender dysphoria — distress over gender identity that doesn’t match a person’s assigned sex — before starting any treatment.
That treatment typically begins with puberty-blocking medication to temporarily pause sexual development. The idea is to give youngsters time to mature enough mentally and emotionally to make informed decisions about whether to pursue permanent treatment. Puberty blockers may be used for years and can increase risks for bone density loss, but that reverses when the drugs are stopped.
Sex hormones — estrogen or testosterone — are offered next. Dutch research suggests that most gender-questioning youth on puberty blockers eventually choose to use these medications, which can produce permanent physical changes. So does transgender surgery, including breast removal or augmentation, which sometimes is offered during the mid-teen years but more typically not until age 18 or later.
Reports from doctors and individual U.S. clinics indicate that the number of youth seeking any kind of transgender medical care has increased in recent years.
HOW OFTEN DO TRANSGENDER PEOPLE REGRET TRANSITIONING?
In updated treatment guidelines issued last year, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health said evidence of later regret is scant, but that patients should be told about the possibility during psychological counseling.
Dutch research from several years ago found no evidence of regret in transgender adults who had comprehensive psychological evaluations in childhood before undergoing puberty blockers and hormone treatment.
Some studies suggest that rates of regret have declined over the years as patient selection and treatment methods have improved. In a review of 27 studies involving almost 8,000 teens and adults who had transgender surgeries, mostly in Europe, the U.S and Canada, 1% on average expressed regret. For some, regret was temporary, but a small number went on to have detransitioning or reversal surgeries, the 2021 review said.
Research suggests that comprehensive psychological counseling before starting treatment, along with family support, can reduce chances for regret and detransitioning.”
So, WHO do the people in the Tennessee Legislature think they are saving? Is there some outcry from those who transitioned who later regretted the decision? NO, there isn’t–the outcry was from transgender people who believe that the government has no business taking away their choices.
Just look at the comments on this blog–Sotomayor and Kagan are “demented”? WHY, Turley, do you lend your voice to this nonsense–do you need the money, are you jonesing for a judgeship–what?
@Gigi
Sigh. You are an idiot.
I second that…
Move to a vote
” assigned sex” you mean genetic sex and as an astute commenter pointed out aspirin is not to be given to people under age 19 male or female.
Genetics “assigns” sex. Blah blah.
I suppose it is just a coincidence that the two stupidest justices were nominated by the two worst presidents.
the Justice who can not define the word “woman” needs to recuse herself from this important case
Estovir: That hillbilly redneck white trash bottle blondie Tennessee hag with the home ec degree — otherwise known as Marsha Blackburn–posed this question to Justice Jackson to set her up for a “gotcha”–so that when some case involving transgenderism came before the SCOTUS, they could shove her answer in her face or demand her recusal. And, it’s no coincidence that the case before the SCOTUS came from–ta da–Tennessee–a state infamous for its intolerance to human rights and racism. As if that bottle blondie loser had any business insulting someone so much better educated and accomplished. Justice Jackson demurred because she is smarter than the redneck from Tennessee–but that doesn’t mean she cannot define “woman”, nor would it require her recusal because the definition of “woman” had nothing to do with the issue before the Court.
There was NO issue before the court. It was a confirmation hearing.
“As if that bottle blondie loser had any business insulting someone so much better educated and accomplished.”
Kinda like little ole you trying to insult Turley everyday?
“That hillbilly redneck white trash bottle blondie Tennessee hag with the home ec degree”
Somehow I knew that gigi was dark-haired, overweight, lower-middle income, and probably rejected by many romantic interests.
Estovir– “the Justice who can not define the word “woman” needs to recuse herself from this important case.”
She should and it would raise opinions of her if she did, but she won’t.
The good side of that is that very little she says in the future will be given much weight by other justices or the public. She is the ‘Kamala’ justice, a nonentity. She has a seat, a vote, but no opinion.
According to all reliable presidential historians, Trump ranks very near the bottom as one of the worst presidents in US history. He left the country in a shambles when we put him out in 2020.
There are no “reliable presidential historians.” Trump did no such thing. The COVID lockdowns did. Biden on the other hand, gave us Bidenflation.
Hey Gigi,
Wait! Wait! don’t tell me! Are these the same respected and reliable presidential historians who think Obama and Biden were excellent presidents?
Piffle off, fed!
According to 51 intelligence experts….
Go away you central authoritarian prop. Go to NZ where they love self-bondage and the CCP and stupid female mentality
That the left continues this and other farces is just unbelievable. The level of disdain for our intelligence is simply breathtaking, and they continue to achieve new lows in spite of themselves.
Seriously: who among you that actually mingle with the outside world can justify a single damn thing the modern left believes or does? They are still ‘counting’ votes in blue states to steal the popular vote from Trump; Biden is burning down the house before he leaves and up to his old influence peddling tricks; these preemptive pardons for people with no charges against them – huh?, Carville claiming the new press secretary is a scientologist (what in the actual ****?) . . . when does it end? There is no cure for madness but to eliminate it with sanity. It is going to be a very, very long four years, and we still have six weeks to go. We are going to have to double or triple defeat them in 2026 and beyond. Marginalize them *into the ground*.
Reprehensible is too kind a word for the modern left. There is no other sane response at this point. These people are not well, not at all. And the rule of law is merely a suggestion to them.
James, this is pure evil, hidden under the guise of “care”. To take what is and has always been classified as a mental disorder and perform barbaric, life-altering physical mutilation of minors is just evil. It’s bad enough when adults with this disorder are treated physically, but they are presumed to be of an age to give informed consent. Minors on the other hand are at the mercy of adults making (forcing) these decisions. How in the he!! did we go from the practice of female genital mutilation being barbaric, to the far more insidious gender mutilation of boys and girls as being “compassionate care”?
Don’t muck with natural development without the advice of a medical doctor. Even then, approach with great caution.
Cliff’s Notes 101: Putting Justice Sotomayor’s remark in perspective:
Minor to Surgeon: “Take two gonads, and call my parents in the morning.”
Surgeon to Minor: “Will you still love me in the morning? -after you realize the irreparable consequences and harms of what was done?”
Scientists/researchers: “Sex determination should not be determined by external genitalia. It is established at the chromosomal/genomic stage of embryonic formation.”
Tennessee Legislators: “[Since] they cannot eliminate the risk of detransitioners, [ ] 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.”
Sotomayor: “But even aspirin has risks.”
Lin,
I would add to your humors but apt comment,
Toddler: “Babble, babble, babble, gooo, goo, babble.”
American Civil Liberties Union attorney Chase Strangio: “See? IT said it is NOT a boy but a GIRL! Quick! Get her a “gender affirming care” surgery and massive amounts of hormones!”
Your theoretical scenario has a significant flaw. Do you genuinely believe it’s that simple for them to undergo the procedure? I’m confident you’re not naive or gullible.
Most critics come from a place of ignorance, but you are certainly above that. Decisions of this nature are not made lightly or on a whim. It’s hard to imagine you think that parents or children are making these choices purely for their own convenience. Furthermore, this perspective undermines the seriousness and ethics with which doctors approach these decisions. They are committed to their patients and consider all factors thoroughly.
It’s truly perplexing why others feel entitled to meddle in private medical matters that do not concern them. What impact does it have on your life or anyone else’s who isn’t directly involved?
You haven’t seen the stories of detransitioners who regret their childhood choices? Two brief visits to a counselor then “all right, off you go!”.
I say purge our institutions of those who think transitioning children is OK and NORMAL. I don’t want these evil people anywhere near my children or grandchildren. And no, removing their stupid books from schools is not Nazi book banning. Those materials are available outside the school setting.
OldFish,
Well said and spot on. There is something seriously wrong with thinking this so called “gender affirming care” is okay and normal. Just like thinking pornography in elementary schools is okay and normal. Just like thinking biological males in women’s sports, locker rooms and bath rooms is okay and normal. There is something wrong with these people.
“. . . why others feel entitled to meddle . . .”
For the same reason I “meddle” when I see a child tied to a tree in the freezing cold. It’s *child abuse*. And, worse, barbaric child abuse.
That alone “impacts” me. That it doesn’t Leftists means they have a chasm in their soul.
It’s part of the culture wars propaganda that MAGA media spreads. MAGA media is owned by billionaires who set up MAGA media to put over a convicted felon, thief, liar, fraudster and womanizer as POTUS in exchange for massive tax breaks and rolling back regulations–it was an investment to benefit them financially. But, they can’t do it alone.
They have to do something to get the gullibles to vote for them–ergo, the culture wars crap–saving transgender youth (who never asked to be “saved”), saving unborn babies, stopping all abortions, banning contraception, and all of those boys unfairly competing in girls’s sports–which is exceedingly rare. And, there’s more on the table–doing away with no fault divorce, if Hegseth gets in, women not allowed to serve in combat roles so they can never advance to leadership roles in the military, forcing taxpayers to cover tuition to religious schools, cutting school lunch programs–it’s all in Project 2025. And, the gullibles fell for it, so MAGA media keeps churning out the BS.
Who is these MAGA media you screech about?
I do not know what this MAGA “media” is, but without a doubt they must be better informed, have more critical thinking, common sense then all those dupes who watch MSM, MSNBC or Rachel Maddow. Those people, now there is a group who should never reproduce, own real estate, operate heavy machinery or vote.
Is this MAGA media in the blog with us now?
If the conservative justices actually cared about judicial restraint, then they wouldn’t asking irrelevant questions about the severity of the harm. The question should be very narrow: was the 6th Circuit’s application of the rational basis test (rather than a higher level of scrutiny) proper?
I view Sotomayor’s comment as therefore dismissive of the entire line of discussion, given its lack of relevance to the job that the justices should be doing.
No self-respecting fan of judicial restraint could support the actions of Alito and company in this case.
I am puzzled. My legal experience is that appellate courts review lower courts for legal error. The oral argument in this case seem to constitute a mini-trial on the merits. How does this case get to SCOTUS and have the Justices debating the accuracy of given studies?
@garyesq2k2 I agree, I had always thought that SCOTUS functioned not to determine if a law was right or wrong, but whether it was constitutional. I work in contract law, and it is always about the contract, pure language. In this case I suspect that the issue concerns an alleged civil rights violation, so anything goes apparently.
The conservative majority on SCOTUS have made it very clear that they are not there to adjudicate legal errors.
They have been installed by Leonard Leonard to make decisions favorable to the extreme religious right. If that means making rulings on the merits, then that is what they will do.
It is no coincidence that all 6 of them are devout, practicing Catholics. They are there to do the bidding of the extreme religious right.
This is what happens when the Federalist Society abandons judicial restraint.
A proper discussion would focus on the appropriate level of scrutiny to apply – i.e., whether the rational basis test (as the 6th Cir. applied), or heightened scrutiny (as would apply for sex-based discrimination) is correct.
Instead, Justice Alito, at various points, attempted to include evidence that had neither been admitted in the original district court case or otherwise briefed. Prelogar responded that, “There is a time and place for that inquiry. It’s not here.” She argued that the Court’s role in this case is to determine the level of scrutiny and remand to the district court to figure out the factual record.
Any fan of judicial restraint should be appalled by Justice Alito’s side show.
“This is what happens when the Federalist Society abandons judicial restraint.”
This is what communists post like when they fear courts will no longer rule from the bench to give them what they can’t get at the ballot box.
Obamacare.
Presidents legislating from the Oval Office to amend Obamacare.
Nationwide homosexual marriage.
Bureaucrats ordered to treat CO2 as a pollutant.
Such pure minded Constitutional scholars these cultural and political communists are!
I don’t know why the SCOTUS won’t just leave doctors alone to use their expertise and years of training and experience to provide the best care for their patients without government interference—whether it’s abortion or transgender care. There are such things as standards of care, arrived at by years of experience, research and best practices. The SCOTUS should rule that state legislatures are not in a better position to determine the best care for patients and that laws that dictate doctors’ decision making are overreaching.
Note how the hard-ideological Left relies on “health” as a justification for controlling our lives. Abortion is health care. Shutting down schools and businesses is health care. Censoring conservative voices in the academy and elsewhere saves people from mental distress. As an opponent of socialism might say, once government becomes responsible for our national health, the more likely it is that everything the Left does not like will be called a sickness.
“Note how the hard-ideological Left relies on “health” as a justification for controlling our lives. ”
Worked fantastic for them during COVID. They intend to build on that success indefinitely. It’s up to us to stop them.
Did you hear about Peter Hotez “warning” about ” multiple viruses could (read: absolutely will if TPTB have any say) strike America right after Trump takes office”? They intend to run another Red Scare on us, but the Red in this case will be normal, sane people
@George, yoohoo… the world is watching your lies! I take it you are OK with cabinet picks who have serious sexual abuse allegations and alcoholism as permissible candidates.
Pete Hegseth’s co-workers over the last ten years have given a detailed rebuttal to your lying “allegations”. They’re also calling you, Gigi, and Dennis liars.
We take it you’re so terrified of Woke and DEI being removed from the military that you were more than okay with lying and smearing to prevent that? Not quite the applause you might have been hoping for…
‘100 Percent Bullsh-t’: Hegseth’s Coworkers Shoot Down NBC’s Smear Campaign Against Pete Hegseth
https://thefederalist.com/2024/12/04/100-percent-bullsh-t-fox-news-talent-shoot-down-nbcs-smear-campaign-against-pete-hegseth/
The left-wing outlet’s trafficking of anonymous slanderous and unsubstantiated claims of wrongdoing by Hegseth bears a striking resemblance to the smear tactics deployed by media hacktivists in their bid to defeat Brett Kavanaugh’s 2018 Supreme Court nomination. Lacking any journalistic integrity, these so-called “reporters” ran with any and all claims laundered by the judge’s accusers with virtually no pushback or skepticism.
Old Airborne Dog,
Of course they cite and use “anonymous” sources that make outlandish claims while providing no evidence. The good news is, we dont believe them anymore! Why would we? They have lied and gaslighted us for so many years, they are not credible. No one believes them. Nor should anyone.
ROGD. Do you know what that is? High School kids and those younger are supposed to have it. That’s what the kids are told in school they have today if they question their own sexually. Before it was she is a tomboy and there was nothing to it. People are trans and go through years of therapy before transitioning. The kids are ROGD. ROGD is Rapid Onset Gender Diaspora. High Schoolers go to mandatory LGBTQ festivals and are taught about being trans. At the festivals at various booths, they are taught how to legally change their name, where to buy breast binders, puberty blockers and various other things including where to go for surgery. This had been going on 10 plus years and few know about it. Parents are scared because they fear what can happen. Children are taught how to file police reports against so parents are scared. These kids come from all families. Eventually children leave home, join cult like communities, change their names , do not have careers, live on assistance and reject their families. Parents are finally slowly feeling comfortable talking about it and kids are transitioning back. Some kids are but unfortunately for many they are lost with little help .
Here is a good short recap of the falsity of the gender-affirming care is “life-saving” trope –
https://ndlegis.gov/assembly/68-2023/testimony/SHUMSER-1254-20230315-25264-F-TVEIT_BILL.pdf
Either she likes you or she has a gun in her pocket.
(There are a few commenters here today who refer to Sotomayor as dumb or unintelligent. I don’t believe either.
Rather, I believe she has a calculated habit of selectively choosing certain facts and realities that favor her personal ideology, -a habit which I find inappropriate…more like today’s journalists than a jurist.
Notwithstanding, her “aspirin” common was a dumb concession that she had/has little else to justify her likely final position on this.)
(“comment,” not “common”)
Whatever Sotomayor’s intelligence level, what I find most objectionable about her is the way she argues. She constantly argues policy rather than law. It’s like she doesn’t understand that her opinion about what’s good policy is irrelevant.
chris_zzz: Precisely.
Policy relates to a plan of action implementing ideological objective. It must be tempered by, and consistent with, law.
Lin, no, neither of them are dumb or unintelligent. But they definitely lack any talent to give any element of transparency to what they’re so obviously attempting to do with their questions and opinions. They reek and drip Marxist political and cultural agenda. Not to mention frequent virulent racism and malandry.
That said, are they at the intellectual level of a Thomas, a Gorsuch, or from the other side, a Bader-Ginsberg, the most recent successful “I legislate from the bench” Justice on SCOTUS?
Not even close.
Who’s “neither of them?” I thought I was talking about Sotomayor?
@lin.. I included the other DEI Hire justice who pursued a somewhat similar line of reasoning i.e. preventing sexually mutilating surgery in minors is supposedly the same as banning interracial marriages.
Oh, OK. Thanks!
Lin,
Well said and I agree.
Lin, Alito, and Thomas all exhibit similar conduct. I believe that none of the justices is free from this type of objectionable conduct.
“Lin, Alito, and Thomas all exhibit similar conduct.”
Well, thank you George for that promotion.
Just making sure we include all justices, not just Sotomayor. Because we know they all have their personal biases leak into arguments in court or opinions. They are not perfect, right?
You’re so defensive and argumentative, George. I was simply responding with humor to your grammatical/punctuation/ sentence error. “Lin, Alito, and Thomas [collective proper noun]” “all exhibit similar conduct.” [collective verb].
Get it, George?
I assume that you meant to say, “Lin, Alito and Thomas exhibit similar conduct.”
If so?, remove the comma after Alito and remove the word “all” (incorrect for a series of two).
I’m not into grammar correction, I was just making a funny, George.
Lin,
HAHAAHAHHAHAAH! Thank you for the laugh and your humorous take down of the slow one.
Lin
George had a reading comprehension problem
[Quote] “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.”[/Quote]
By analogy: “Sure John Doe’s a serial rapist. We are all law-breakers. We have all jaywalked.”
False equivalencies are never good.
OK, so here is another way to look at this. Body Dysmorphia Disorder (BDD) is (was?)the parent disorder of several types of concerns – I am a woman inside, but I am trapped in a man’s body, being one of them. The sexual dissatisfaction is being distinguished now as gender dysphoria (GD), and other weird manifestations are distinguished as body integrity identity disorder (BIID). Some of these BIID sufferers believe that they are amputees, and will go so far as to cut off their own limbs.
It seems to me that each of these are really the same thing. A person feels that there is something not quite right with their body on a subjective basis, while on an objective basis, their body is quite healthy. They expect that surgery can fix what is wrong with them.
Sooo, imagine that it is 1983 and Karen Carpenter comes to see you – you being a surgeon. Karen reports that she is overweight, and has plateaued in her efforts to lose weight, She tips the scales at 91 pounds, and has a gaunt, skeletal look to her. She requests that you do a gastric bypass operation on her.
What do you do? The operation is legal, and she is an adult. Do you refuse, and tell her that she is not fat? But she identifies as being fat, and she wants you to affirm her identity. Further, there is a whole community of Trans-Fat Activists who will protest in front of your office if you refuse.
To me, this is where the whole GD thing is. Mentally ill people who think there is a physical cure for what is an imaginary problem.
Floyd-Anorexia Nervosa is a real disorder and Karen Carpenter reportedly died of electrolyte disorders often associated with this Anorexia. The course to take would be to refuse the surgery, diagnose the Anorexia Nervosa, Hospitalize her and carefully assess what the electrolyte disorders are, start psychiatric intervention, and refeed slowly as the psychiatric intervention takes hold. If you refeed and they gain weight before the psychiatric therapy is effective they can develop severe depression and commit suicide.
Hilde Bruch wrote the book literally on eating disorders and especially anorexia. She was a Psychiatrist from Germany who moved to the US in the 1930’s and started studying pediatric obesity and then eating disorders. Was on Medical School Faculty in New York before moving to Houston Texas and Joining the Baylor College of Medicine Faculty. I actually did 2 months of study with her in 1977. She ran a combined Psychiatric / Endocrinology Service with Marc Moldower (endocrinology). Brilliant Lady. Excellent article in Wikipedia about her life.
I spent most of the ’70s as a student and resident at the Baylor College of Medicine and remember Dr. Bruch very well. She was higihly respected. Unfortunately, the school has gone full woke/DEI.
JRM-Great time to be at Baylor in the 1970’s. Spent 5 years there doing residency then fellowship in critical care. Dr Bruch was truly something else. Great sense of humor. Trump needs to go after the Accrediting Institutions who drive the DEI and dismantle them before the totally ruin medicine.
I realize that the disorder is real, but the underlying thought process is a delusion. IMHO. Yes, an ethical doctor would refuse the surgery and opt for the mental therapy. Because the problem is inside their head. Fascinating experiences that you have!
Floyd and GEB: Thought-provoking and evocative of other applications, thanks.
I am thinking of states wherein euthanasia is predicated upon a certain number of experts who must affirm terminal conditions (at least I think that is still required?). Of course, in those cases, we are talking about adult patients with asserted “bodily autonomy.” But, it is state legislatures who/that codify or reject euthanasia, state by state…..And now, same for abortion.
On the bench between shifts while playing hockey there’s a term after an opponent gives you or a team mate a dirty elbow or stick: “took his number”.
The parade of swine now wanting to kiss Trump’s new presidential ring after colluding with the Democrats to destroy Trump and his initial presidency continues.
Trump adviser on Mark Zuckerberg seeking ‘active role’ in tech policies: President-elect has a ‘long memory’
https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/trump-adviser-mark-zuckerberg-seeking-active-role-tech-policies-president-elect-long-memory
Just some potential fodder for Dennis McIntyre while he contemplates whatever outrages him this morning about Trump defeating the DEI Hire in the election.
When you are 18 years of age, can buy a lotto ticket, smokes, vote, enlist in the military then make the informed, educated choice if you want to “transition.” A 14 year old, let alone a 2 year old, does not have the mental maturity to make that kind of decision. I can recall being a 14 year old thinking I had the world figured out and when I was out on my own, learned what real responsibility was, the meaning of cash flow, I quickly realized how my 14 year old self was dead wrong on so many things.
Do you really think two-year-olds are transitioning? It’s extremely rare for 14-year-olds to undergo surgery, and it usually follows years of careful evaluation. We should also consider cases like Swyer Syndrome, where individuals have male chromosomes but female anatomical features. Misunderstanding these complexities can lead to harmful narratives from misinformed politicians claiming child abuse.
Remember how people used to freak out about AIDS? Ignorance about the condition did a lot of harm those days and it was used against Gays and lesbians to demonize them and ostracize them because it served the purpose of religious bigots and zealots. It was the same with the “Homosexual agenda” infecting their kids. Gay marriage, destroying your marriage, etc. This is nothign but the same kind of ignorance and aversion to understanding an issue.
The Books Are Already Burning
https://www.thefp.com/p/the-books-are-already-burning
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/irreversible-damage-abigail-shrier/1133754701
Top Trans Doctors Blow the Whistle on ‘Sloppy’ Care
“In exclusive interviews, two prominent providers sound off on puberty blockers, ‘affirmative’ care, the inhibition of sexual pleasure, and the suppression of dissent in their field.”
https://www.thefp.com/p/top-trans-doctors-blow-the-whistle
California’s New Law Lets Schools Keep Secrets from Parents
“Gavin Newsom signs a bill that keeps parents in the dark if their kids change gender identity at school.”
https://www.thefp.com/p/abigail-shrier-california-gender-law-newsom
The Books Are Already Burning
https://www.thefp.com/p/the-books-are-already-burning
@George: Do you really think two-year-olds are transitioning
George, do you really think anyone here treats your posts as anything other than piss-poor Democrat lies and propaganda? You hope you can use your denial that context and nuance exist as a defense?
Everybody holds you in complete and total contempt. Nobody finds your posts persuasive.
So why do you post your daily deuces here every single day, George?
Other than to serve as the only source of attention and self-sexual gratification available to you?
Have the people who support these drastic drug therapies and surgeries for children never learned about puberty and the dramatic and necessary effect it has on a person physical and mental development?
Carpslaw-Puberty is inconvenient to the surgical-hormonal industrial complex
Professor Turley,
This is a legal blog, yet your opinion piece on US v Skrmetti fails to mention the fundamental issue in the case: What level of scrutiny should apply? The Sixth Circuit applied a rational basis test to a law that discriminates on the basis of sex. Alito’s discussion of European studies, which may question the benefits of the procedure are entirely irrelevant to the narrow ruling that Prelogar is requesting – namely, that the court recognize the application of heightened scrutiny for sex-based discrimination.
This is an entirely different question that the merits of whether the more stringent standards of heightened scrutiny are met.
Personally, I think that there is a decent argument that this stringent standard is met. But, it was entirely improper for the Sixth Circuit to apply the rational basis test to the TN law.
This should be remanded, and THEN, the discussion of whether heightened scrutiny is met should begin.
Instead, you pen an article that entirely misses the legal argument at issue in this case.
Now we low which party is the promoter of mad science by mad scientists
Turley is no longer interested in writing about legal arguments.
He has realized that there is a lot more money to be made as a paid shill for Fox and the NY Post, both owned by Rupert Murdoch.
This blog is really just a fully owned and paid for subsidiary of Murdoch’s empire.
The sole purpose of this blog is to keep the MAGA cult riled up and distracted about peripheral issues so that they do not pay attention to how they are being deceived by a bunch of foreign born billionaires who are intent of taking over this country.
So do I get to have it codified in the constitution that I have a constitutional right to have a vasectomy. Yes, this has to do with my reproductive rights.
Independent Bob fell on his face with this minor child level non sequitur: So do I get to have it codified in the constitution that I have a constitutional right to have a vasectomy.
The Second Amendment also recognizes you have a right to obtain and bear arms, Fraudulent Bob.
Now explain why a five year old child can’t demand their Second Amendment rights and start packing – but you find a “reproductive right” somewhere in the Constitution for that child to demand they be castrated or neutered.
(one day one of these fraudulent Democrat Marxist Useful Idiots like “Bob” will provide a link to the constitutional document that lays out the “reproductive rights” of both men AND women when it comes to issues concerning unborn children)
Better luck next time, Fraudulent Bob.
“Turley is no longer interested in writing about legal arguments. He has realized that there is a lot more money to be made as a paid shill for Fox and the NY Post”
Any particular reason why this communist ‘tard didn’t mention other venues that publish Turley’s columns i.e. The Hill and Politico?
Rupert Murdoch own them as well, commie?
I believe that out of our 535 senators and reps there are more than a few with “trans” children and I would like to know exactly how may there are. Then maybe do a study to find out what it is that causes the child of a politician to cry out for attention so badly as to claim to want to mutilate themselves.
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the embodiment of DEI before DEI was a fashionable term.
Don’t take this current statement of Sonia’s as sole evidence of the threat that is created when people are chosen for positions of responsibility for reasons other than merit. Don’t even bother with her other foolish statements from the bench. Just look at the extortion racket she was running out of the SCOTUS with children’s books. That racket is especially shocking under the current hearing regarding drugs/procedures used on defenseless minors.
Sonia is nothing more than another lowbrow vomited up by Obama to do his party’s bidding. As in Joe Bidden.
She and the other two mentally ill (but I repeat myself) Leftist “women” need to exit the SCOTUS. They are all demented.