Dobbs on trans treatments for minors?

The Supreme Court has begun hearings in the case that may become the Dobbs of trans treatment on minors. At the end of the day, a majority of the Court's justices were reluctant to strike down the Tennessee law that prohibits such interventions on children and adolescents, and even forced representatives of the ACLU and the Biden Administration to acknowledge that they do not prevent the suicide of those who undergo them or result in their sterilization.

The position of the complainants, who contend that the Tennessee law violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment, ended the day rather weakened after the first meeting with the justices. Far from accepting their arguments about alleged discrimination suffered by minors who are not allowed to "transition" sexes, the justices resorted to official scientific reports to refute their positions, evidencing that they are only supported by a radical ideology.

The judges leave trans activists with no arguments other than ideology

In fact, their representatives in the Court were forced to publicly acknowledge that transgender hormones can cause infertility, that so many of those treated, regret the irreversible and lifelong procedures they underwent without sufficient maturity, and that trans procedures do not reduce suicide rates. A severe setback for left-wing activists whose main justification for going all the way to the highest court in the land, has been that these treatments are both essential and life-saving.

At first, Judge Brett Kavanaugh questioned Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar about the side effects of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones given to children. Although Prelogar tried to be ambiguous, she was forced to acknowledge that "gender-affirming care with respect to hormones may have some implications for fertility. With respect to hormone use, there are effects on fertility." The Solicitor General noted that "you have to advise them about those risks. As I've said before, I understand that it can be a difficult commitment, but it's not unique to this care."

The lies of trans ideology laid bare

Next, Alito laid bare ACLU attorney Chase Strangio, a woman who identifies as a man, who asserted that these procedures are key to reducing the suicide rate with minors suffering from gender dysphoria. Strangio asserted that parents would have to choose between a living trans child with the treatments or a dead child without them, a reference brought to the court by leftist Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Alito asked counsel to provide him with the scientific data corroborating that claim, to which Strangio responded by asserting that it was "clearly established in the science" that the drugs reduce the risk of suicide. Far from being convinced, the judge referred to page 195 of the Cass Report by the UK National Health Service, which concluded that "there is no evidence that gender affirming treatments reduce suicide."

Strangio was then forced to acknowledge that "there is no evidence in studies that this treatment reduces completed suicide," but he apostilled that these treatments would "reduce suicidal thoughts." Something that also has no scientific backing in reality, as accredited by numerous reports in Europe, many of whose countries are backtracking on legislation on this matter in view of the latest studies.

Sotomayor: "Every medical treatment has a risk, even aspirin"

In addition, both were forced to acknowledge that there are many people who regret having undergone these procedures as minors and who must bear the consequences and side effects of these for the rest of their lives. The two representatives of the complainants tried to minimize their number and importance, trying to ignore the growing number of lawsuits from detransitioners who have taken to suing the doctors who subjected them to these treatments and even promoters of trans ideology.

The day of oral arguments made it clear that the only thing the left relies on to defend these treatments is ideology. Even Justices Sotomayor and Ketanji Jackson, visibly annoyed by the turn the hearing was taking, resorted to classic radical argumentation, trying to minimize the serious risks that medications for these treatments carry. Sotomayor's dismissive "every medical treatment has a risk, even aspirin" evidenced his desperation.

The final ruling - expected to come around June of next year - would affect the more than two dozen similar laws passed by as many states, potentially becoming the Dobbs of trans treatments.