Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito strongly challenged Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar during oral arguments Wednesday in United States v. Skrmetti, a case addressing the constitutionality of Tennessee’s law banning transgender surgeries and hormone treatments for minors under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
The solicitor general argued that transgender procedures, including puberty blockers and hormone treatments, often result in improved outcomes for adolescents dealing with gender dysphoria. Alito pushed back, citing growing evidence from international studies that question the efficacy and safety of such interventions, according to. National Review.
Alito referenced findings from European nations, including a Swedish medical board’s conclusion that the risks of these treatments likely outweigh their benefits. He also pointed to the Cass Review in the United Kingdom, which found insufficient evidence to support claims that these procedures improve mental health outcomes. Alito pressed Prelogar, asking whether she stood by her statement that “overwhelming evidence” supports these interventions or whether she would modify it.
The World Health Organization and a study from Finland also cast doubt on the narrative that transgender procedures prevent suicides among adolescents with gender dysphoria. The Finnish study found suicides among such minors to be exceedingly rare, challenging the argument that these treatments are necessary to save lives.
Attorney Chase Strangio, representing the American Civil Liberties Union and several transgender plaintiffs, acknowledged that suicidal tendencies among gender-dysphoric youth are uncommon but argued that the procedures reduce such inclinations. Tennessee Solicitor General Matt Rice defended the state’s ban, emphasizing its role in protecting minors from experimental treatments with irreversible consequences.
Whistleblower Jamie Reed, who worked at a Missouri gender clinic, alleged last year that minors were pushed into life-altering procedures without adequate consideration of alternative options. Her claims, later corroborated by The New York Times, contributed to a wave of state laws banning these treatments for minors.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on this pivotal case will likely have far-reaching implications for state-level bans and the future of transgender healthcare in the United States.
Gender dysphoria is a real issue, but as the term implies, it is a mental disorder and using surgical procedures and chemicals takes us back to the days of lobotomies. Which us now found to be inhumane. So therapy, bot surgery is the correct direction.
Pray that Supreme Court stops all the transgender transitioning!
Keep Tennessee’s law don’t let them do such a thing to children. They can make that decision for themselves when they turn 18 to 21 and can afford to pay for it.