Image Credit: QuestHR
By Kelly M. Jackson [The Tennessee Conservative] –
Arguments from both sides were heard before a three-judge panel in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals to deal with the issue of retaining or setting aside the decision of a lower court to block Tennessee’s law that prohibits medical interventions for minors who are suffering from gender dysphoria, which is historically considered a mental disorder.
Arguing on behalf of the state was Clark L. Hildabrand, deputy chief of staff and senior counsel for the Tennessee Attorney General, who’s essential argument was that the court should defer to the state legislature in issues such as this that include not just the protection of Tennessee’s most vulnerable residents, but also the regulation of the medical practice itself.
Hildabrand argued that the state has the right and the obligation to consider the risk/benefit of issues that could endanger and possibly cause permanent harm to Tennessee children. And while parental rights for care of children should always be viewed with due deference, that consideration can only go so far, since it is understood that there are also laws that define the consistency of abuse in the context of parents and their children.
Ultimately, Hildebrand’s argument rested on the authority of the state legislatures to regulate such issues, so long as the regulations do not trigger an overtly Constitutional objection.
The opinion of Chief Judge CJ Sutton expresses a similar rationale, which is why the injunction on the ban was granted back in July of this year.
Those arguing on behalf of the ACLU, Chase Strangio, deputy director for transgender justice at the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project, argued that the law discriminates on the basis of sex.
Arguments were made that some children would be able to receive the same exact treatments that would be denied to others, based on the biological sex of the child. The example given during arguments is one child who is a biological male receives testosterone because he is a “late bloomer”, and another child who is denied the same treatment because they are a biological female but suffer from gender dysphoria. Strangio argued that the question of biological sex, which is necessary to recommend any treatment, is the main reason one child would be denied and the other not.
A point made by Hildebrand in his rebuttal which ended the arguments, was that those who were arguing that the state should not have the right to stop parents from pumping their children full of harmful, life altering hormones, never acknowledged or attempted to form an argument against the segment of the legislation that suggests talk therapy is the preferred form of treatment for minors with gender dysphoria.
During both arguments, the three-judge panel asked probative questions, but an overarching theme was clear: are we the right people to be making these decisions that will affect the lives of such young people, and where should the lines be drawn?
Directly behind the arguments heard from Tennessee, very similar arguments were made by the state of Kentucky who were endeavoring to keep the laws their legislatures passed that would work in a similar way to protect the children of their state from harmful treatments.
A decision on the issue is promised from the court in short order. The Tennessee Conservative will follow the story and report as it develops.
About the Author: Kelly Jackson is a recent escapee from corporate America, and a California refugee to Tennessee. Christ follower, Wife and Mom of three amazing teenagers. She has a BA in Comm from Point Loma Nazarene University, and has a background in law enforcement and human resources. Since the summer of 2020, she has spent any and all free time in the trenches with local grassroots orgs, including Mom’s for Liberty Williamson County and Tennessee Stands as a core member. Outspoken advocate for parents rights, medical freedom, and individual liberty. Kelly can be reached at kelly@tennesseeconservativenews.com.
2 Responses
Make it simple. Everyone involved in a decision to allow any gender changing treatments to a person under 21 will sign for and obtain insurance or a bond to cover the treatment of said individual should they change their mind and wish to go back to their original sex any time before age, say, thirty-five. The amount of insurance and or bond shall be increased to account for inflation and be non cancelable until the said individual reaches age thirty-five. Anyone who thinks these treatments should be allowed should put their money where there mouth is.
Judicial over reach