Breakthrough ruling on puberty blockers in US.

[Imnobody4]

Its from Matt Walsh and sounds quite amazing. It completely demolishes all the TRA arguments around 'special' treatment due to oppression etc.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1707832888832479247.html

Last night, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a devastating ruling for the trans cult. No other court decision has so thoroughly dismantled, point-by-point, every disingenuous argument from trans activists.

The case arose because of laws in TN & KY banning the use of puberty blockers & sterilizing cross-sex hormones on kids. The laws were passed after my reporting on Vanderbilt’s gender clinic, and how they see some gender “treatments” as big money makers. x.com/MattWalshBlog/…

First, the ruling establishes that voters have the right to ban medical procedures they believe are immoral or dangerous. That’s true regardless of what the “experts” at Big Pharma say.

ACLU are really bad at their job aren’t they?

They can’t identify actual civil liberty issues, such as women not being forced to be undressed in front of naked men.

They can’t realise when they are making crap legal arguments.

And they can’t even identify when their arguments are illogical and incoherent.

They are a disgrace.

Take Matt Walsh out of this.
He is just the messenger.
And TRAs are throwing abortion rights and vaccine access at women in desperation.

We cannot and should not be anything than other than deeply angry about the first part- that voters can reject medical treatments they disagree with, even though this ruling concerns children. Bang go abortion rights!

Back in the early trump days and the Muslim ban I donated to aclu. What a dummy I was.

I agree with you on the wisdom of letting voters decide what medical procedures are moral or not - there is not much logic going on in US politics or court rulings are the moment.

however, one of the heartening things about the abortion debate in the US is that voters actually remain in favour of it being legal and available, even in conservative states. They’ve actually voted down measures to ban it when given the opportunity.

however, if it was Covid treatments or vaccines, it may be a different answer.

I didn't see a link to the judgment so here's one:

https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/23a0221p-06.pdf (70 pages)

Catching up on this one here after seeing it first on Twitter.

This really does feel like it could be a watershed moment for the US. It's good to understand that it's just a limited number of states but anything at all that is federal sounds beneficial. Are any of the states that come under this jurisdiction Democrat?
Either way, it's a solid precedent case which many states outside this jurisdiction will be looking at. Coupled with Louisiana (I think?) gender clinics recently backing off from "gender affirming care" because of the recent changes that would allow people to sue more effectively if they detransition, it really does feel like the US is going in only one direction and that this awful medical scandal is in its death to throes.

Matt Walsh is excellent on the topic of the impact of gender identity belief on children. His tweets on this case are very clearly laid out. I disagree with him on several things, but not on this.

Just because rent-a-quote transwomen are writing articles desperately trying to compare puberty blockers to birth control doesn’t mean limiting one will impact on the other.

It’s making an emotive link that isn’t there.

And why the handwringing that stopping children accessing untested drugs will affect a woman’s right to an abortion and not about making abortion an “all gender” issue (as “men can get pregnant too”) which means men have an equal voice in whether abortions happen or not? 🙄

It was my understanding that the ruling that States can ban medical procedures if they decide they are immoral is a ruling using the precedent set by the Supreme Court when it overturned Roe v. Wade. Since Roe v. Wade had relied on/created a constitutional right to privacy about medical matters that the current Supreme Court decided was an error and not part of the constitution.

So the 6th circuit using the reasoning here is just accepting that precedent. It’s a blow to abortion rights in the sense of showing there is no hope that they would find some wiggle room to protect abortion rights, but it isn’t, in itself a precedent setting ruling as the Supreme Court set that precedent.

But the handwringing about that seems pretty pointless as the 6th Circuit is very conservative and there was never really any hope they’d find wiggle room to protect abortion rights.

Oh, that's interesting.

Preference falsification, indeed.

Seems to be good news in Nebraska

https://unherd.com/thepost/us-states-hit-the-brakes-on-gender-affirming-care/

Blood hell. So if you need an abortion you need to be in a blue state. if you want to stop your kids being medicalised you need to be in a red state. What a mess. We need women-centred politics.

What a choice.

As ever, it's girls and women who will suffer most, from gender surgeries or from denial of access to abortion.

Meanwhile, blue states like California, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington have passed legislation to ensure access to hormonal and surgical interventions for youth, expand insurance coverage for these procedures, and shield medical providers from legal liability.

Emphasis added.

Why would you want to shield medical providers from legal liability?

That says everything about these lawmakers!