LGBTQ advocacy, legal groups condemn court decision on gender affirming care ban: ‘Catastrophic failure for our nation's youth'
Chicago area Trans and LGBTQ+ community groups responded with disappointment and anger Wednesday to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold Tennessee's ban on gender affirming care.
Representatives from Trans Up Front Illinois, Brave Space Alliance, Equality Illinois and Arcus Behavioral Health — groups that provide resources to trans and non-binary people — condemned the decision during a Wednesday afternoon news conference.
'Today's Supreme Court ruling is a catastrophic failure for our nation's youth,' Brian Johnson, CEO of Equality Illinois, an LGBTQ+ rights advocacy group said at the Center on Halsted. 'By upholding Tennessee's discriminatory ban on gender affirming care, the court has allowed dangerous double standards.'
In the case, U.S. v. Skrmetti, three families with transgender children and a healthcare provider challenged Tennessee's law banning puberty blockers and hormone treatment for trans minors. The state has kept those drugs legally available for other purposes. Plaintiffs argued the ban violates their Constitutional right to equal protection under the law, while Tennessee contended it is necessary to protect children.
Lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union Illinois and Lambda Legal's Illinois chapter said the court incorrectly concluded that Tennessee's ban wasn't a form of sex discrimination — prohibited by the Constitution's 14th Amendment.
The court's opinion that the ban only implicates what the law allows people of different ages to do came as a result of 'mental gymnastics' and 'logistical hoops,' said Doug Curtis, Midwest Director of Lambda Legal — a nonprofit advocacy group.
Chicago trans rights advocates said they're worried the ruling could push trans youth in other states to more dangerous, unsupervised sources of gender affirming care in states with bans similar to Tennessee.
Channyn Lynne Parker, CEO of Brave Space Alliance, said after she sought out black market prescription hormones to help her transition during her teenage years, she developed life-threatening blood clots that left her with lung scarring.
She worries that the pattern will repeat with Tennessee's ban upheld.
'It will only drive them to the underground, making preventable tragedies more likely,' Parker said. 'We owe it to every young person to ensure that they have access to safe, affirming healthcare.'
Despite the Supreme Court's decision, advocates stressed that Illinois continues to be a sanctuary state for young people and families seeking gender affirming care.
The state has shield laws for patients seeking gender affirming care and doctors who provide it. Illinois' Human Rights Act also prohibits discrimination based on gender identity, said Michelle García, ACLU Illinois Deputy Legal Director.
'Come to Illinois,' García said. 'We will protect you.'
LGBTQ+ advocates were planning to hold a protest against the Skrmetti decision at noon Saturday in Federal Plaza.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
an hour ago
- Wall Street Journal
Rubenfeld Slips Up on Nationwide Injunctions
We agree with the general principle expressed in Jed Rubenfeld's op-ed 'Nationwide Injunctions? Only if the Supreme Court Has Spoken' (May 31). District judges shouldn't be able to force any president to abide by their will through nationwide preliminary injunctions on issues where the Supreme Court hasn't spoken clearly and definitively. Aside from raising the legal standard for issuing such injunctions, the Supreme Court should also consider procedural steps that could be taken to challenge a nationwide injunction once issued, such as an expedited appeal to the regional circuit or to the high court itself. Yet we do object to how Mr. Rubenfeld applies his argument to President Trump's executive order on the limits of birthright citizenship for the children of parents who have unlawfully entered the country. The Supreme Court hasn't yet ruled on whether birthright citizenship applies to such children, even though executive officials may have assumed that to be the case several decades after the adoption of the 14th Amendment. In the decades leading up to the 1900s, however, executive officials took a much narrower view of automatic citizenship at birth.
Wall Street Journal
an hour ago
- Wall Street Journal
Good Supreme Court Sense on Trans Hormones
It shouldn't be news that the 14th Amendment doesn't give adolescents an effective right to access transgender hormone treatments, but it's still reassuring to see the Supreme Court say so. In a 6-3 decision Wednesday, the Justices upheld a Tennessee statute, called SB1, that bans giving such prescriptions to minors. Many other states have done the same. The 14th Amendment guarantees 'equal protection of the laws,' and the Biden Administration claimed that SB1 discriminates by sex and transgender status. 'A teenager whose sex assigned at birth is male can be prescribed testosterone to conform to a male gender identity,' it argued, 'but a teenager assigned female at birth cannot.' Yet the Supreme Court now holds that the law turns on age and diagnosis, neither of which demands heightened judicial scrutiny.
Wall Street Journal
an hour ago
- Wall Street Journal
What Would We Do Without Experts?
The question in today's headline has often been asked by this column with a sarcastic chuckle, though sometimes it's been hard to find the humor in an age afflicted by the abuse of academic credentials for political ends. It certainly wasn't funny during the Covid panic when medical authority was used by government officials to silence dissent, restrict human liberty and impose enormous and unnecessary burdens on America's children. But today one has to be feeling a little better about the ability of a free people to make democratic choices without having to bow before an ideological agenda dressed up as scientific consensus. Last December, while it remained unclear who was running the U.S. Government, the nominal Biden administration attempted one last effort to use the court system to take power over a controversial question away from voters. Specifically the government attempted to persuade the Supreme Court to block states from deciding whether sex-transition treatments can be administered to minor children. Team Biden defended such practices with a dubious appeal to expert authority, as if it was settled science that such treatments are appropriate and necessary. Thank goodness the Supreme Court didn't buy this last heaping helping of Biden-era malarkey.
