SCOTUS' trans ruling: Letters to the Editor — June 23, 2025
The Issue: The Supreme Court upholding Tennessee's ban on gender transition surgery for minors.
On the day of the Supreme Court's decision upholding the Tennessee ban on transitions for minors, the mainstream media (especially PBS) was quick to cry out what a 'setback' this ruling was for 'trans' rights ('Trans sense,' June 19).
The agonies brought on by impulsive decisions made by addled youngsters were not discussed.
Advertisement
This ruling is a victory, not a 'setback,' for biological common sense.
Twenty seven states now have similar bans as Tennessee. One might ask why the remaining 23 states are so far behind the curve toward sanity?
Anthony Parks
Advertisement
Garden City
The only disappointing thing about the SCOTUS gender decision is that it wasn't unanimous. It means that six Justices have common sense, and three don't.
Nevertheless, a generation of young boys and girls have been saved from the 'gender-affirming' cultists.
By the way, when did the far left change its mind on childhood genital mutilation? It seems like only yesterday the left was firmly against the practice for young girls in certain African countries.
Advertisement
Dennis Rhodes
Naples, Fla.
Since minors are considered to be too young to vote or serve in the military, then they are also too young to make these kinds of life-changing decisions.
By the time they become adults, they may have changed their minds about all of these choices.
Advertisement
Ray Starman
Albany
Thanks to the Supreme Court for ruling against this idiotic ideology of 'gender affirmation.'
It reaffirms what scripture tells us: Namely that the creator made two sexes, male and female, and no one should desecrate this.
Frank Brady
Yonkers
The high court ruling to allow banning transgender care for minors is simply common sense.
Sometimes kids go through phases. And life-changing decisions for minors could lead to regret and emotional and psychological struggles in later years.
Advertisement
My only hope is that other states will join the ban. Kids just need to be kids. They should not be allowed to make adult decisions.
The legal age to drink is 21. The age to vote is 18 and to drive is 16. Waiting until the age of 18 for trans treatment is not asking too much. In fact, it's smart.
Joann Lee Frank
Clearwater, Fla.
Advertisement
The Issue: City Hall's plan to spend $929.1 million to house the homeless and migrants in hotels.
Mayor Adams needs to go ('A Fetid $1B Hotel Deal,' Editorial, June 20).
He cannot justify spending nearly $1 billion for this cause. How many of the 86,000 who need housing are actually homeless citizens, the ones he should have been taking care of from Day 1?
That money could have been divided for other vital services that need to be addressed, such as cleaner streets, an overhaul of the Administration for Children's Services, more cops — because we really don't need more commuters to be stabbed during a Grand Central morning rush hour — or a number of other issues needing urgent attention and upgrades.
Advertisement
Susan Cienfuegos
New Rochelle
I really think that New York taxpayers and citizens have had enough of Eric Adams' nonsense. Along with the corruption allegations, he has continued to destroy New Yorkers' quality of life.
Now he's planning to spend nearly $1 billion in taxpayer money on shelters for immigrants and homeless.
Advertisement
When is this gonna stop? Enough already, Adams.
Gene O'Brien
Whitestone
Want to weigh in on today's stories? Send your thoughts (along with your full name and city of residence) to letters@nypost.com. Letters are subject to editing for clarity, length, accuracy, and style.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
29 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Alarm raised over increase in antisemitism
Advertisement There has been too much silence and indifference for far too long, which enables and emboldens this harmful hate and abuse. It's time for real support and solidarity and a rejection of the civic inertia that has left Jewish people unsafe, marginalized, and threatened in Massachusetts, New England, and across the country. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Noam Schimmel Framingham The writer is a lecturer in global studies at the University of California, Berkeley. Israel's punishing campaign in Gaza has to be taken into account In a Voice of America Advertisement Samantha Joseph's op-ed does allude to the 'elevated threat' to the Jewish community that the FBI links to the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict. Regrettably, though, Joseph fails to acknowledge that in the 21 months since Hamas's brutal killings and kidnappings of Oct. 7, 2023, the Israeli government's grossly disproportionate punishment levied against the people of Gaza — a relentless assault viewed by many international legal scholars and human rights organizations as amounting to a genocide — has likely triggered the recent awful attacks on Jews. All of which tells us that Israel's ending the carnage in Gaza is what's desperately needed — for the people of Gaza, for the remaining hostages, and, frankly, for Jews everywhere. Michael Felsen Jamaica Plain BDS movement is a gray area between antisemitism, criticism of Israel Samantha Joseph is right to decry antisemitic violence perpetrated by supporters of Palestinian rights. No matter how one feels about Israel's attacks on Palestinians (and now Iranians), that does not justify attacks on American Jews. We all need to draw a sharp line between criticism of the government of Israel and antisemitism. However, later in her op-ed, Joseph blurs this line by calling the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement against Israel antisemitic. This movement is precisely an attempt to impose financial and reputational consequences on Israel for its treatment of Palestinians. Contrary to to the claims of the movement's critics, it has nothing to do with antisemitism. Ken Olum Sharon
31 minutes ago
Clerk who denied same-sex marriage licenses in 2015 is still fighting Supreme Court's ruling
The Kentucky county clerk who became known around the world for her opposition to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2015 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage is still arguing in court that it should be overturned. Kim Davis became a cultural lightning rod 10 years ago, bringing national media and conservative religious leaders to eastern Kentucky as she continued for weeks to deny the licenses. She later met Pope Francis in Rome and was parodied on 'Saturday Night Live.' Davis began denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015. Videos of a same-sex couple arguing with Davis in the clerk's office over their denial of a license drew national attention to her office. She defied court orders to issue the licenses until a federal judge jailed her for contempt of court in September 2015. Davis was released after her staff issued the licenses on her behalf but removed her name from the form. The Kentucky Legislature later enacted a law removing the names of all county clerks from state marriage licenses. Davis said her faith forbade her from what she saw as an endorsement of same-sex marriage. Faith leaders and conservative political leaders including former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and then-Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin rallied to her cause. After her release from jail, Davis addressed the media, saying that issuing same-sex marriage licenses 'would be conflicting with God's definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. This would be an act of disobedience to my God.' Davis declined a request for an interview from The Associated Press for this story. In 2018, one of the men who had confronted Davis over her defiance ran for her office. David Ermold said he believed people in Rowan County were sick of Davis and wanted to move on. When he went to file his papers for the Democratic primary, Davis, a Republican, was there in her capacity as clerk to sign him up. Sitting across a desk from each other, the cordial meeting contrasted the first time they met three years earlier. Both candidates lost; Ermold in the primary and Davis in the general election. She has not returned to politics. Davis' lawyers are attempting again to get her case before the Supreme Court, after the high court declined to hear an appeal from her in 2020. A federal judge has ordered Davis to pay a total of $360,000 in damages and attorney fees to Ermold and his partner. Davis lost a bid in March to have her appeal of that ruling heard by a federal appeals court, but she will appeal again to the Supreme Court. Her attorney, Mat Staver of the Liberty Counsel, said the goal is affirm Davis' constitutional rights and 'overturn Obergefell.'
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Government files appeal after Kilmar Abrego Garcia ordered released by federal judge
The government on Sunday appealed a federal judge's order to release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia pending trial on human smuggling charges, another chapter in the saga of the Maryland father who had been erroneously deported to El Salvador. The Trump administration admitted having mistakenly deported Abrego Garcia in March, and the Supreme Court ordered it to facilitate his return. Upon his return this month, though, Abrego Garcia was hit with federal charges of conspiracy to unlawfully transport illegal immigrants for financial gain and unlawful transportation of illegal immigrants for monetary gain. He pleaded not guilty. 'Abrego, like every person arrested on federal criminal charges, is entitled to a full and fair determination of whether he must remain in federal custody pending trial,' U.S. Magistrate Barbara D. Holmes of the Middle District of Tennessee wrote in her opinion Sunday. 'The Court will give Abrego the due process that he is guaranteed.' The government quickly filed a request to stay the order and keep Abrego Garcia in custody, a filing that made it clear it would again subject him to deportation proceedings. The government argued that a stay, or pause, would allow the court 'to conduct meaningful review' of custody ahead of the judge's ruling on a separate court filing. 'He will remain in custody pending deportation and Judge Holmes' release order would not immediately release him to the community under any circumstance,' Justice Department lawyers said in request for a stay Sunday. In concluding Abrego Garcia should be released pending trial, with certain conditions, Holmes faulted the government for its language surrounding the case and indicated he has been so far denied ordinary due process that might come to any defendant. She noted that government lawyers have used the terms "human smuggling" and "human trafficking" interchangeably, though the former refers to helping someone willfully enter a country, while the latter refers to bringing someone to a country against their will. She also noted that the government accused Abrego Garcia of being "involved" in transporting a minor as part of the alleged smuggling — without solid and specific evidence of such. Holmes set a hearing for Wednesday to discuss terms of Abrego Garcia's release and ordered federal authorities to produce him for the event. She held out little hope that Abrego Garcia would actually be free, however, noting that immigration authorities were likely to detain him upon release because he is alleged to be in the United States without permission. "Either Abrego will remain in the custody of the Attorney General or her designee pending trial if detained under the Bail Reform Act or he will likely remain in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ('ICE') custody subject to anticipated removal proceedings that are outside the jurisdiction of this Court," she wrote in her decision. "That suggests the Court's determination of the detention issues is little more than an academic exercise," Holmes said. This article was originally published on
