Supreme Court’s Transgender Case and Dobbs Are Exactly The Same: Kill Personal Choice!

By Donald A. Collins | 6 December 2024
Church and State

(Photo: Victoria Pickering / Flickr / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

The US Supreme Court on December 4, heard arguments from those supporting providing sex changing drugs to transgender people in a case that was generated by a Tennessee law, which brought the case to the Court.

The press reaction to the early 12/4/24 testimony indicates that the court will not upset the Tennessee restriction when it makes its final decision sometime early next year.

If this prospect does not remind you of the Dobbs decision handed down in June 2022 by the same ideologically emboldened Supreme Court, you haven’t been following the basic ingredients of this issue.

The June 2022 Dobbs decision erased 50 years of Roe/Casey and threw the country into an unnecessary turmoil. While imperfect, the 1973 Roe decision as modified by the Casey decision in 1990 had allowed women to obtain abortions anywhere in the United States before quickening, which is the time when the fetus can live as a person outside the womb.

This ridiculous prohibition against giving trans people the right to initiate drugs that will help them on their road to becoming comfortable with their new situation becomes so obvious.

It’s out of the same right wing Dobbs action of the Court’s play book!!

About 5% of those people born have this wish to change their sexual orientation to transgender.

Read that full story here.

Now the Tennessee law if upheld by the SC will likely be adopted by 23 other states!!!

The Guttmacher Institute tells us “Each Year, more than One in 10 Women Worldwide Who Want to Avoid Pregnancy Experience an Unintended Pregnancy” during their reproductive years and resort to abortion to assist in making their own life’s choices.

Read that full story here.

What is painfully obvious and clear is this same ideological urge by the US Supreme Court to prevent healthy choices for women (and in this case men who believe they are women), exists with the two issues of transgender modification and abortion choice!

Is there some similar restrictions on health choices for males? Senator Kamala Harris asked Brett Kavanaugh that same question during his nomination hearing to become a Supreme Court Justice and he admitted he had no answer. However, after a pre-nomination interview strongly implying to Senator Susan Collins that he would not upset Roe if approved, he subsequently lied.

We now read “The horrifying implications of today’s (12/4/24) Supreme Court argument on trans rights”!

Quotes from this article:

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in United States v. Skrmetti, arguably the most important transgender rights case the Court has ever heard. The case asks whether discrimination against transgender people can violate the Constitution — and it appears most of the justices feel it does not. The likely result is that the Court will allow states to ban health procedures that enable gender-affirming care, both for minors and, potentially, adults.

The argument went terribly for transgender Americans, as many of the justices suggested creating a carveout from the ordinary constitutional rule restricting sex-based discrimination of all kinds. Chief Justice John Roberts, for example, suggested giving the government broad authority to engage in such discrimination in the medical context — a ruling that could also have severe implications for women generally, including cisgender women.

…

At least four justices — Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh — appeared all but certain to vote to uphold Tennessee’s law. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, meanwhile, was a bit less direct in her questioning, but she largely seemed sympathetic to Tennessee’s position. Most notably, Barrett signaled midway through the argument that she was open to Roberts’s call for a medical carveout from the Constitution’s restrictions on sex discrimination.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Republican who authored a landmark opinion protecting trans rights in 2020, was silent throughout the argument. That left only the Court’s three Democrats to defend the orthodox approach to laws that discriminate on the basis of sex, which casts a skeptical eye on any law that treats people differently because of their sex assigned at birth.

The Court appears likely to uphold bans on gender-affirming care and may gut the rules barring all forms of sex discrimination in the process.

Excuse me if I make the same point again and again! That is the horrendous tendency of this ideologically skewed Supreme Court remains. How can an issue which relates to complete privacy and personal choice be delegated to completely medically unqualified people?

Disgusting and clearly not entitled to influence those personal life decisions!!!

These personal invasions speak exactly to the kind of right wing extremism on women’s personal matters, which is rising in this country and will continue to be pursued by the incoming Trump administration.

We know from the results of the November 5 election that enough voters care more about the high price of groceries to elect Trump than about their own freedom to make important decisions about their lives. However, I predict that as the Trump administration unfolds there will come to be a sudden dawning of recognition about his authoritarianism that about half of our voters failed to grasp in this past election. Will there soon be a ban on mailing abortion pills (Mifepristone) to women in states with ridiculous repressive abortion laws? Stay tuned for worse and worse.

Former US Navy officer, banker and venture capitalist, Donald A. Collins, a free lance writer living in Washington, DC, has spent over 50 years working for women’s reproductive health as a board member and/or officer of numerous family planning organizations including Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Guttmacher Institute, Family Health International and Ipas. Yale under graduate, NYU MBA. He is the author of “From the Dissident Left: A Collection of Essays 2004-2013”, “Trump Becoming Macbeth: Will our democracy survive?”, “We Humans Overwhelm Our Earth: 11 or 2 Billion by 2100?”, “What Can Be Done Now to Save Habitable Life on Planet Earth?”, “Vote”, “Can Homo Sapiens Survive?”, “Will Choice and Democracy Win?”, “Can Our U.S. Survive 8 Plus Billion of Us”, “Economic Growth: A Cancer on all Earthly Life”, “On the Precipice of Political Disaster in 2024”, “Democracy at Red State Risk”, “Does Trump Go to Jail or to The Oval Office?” and “Trump: Pardon or Punish?: The Nixon Precedence Was Not A Trump Coup Denied!”.

Landmark Supreme Court case weighs gender-affirming care for trans kids

Supreme Court leans toward allowing ban on youth transgender care | REUTERS

Exactly how Trump could ban abortion

Be sure to ‘like’ us on Facebook

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here