The Supreme Court is set to hear United States v. Skrmetti, a case addressing Tennessee’s law prohibiting so-called “gender-affirming care” for minors.
Tennessee’s SB1 has sparked heated debate, with advocates arguing the law protects children from irreversible procedures, while critics claim it undermines broader rights, including women’s equality.
Jonathan Skrmetti @AGTennessee joins @michaelpleahy in studio with some background on his case “United States v Skrmetti” currently before the US Supreme Court. pic.twitter.com/kOLMjJyvH0
— Tennessee Star (@TheTNStar) December 14, 2024
Celebrate Trump’s Historic 2024 Victory with the Exclusive Trump 47th President Collection!
Naomi Schoenbaum, a professor at George Washington University, penned an article in Politico framing the case as a significant threat to transgender youth and women’s rights.
Schoenbaum described the potential ruling as “the next Dobbs,” suggesting it could dismantle decades of legal precedents supporting sex equality.
Tennessee’s SB1 does not ban all medical care for transgender youth but restricts medical procedures like puberty blockers and surgeries that permanently alter a child’s body.
Supporters argue that such interventions should not be performed on minors who are too young to fully understand the long-term consequences.
Advocates of the law point to shifts in policy across Europe, where nations like the UK, Sweden, Finland, and France are stepping back from transitioning children in favor of prioritizing psychosocial support.
The issue before the Court in Skrmetti is whether states can pass laws to protect children from unnecessary and experimental procedures. The answer to that question is clearly yes.
As I said on @CNN earlier today: We shouldn’t constitutionalize a right to experiment on our kids. pic.twitter.com/HgDPWj9H1s
— Kristen Waggoner (@KristenWaggoner) December 5, 2024
In 2022, the UK’s Tavistock Clinic closed after concerns about inadequate mental health evaluations.
Similarly, Norway and the World Health Organization have raised questions about the lack of scientific evidence supporting medical interventions for minors.
Schoenbaum’s article ties the issue to women’s equality, suggesting that limiting access to gender-affirming treatments for minors could undermine rights guaranteed under the Equal Protection Clause.
She also argues that such restrictions perpetuate stereotypes about women’s roles in society, stating, “Medical treatments that would reduce the fertility of trans boys and men threaten the idea of women being mothers first.”
The bit where Chase Strangio says 2-year-olds — yes, 2-year-olds — may know “exactly who they are” is absolutely emblematic of how truly deranged mainstream trans activism is on these issues. https://t.co/JDNpfRhFIO
— Brad Polumbo 🇺🇸⚽️ (@brad_polumbo) December 3, 2024
Critics counter that protecting children from irreversible treatments is unrelated to undermining women’s rights.
They argue that the focus should remain on ensuring children are not subjected to life-altering decisions before reaching adulthood.
The debate over Tennessee’s law reflects growing tensions between safeguarding children and broader societal shifts regarding gender identity.
Many conservatives argue that the push for gender-affirming care for minors is part of a larger agenda that risks erasing distinctions between men and women.
They cite concerns over issues like biological males competing in women’s sports and redefining terms that have traditionally centered on women.
Last year, Johns Hopkins University faced backlash after redefining “lesbian” in its LGBTQ Glossary as “a non-man attracted to non-men,” a move critics said dehumanized women to accommodate non-binary identities.
Man: no definition needed.
Non-man (formerly known as woman):
a being definable only by reference to the male. An absence, a vacuum where there’s no man-ness. pic.twitter.com/cpSaSR2Vfg— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) June 13, 2023
Across the globe, countries are reevaluating the medicalization of gender identity in minors.
While the United States sees legal battles like United States v. Skrmetti, European nations are taking a more cautious approach, emphasizing mental health support over medical interventions.
These trends may influence future legal and cultural debates in the U.S.
Supporters of Tennessee’s law see it as common-sense protection for children, while opponents warn it could set a precedent affecting broader rights.
The decision in United States v. Skrmetti will likely add fuel to ongoing cultural debates over gender identity, parental rights, and the role of government in regulating medical care for minors.
.
