The Supreme Court has a Trans health care case

A Tennessee Law Governs Gender-Affirming Medical Treatment: An Observation from a Case Study in New York City

That fear was reinforced as I entered the legal profession. In Boston in 2007, one of my law school professors at Northeastern told our class that we needed to abide by traditional gender norms in court. She instructed that women should wear skirts to appear before juries, and after a presentation in class she told me that I was too “soft-spoken” to be seen as an effective male advocate. My appearance was the subject of mockery outside class. During an internship at a public defender’s office in New York City, some court officers and judges referred to me as “Doogie Howser” and asked my supervisors if it was take your kid to work day. I was seen as too boyish to be either a woman or man. I learned that after my first job interview, staff members questioned if I would be taken seriously in court. After graduation, I stayed away from the courtroom because I was afraid that my clients would pay the price, and I didn’t want to distract them.

The Supreme Court is focused on the battle over the rights of children who are genderqueer. Tennessee has a state law that prevents children from accessing gender-affirming care.

NPR put the question to Vanderbilt University Medical Center, which until the law was passed was the major center in Tennessee for providing gender-affirming care for minors. The center took three days to ponder the question, ultimately declining to comment.

You have to be 18 to get a tattoo in Tennessee. You can’t use tobacco. He says that you can’t drink. Tennessee regulates “a number of different types of medical procedures,” Johnson says, adding that “it felt like this was the best public policy to prevent kids form suffering from irreversible consequences, things that cannot be undone.”

The actual purpose of the ban is telegraphed in the language of the statute. The statute prohibits treatments that might encourage teens to be disdainful of their sex.

Health Care for the Western Europeans: The Status of Cross Sex Hormones for Gender Change in the Light of a “Centric” Law

“You’ve got countries in Western Europe that were far ahead of us in terms of these types of medications,” says Sen. Johnson. The adverse effects of some of the drugs are so bad they outweigh any positive benefit that they have.

John Bursch of the conservative Christian legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom echoes that sentiment, noting that some Western European and Scandinavian countries have not only been at this longer, they have national health care systems that cover everyone.

“They can track a patient from birth until death. Bursch says if someone gets cross sex hormones for a gender change at age 15 they can look at how they’re doing at age 20,25, 45 and 65.

These characterizations of European studies are highly controversial, but the drugs are still accessible in a research setting, and access has not been terminated for any minor already using the medications.

The law bars access to treatment for kids who want to transition from their sex assigned at birth, but permits those same medications to be used when treating minors suffering from other conditions, like endometriosis or early-onset puberty.

Vanderbilt does still provide gender-affirming care for adult patients. Lawyers for the trans kids argue that if states can ban gender-reassignment treatments for kids, then the next step is to ban them for adults.

Transgender Children’s Medical Treatments in Tennessee, or How the Supreme Court Decided to Delete a Gender–Affirming Law

People make assumptions. “They think it’s just a phase because they don’t know what it’s like, that’s why I think it’s a phase,” she says. It can certainly feel like it’s not possible, given how slow the process is.

“You can’t get a tattoo in Tennessee unless you’re 18. You can’t be a smoker. You can’t drink,” he observed to NPR. Tennessee regulates “a number of different types of medical procedures,” Johnson said, adding that “it felt like this was the best public policy to prevent kids form suffering from irreversible consequences, things that cannot be undone.”

The bill was introduced by the State Senator Jack Johnson and he says it is another example of Tennessee’s regulatory power.

ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio, the first openly trans lawyer to argue in front of the Supreme Court, represented the kids and their parents. He argued that Tennesseebans them because they’re popular, and that they’re used a lot.

Prelogar said that despite the fact that there was a debate on the issue, there was a consensus that these treatments can be medically necessary for some adolescents.

Roberts asked why the courts should get involved, citing uncertainty about the long term implications for gender-affirming medical treatments for minor children. That view was echoed by Justice Samuel Alito, who cited Swedish data, and said it was “directly contrary to the sweeping statement in your petition” that “these treatments have benefits that greatly outweigh the risks and the dangers.”

But she faced intense questioning from the court’s conservatives. The hours-long arguments featured Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion in the historic case that granted employment protection to gay and trans workers.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority appeared skeptical Wednesday of a challenge to a Tennessee law that bans gender-affirming care for transgender children.