Supreme Court hears from activists demanding removal of protections for kids caught in transgender ideology

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared reluctant to order the destruction of a Tennessee state law that protects children from being subjected to the chemicals – and even physical body mutilations – that are involved in the transgender industry.

At issue is a state law that bars minors from undergoing transgender procedures – an industry that has exploded with the constant promotions by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris over the past few years.

The Washington Examiner explained the members of the high court “appeared skeptical” over demands that they strike down the law in a case brought by leftists who promote the ideology.

The state of Tennessee has explained that it has the authority to regulate medical treatment and procedures, and that’s exactly what it is doing.

The challengers in the case claim that such limits discriminate on the basis of sex.

“The majority of justices appeared to be sympathetic to Tennessee’s arguments,” the report said.

The leftist oriented America Civil Liberties Union initially challenged the law, and claimed it was working on behalf of “families with transgender adolescents.”

Of course, following the science makes clear that changing from male to female or vice versa isn’t possible, as being male or female is embedded in the body down to the DNA level. Further, studies have confirmed that the vast majority of children with gender dysphoria issues resolve themselves to an identity of their birth sex if left alone.

Biden’s Department of Justice eventually joined the case on behalf of the pro-transgender agenda he and Kamala Harris adopted.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, led by Chief Judge Jeffery Sutton, had affirmed the law.

A ruling in the case, which isn’t expected for some months, is expected to have an impact on multiple state laws that address the same issue – the politicized agenda that involves giving children chemicals and body mutilations to appease a transgender ideology.

Tennessee Solicitor General James Rice explained “there is no sex-based line” in his state’s law that would violate the 14th Amendment.

When Biden’s legal representative in the case claimed it is sex discrimination, with, “This statute on its face says you can’t have medication inconsistent with sex, and no matter what you think about transgender discrimination generally, that’s a sex-based line,” Justice Samuel Alito noted, “I’m not sure that’s anything more than a play on words.”

Alito suggested that transgender identity may not be an unchanging characteristic.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested the case would be the trigger for “identifying a new suspect class, which we haven’t done for a long time.”

Chief Justice John Roberts raised the issue of the side effects of the chemicals that promoters want to give children.

“Here it seems to me that the medical issues are much more heavily involved than many of the cases that you look to,” said Roberts. He said the Supreme Court is “not the best situated to address issues like that.”

Alito also pointed out other Western nations in recent days have “significantly curtailed” their use of drugs and chemicals.

A lawyer for Biden’s administration did concede that cross-sex hormones have permanent effects on a developing child’s body.

And she admitted there are detransitioners who have regret over their transgender beliefs.

A statement from the office of the Tennessee attorney general, in defense of its protection for children, said, “We are here defending Tennessee’s law protecting children from irreversible and unproven gender transition procedures.”

AG Jonathan Skrmetti added, “Tennessee’s general assembly reviewed the medical evidence, as well as the evidence-based decisions of European countries that restricted these procedures, and ultimately passed this bipartisan law prohibiting irreversible medical interventions. The plaintiffs in this case are asking the court to take the power to regulate the practice of medicine away from the people’s elected representatives and vest it in unaccountable judges.”

“Our arguments were ultimately about constitutional clarity and common sense,” Skrmetti added, “Our Founders guaranteed states the right and responsibility to protect children, regulate the medical profession, and independently evaluate the evidence of the risks and benefits of practices to be regulated. We cannot allow ideology to override medical evidence at the expense of our right to self-government and our duty to protect our children.”