Tipsheet

SCOTUS Just Heard the Most Unhinged Arguments for Medically Mutilating Minors

Mia Cathell
Mia Cathell  |  December 05, 2024 9:00 AM

For the first time, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a major case considering restrictions on so-called "gender-affirming care" for "transgender" children.

The case, United States v. Skrmetti, concerns a Tennessee law (Senate Bill 1 or SB1) that prohibits pediatric "gender-transitioning treatments." The petitioners, joined by the Biden-Harris administration, are arguing that there exists a constitutional right to medically mutilate minors and denying such is sex-based discrimination. Meanwhile, the state of Tennessee says the law does not discriminate in that regard; it simply sets parameters around age- and use-specific regulations.

Amid oral arguments, pro-DEI Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who couldn't define what a woman is during her Supreme Court confirmation hearings, compared the case to past laws that banned interracial relationships, saying, "It's sort of the same thing."

She specifically likened the current case to the 1967 landmark Loving v. Virginia decision that reversed a rule prohibiting interracial marriage. The latter is structured the same way the Tennessee statute is, she suggested.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor tried to downplay the pediatric "gender care" industry's irreversible and life-altering consequences, arguing that the dangers of such procedures, such as surgically removing a child's healthy body parts, are akin to the risks associated with taking an over-the-counter remedy like Aspirin.

Recommended

Here's the Final Tally on How Much Money Trump Raised for Hurricane Victims Katie Pavlich
Here's the Latest on That University of Oregon Employee Who Said Trump Supporters Should Kill Themselves Matt Vespa

"It becomes a pure exercise of weighing benefits versus risks," Tennessee Solicitor General J. Matthew Rice said. "How many minors have to have their bodies irreparably harmed for unproven benefits?"

To which, an interjecting Sotomayor said, "Every medical treatment has a risk, even taking Aspirin."

"There is always going to be a percentage of the population under any medical treatment that's going to suffer harm," she added.

As for the purported "benefits," at one point, Justice Samuel Alito pulled up Page 195 of the Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People (commonly known as "The Cass Report"), which found that allowing adolescents to "transition" doesn't actually prevent suicide.

In response, trans-identifying attorney Chase Strangio, the lead American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) lawyer representing the transgender lobby in this case, had to admit under oath that there's "no evidence" that these "treatments" truly reduce the number of suicides among gender dysphoric individuals.

Proponents of these procedures frequently use this unproven claim to frame "transgender care" as "medically necessary" and even "life-saving" intervention. Parents are often emotionally blackmailed into believing that they can either have a living "trans" child or a dead one, if they don't sign off on surgery or chemically castrating drugs.

Strangio asserted, however, that this finding specifically talks about "completed suicides" not the risk of suicide, i.e. suicidal ideation. The deputy "transgender justice" director for the ACLU's LGBTQ and HIV Project further claimed, without citing evidence, that there are multiple longitudinal studies out there that do show a reduction in suicidality.

Strangio, a biological female (born Kate Bachrach Strangio) who identifies as a man, is the first-ever openly "transgender" individual arguing before the Supreme Court. 

During discussions, several Supreme Court justices used Strangio's "preferred" male honorific.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett both notably referred to Strangio as "Mr." in oral arguments.

Court documents also addressed Strangio as "Mr." in accordance with the court custom of using the preferred honorifics of people appearing before the bar.

According to investigative journalist Andy Ngo, Strangio is a leftist Trantifa activist who once deleted a controversial X post, in which she solicited private video calls and chats with "trans" children.

"I am willing to spend an hour a day during the week videochatting with trans youth who are feeling isolated right now," Strangio tweeted, directing children to message her privately. "DM me and we can coordinate through IG chat or another platform."

Strangio, when responding to grooming allegations, wrote off the subsequent backlash as anti-trans sentiments.

Ahead of oral arguments, Stragio appeared on Jake Tapper's CNN show, where she claimed children as young as 2-years-old know they're "transgender" and have to "suffer" before they can receive "relief."

The outcome of the high-stakes Supreme Court case, which will weigh the ability of U.S. states to regulate the booming child butchery business, ultimately will bring about significant implications for two dozen state legislatures that have enacted similar restrictive measures to safeguard the health and well-being of children.

The core constitutional question posed in the case is whether SB1 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, as the petitioners are arguing.

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar, appearing alongside Strangio, argued on behalf of the Biden-Harris administration, which sided with the petitioners earlier this year against the Tennessee ban. They say there's no way to determine whether "treatments must be withheld from any particular minor" without considering the patient's sex.

"That is sex discrimination," Prelogar wrote in a pre-hearing filing.

For example, "an adolescent assigned female at birth cannot receive puberty blockers or testosterone to live as a male, but an adolescent assigned male at birth can," the petitioners argue.

However, SB1 draws a line between minors seeking drugs for the purpose of "gender transitioning" and those wanting prescriptions for other medical purposes, like early onset puberty or breast cancer, wherein a mastectomy would be medically necessary.

Much of the debate was centered on if states have an interest in regulating the matter since it involves underage individuals.

Rice said that the government has a responsibility to intervene and stop harmful medical practices. He pointed to eugenics and lobotomies, which were previously medically accepted. Those practices possessed "widespread acceptance among the medical community, and the state had to intervene as a regulator, to protect the children," Rice explained.

The petitioners faced much difficulty defending their argument that one's transgender identity is an immutable, protected characteristic that cannot be used as a basis for discriminatory treatment, given the existence of "de-transitioners" all over the country.

In addition to Strangio's stunning suicide concession, there were a handful of other admissions before the Supreme Court, including acknowledgments that cross-sex hormones can cause sterility and "de-transitioners" are living proof that "trans" kids could deeply regret what was done to them at an early age before they could even undergo puberty.

Strangio conceded during questioning that many decide to "de-transition" later in life, though she claimed it's a small, negligible number.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh pressed Prelogar about the side effects of putting children on puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones.

"I want to acknowledge gender-affirming care with respect to hormones can have some impacts on fertility," Prelogar replied, admitting: "With respect to hormone use, there are effects on fertility."

"They have to be counseled on those risks. As I said before, I can understand that could be a hard tradeoff, but it's not unique to this care," she said.

SCOTUS is expected to rule on United States v. Skrmetti by July 2025. Typically, the Supreme Court issues summertime decisions on cases argued in the October term.