The Eleventh Circuit upheld Alabama’s Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act, which makes it a felony to provide transgender youth with puberty blocking medication, hormone therapy or surgery for the purposes of changing their birth sex. More analysis of the various standards of review in the opinion, with the trial court applying strict scrutiny and the Eleventh applying rational basis review. Judge Lagoa wrote: "the plaintiffs have not presented any authority that supports the existence of a constitutional right to 'treat [one's] children with transitioning medications subject to medically accepted standard.'" Media coverage here.
Order by John Byrne on Scribd
15 comments:
Lagoa knows what she needs to do to stay on the Supreme Court shortlist. Too bad for her that its gonna be at least another 5 years, and likely longer, before she has even a chance due to Trump destroying her party.
When the Supreme Court affirms this outcome, it will be another case added to the list that future con law students will look down upon as part of a shameful period in our country's history.
Where is “you’re welcome” guy to gloat at his party’s cruelty? It’s all fun and games…
Reading the first three comments it’s pretty clear that people no longer bother to read any of these opinions whether 10 pages or 200. This opinion reverses a preliminary injunction because the District Court did not use the proper heightened standard of review. It is exactly correct no matter what one believes the law should be. If the first three comments were written by lawyers or more likely one lawyer talking to himself via blog, that person(s) needs a new job.
5:22 - why do you assume the comment about cruelty is not about the underlying law passed by the gop?
Dumbass.
“The plaintiffs have not presented the court with any authority to support the claim that parents have the right to ….
1- have their child taught Shakespeare or
2- receive a heart transplant
3- go to school
4- not be required to read “the art of the deal” in order to graduate high school “
As my Con law professor used to say “if they can do that. What can’t they do?”
What a frightening and sickening opinion
The main problem I see in this comment section, and in society at large, is that people have a tough time believing that someone can disagree in good faith. The folks complaining about the opinion and the underlying law are jumping to conclusions about "sickening," "cruelty," and "shameful." The comment defending the opinion suggests that those that disagree with him are incompetent and should lose their jobs.
Settle down.
Is it possible, maybe, that these medical procedures are life altering - for better or worse - and that people on both sides of the issue are doing their best to protect minors who find themselves in a difficult position? And maybe, that in that difficult position, good and reasonable people can disagree on what may or may not be best?
Is it possible, maybe, that constitutional law is complicated and that even the most intelligent people who are fully committed to our constitutional republic can come to different conclusions on the interpretation of these difficult legal issues?
Take a breath.
Yes but….watching Fox News has been proven to be harmful to vulnerable people (see all the 1/6 defendants who blamed misinfo on fox for their lunacy). Should we pass a law banning Fox News for vulnerable (feeble minded or easily persuaded into “groupthink) adults?
"yes but" just means "no"
It is possible that people can disagree in good faith as to what they or their families should do. It is cruel to limit what others can do for themselves and their own families and then cloak themselves in some higher moral high ground. Tyranny of the majority over individual rights. See Dobbs.
@515 you say that reasonable people can disagree on the issue, but then call those who take a different position on the issue than you cruel. Don't you see it?
@5:15 here. No I don’t. It is cruel to deny a parent their ability to do what is best for their child because someone else believes otherwise. It is reasonable for one parent to make a certain choice for their child and another to make a different choice for their own child. It is reasonable for a woman / girl not to have an abortion for any reason. It is cruel for a government to deny another woman / girl the right to an abortion, including by forcing her to carry a non-viable fetus, even if she was raped, and even if carrying the fetus endangers her health short of a medical “emergency,” until she delivers a still born or reaches the life or death moment. Do you not see it?
@515 - is it cruel to deny a parent the right to remove her daughter's clitoris even though the parent thinks that's best? Is it cruel to deny a parent the right to bind her daughter's feet even though the parent thinks that's best? How about tattoos? How about prohibiting parents from beating their children even though the parent thinks it's best?
You see, as a society we take many steps to protect children from their parents' actions even when the parents think the actions are best.
You are unwilling to accept that people may be able to disagree in good faith on this issue and whether on the one hand, stopping a child's puberty is itself a cruelty or on the other hand whether it is in the child's interest. I am not prepared to make such a decision today and am not prepared to call people "cruel" for their sincerely held belief on the matter.
@12:49 on transitioning you’ve decided you know better than the medical establishment (which btw is against hitting kids) so to lump all your ridiculous examples together is just self-serving. Yes we protect kids. But you don’t get to decide something is abuse just because you don’t like it. Don’t claim you are protecting my kids based on your personal beliefs, which btw go against the standard of care. Let me and my child and our doctor decide what is best. And you’re not protecting my raped child when you force her to give birth either. But you think you are … and so you claim some moral high ground at the expense of our liberty. No thanks.
I have not once made this about abortion. The tack to abortion in the counter-comments is a whataboutism. Not that it makes a difference, but I am pro-choice.
The fact that "the medical establishment" believes something does not sanctify it. The "the medical establishment" once believed that homosexuality was a disease. The "the medical establishment" used to recommend electrocution and lobotomy for the mentally disabled. The "the medical establishment" is not perfect. And that's the point.
I, unlike you appear to do, do not pretend to have the answers on the transgender question. I am, however, willing to accept that people who take the position that "relatively new and life altering treatments are not appropriate for children when other methods of care may be available that are less invasive" are not per se cruel whether or not I would have passed/voted on the law in question.
Your sweeping judgments and morally superior positions leaving no room for disagreement appear no better than the MAGA nuts on the other side of the spectrum.
Post a Comment