Midwest Chick's Place

In a 6-3 decision (I’ll leave you to guess the 3), the Supreme Court upheld the state of Tennessee’s ban on transgender care for children (thank goodness for sanity).

Roberts wrote that the state law is not in violation of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment as it does not constitute a form of sex discrimination.

From NBC News:

The 6-3 ruling is likely to have a broad impact as 24 other states have already enacted laws similar to the one in Tennessee, which bars gender transition surgery, puberty blockers and hormone therapy for youth.

As a reminder, here’s part of the summary of the Tennessee law:

This bill generally prohibits licensed healthcare professionals, establishments, and facilities (collectively referred to as a “healthcare provider”) from performing or offering to perform on a person under 18 years of age (a “minor”), or administering or offering to administer to a minor, a medical procedure if the performance or administration of the procedure is for the purpose of:
(1) Enabling a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the immutable characteristics of the reproductive system that define the minor as male or female, as determined by anatomy and genetics existing at the time of birth (the minor’s “sex”); or
(2) Treating purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity.
For purposes of this bill, a “medical procedure” includes both surgical procedures and the prescribing, administering, or dispensing of a drug or device.

…

This bill creates a cause of action whereby a minor who is injured as a result of a violation of this bill’s prohibitions concerning medical procedures may bring a lawsuit against the:
(1) Healthcare provider alleged to have made the violation; and
(2) Minor’s parent if the parent of the minor consented to the conduct that constituted the violation on behalf of the minor.
This bill creates a cause of action whereby the parent of a minor who is injured as a result of a violation of this bill’s prohibitions concerning medical procedures may bring a lawsuit against the healthcare provider alleged to have made the violation; provided, that the parent will not have standing to bring any such lawsuit if the parent consented to the conduct that constituted the violation on behalf of the minor.

I’m betting the second bit of the law is what brought the suit rather than the ban itself. That means there are consequences for the people who mutilated a child.

That’s gotta have them shaking in their shoes.