tOP STORY
Biochemical Messengers of Deceit: Supreme Court appears ready to uphold Tennessee’s ban on youth hormonal transgender ‘care’
By GREG TAYLOR with Mary Otto-Chang HBA, MES, PhD (Candidate)
At Our Country Our Children, we have spoken out about the transgender healthcare scam in the past.
In politically charged times, where norms are rewritten almost at will, protecting children has never been more difficult. Controversy surrounding gender ideology is rarely not in the headlines these days.
At Our Country Our Children, we have spoken out about the transgender healthcare scam in the past. We have explained how the transgender cult plays to a globalist agenda and is big business for healthcare providers at over $4.4 billion in 2024. Our children are at risk, and the government wants to remove any guardrails that protect them.
US Government vs Skrmetti
The case before the Supreme Court, United States v. Skrmetti, involves Tennessee’s law that bans gender-affirming care, such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy, for transgender minors. The law, known as SB1, was passed in March 2023 and went into effect on July 1, 2023. Tennessee argues that the law is meant to protect minors from “irreversible, unproven medical procedures” and to encourage them to appreciate their sex. The outcome of this case will have a wide impact in the US. More than 20 other states have laws similar to that enacted by Tennessee.
The Background
The bill was driven by concerns about the potential long-term physical and psychological effects of such treatments on minors, as well as the belief that minors lack the maturity to fully understand and consent to these life-altering procedures. The sponsors argued that the state has a responsibility to safeguard the health and welfare of minors by restricting access to these medical interventions until they reach adulthood.
Controversy
The Biden Administration, along with three families and a Memphis doctor, brought actions in lower courts to question the law’s constitutionality. They argue that the law discriminates based on sex and transgender status, and that it denies transgender youth access to critical medical care.
Lower Court Rulings
The lower court rulings on Tennessee’s SB1 law have been mixed:
- Federal District Court: Initially, a federal district court in Nashville ruled that SB1 likely violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The judge granted a temporary injunction to block the law, stating that puberty blockers and hormone therapy are safe, effective, and comparable to other pediatric treatments1.
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit: The Federal District Court decision was later reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. The divided panel ruled that the law could take effect, applying a “rational basis” review and finding that the state had a legitimate interest in regulating these medical treatments.
The conflicting rulings highlight the contentious nature of the law and set the stage for the Supreme Court to make a final determination on its constitutionality.
Equal Protection Clause
The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. It states: “No State shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
This clause requires states to treat individuals in similar situations equally. It’s the foundation for many significant civil rights decisions, ensuring that laws do not discriminate against individuals or groups without a legitimate and compelling reason. It has been used to challenge various forms of discrimination, including those based on race, gender, and, more recently, gender identity.
The question before the court is not necessarily whether transgender healthcare such as puberty blockers and cross sex hormone treatments are dangerous but rather, despite their danger, does the law discriminate against transgender children.
The US Government and others contend that the Tennessee law creates a sex-based classification by allowing normal children access to puberty blockers for medical reasons, however, this law would discriminate against gender dysphoric children and deny them access to the same treatment.
This argument is central to the government’s case against Tennessee. Consider a normal boy who for medical reasons, such as delayed puberty, is prescribed testosterone. If a normal girl were to experience a similar medical condition, such as delayed puberty, she would be prescribed hormone replacement therapy. To give a boy HRT or a girl testosterone would not be medically wise. That scenario considers two sexes, the same condition, different treatments, and no discrimination will have occurred. However, the argument being made is that gender dysphoria creates a medical necessity for transgender children that creates a separate class of children. The government argues that because of this the law discriminates against transgender children.
The government also argues that Tennessee is stopping parents from consenting to gender-affirming care for their transgender children.
Is Transgender Healthcare Both Necessary and Safe?
A major crux of the government’s case against the Tennessee law is that the transgender healthcare is a medical necessity for the children. This is far from proven at this stage.
In previous newsletters we have spoken of transgender healthcare issues. From the WPATH files to the Cass Review we have highlighted the pseudoscience behind much of transgender healthcare that makes huge amounts for Big Pharma as the ideology fits the narrative of progressive politics. Doctors, Big Pharma and politicians win as children are abused.
Many transgender healthcare professionals have used the argument that by not affirming the gender that a child identifies with may lead to suicide. They ask the parents if they would prefer a trans child or a dead child. It is quite the manipulative argument but one that may show medical necessity for trans healthcare.
Suicide amongst transgender children is a great concern as it is with any child. However, it is important to look to medical proof to be able substantiate the claim that trans healthcare will prevent suicide.
Suicide was also a key point addressed by a recent healthcare report. The Cass Review was published in the UK in early April 2024. The report was in response to a concern, raised in the UK, that children and young adults who were questioning their gender or experiencing gender dysphoria were not receiving the treatment that they needed from the National Health Service (NHS). The report provided a stark look into the failures of professionals and clinicians to adequately cater to those in need of trans healthcare.
Contrary to the scare tactics used against children, youth and their families, the report also found that there is no evidence of gender altering medical interventions resulting in a lower risk of suicide in those suffering from gender dysphoria.
It may come as little surprise that while Jonathan Skrmetti, the Attorney General of Tennessee, included references to the Cass Review in his testimony during the oral arguments for United States v. Skrmetti, the US government did not mention it. The Cass Review was cited by Skrmetti to support the state’s position on the risks and uncertainties associated with puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors but the US government, true to form, stuck to ideology.
The treatment that the government wants to affirm for transgender children is not proven to be safe nor medically necessary. In fact, it is likely more based on an ideological imperative than what is best for the child. There is no discrimination in Tennessee law SB-1 under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Given the governments’ dismissive attitude to the Cass Review we can also surmise that Parental Consent as part of the equal protection clause argument is defeated. How can you consent if you are not informed?
Biden Administration and Transgender Healthcare
The Biden administration has fought tooth and nail to protect transgender healthcare and affirmation of gender dysphoric children. Health and Human Services has long seen this as a civil rights issue. They have gone out of their way to interfere with medical standards for trans children.
WPATH is the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Its goal is to understand gender dysphoria and to develop standardized treatments. It is recognized as the World’s leading transgender healthcare organization and provides standards of care to the US Government, the National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization and all major medical and psychiatric organizations in the United States
Disclosure from an Alabama court case that shows how the Biden administration brought pressure on (WPATH) to make changes for political and ideological reasons to their standards. Children are being mutilated in the name of the Democratic party and the trans-cult they embrace.
The WPATH Papers highlight:
- WPATH advocating for experimental procedures including hormonal and surgical transitions for minors leading to irreversible or long-term medical issues and sexless bodies.
- The removal of minimum age requirements for puberty blockers and sexual modification surgeries.
- Concerns with informed consent and whether minors can truly understand and consent for the permanent effects of surgeries especially given the lifelong consequences such as infertility.
- A dismissive attitude towards individuals who detransition and questioning the validity of the detransitioners’ experiences.
In an Alabama court case appealing a state law that sought to ban certain gender medical procedures, disclosure of the government’s intervention became clear. In court filings it was disclosed that a senior current government official pressured WPATH to remove certain guardrails and expose more children to heinous acts of depravity.
Transwoman Admiral Rachel Levine, Assistant Secretary of Health at the Department of Health and Human Services was not satisfied with recommended age minimums for treatment of gender dysphoric minors under Standard of Care 8 (SOC 8) and asked that they be removed from WPATH guidance.
According to court documents, “Assistant Secretary for Health Dr. Rachel Levine strongly pressured WPATH leadership to rush the development and issuance of SOC-8, in order to assist with Administration political strategy”.
As with Tennessee Law SB-1, Levine wanted no guardrails and no age restriction despite the many questions regarding the safety and necessity of treatments for transgender children.
Withheld NIH Study
In 2015 the National Institute for Health started a study, led by Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy, into the long-term impact on healthcare treatment for transgender children including puberty blockers. As a “The Hill” article from 6th December 2024 explains, “Nine years later, the data remains unpublished. In October, Olson-Kennedy told The New York Times that puberty blockers did not necessarily yield mental health improvements, which she said was likely because the children recruited for the study were already doing well when it began.” Olson-Kennedy’s report has allegedly been withheld from publication because the report would be weaponized by opponents of puberty blockers and other transgender healthcare. Six Republican have now launched an enquiry into the NIH study and the reasons it has not been made public.
America’s best-known practitioner of youth gender medicine is also, as of December 2024, being sued. One of her patients thinks she has been negligent.
Implications If the Government Wins
Should the government prove their case that Tennessee law SB-1 is unconstitutional because of the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause, the implications are likely to be far reaching. Firstly, it would strike down the Tennessee legislation. Secondly, it would also have a similar impact on other similar laws that have been enacted in recent years. Thirdly, the decision could also be a significant influence on transgender rights in all walks of life from women only spaces such as bathrooms and girls’ sports, which is already under attack by the government interpretation of Title IX and discrimination in general. It would be a major victory for those who seek a culture shift to affirm their relatively recent ideological beliefs as distinct from millennia of understanding.
United Nation Transgender Developments
A Final Thought
The Cass Review shows that this Administration’s approach, with Admiral Levine front and center of matters, is not following medical science when it comes to transgender healthcare for minors. Needless to say, cross sex hormones and puberty blockers for transgender children are not necessary, nor proven safe. As such, it is not discrimination under the 14th Amendment’s equal protections clause. It is time for the Supreme Court to explain this to the ideologically captured Biden Administration.
Even with new Trump government in America, international law may still endanger children. The globalist agenda is not solely a Democratic playbook. The United Nations is still hell bent on enabling child mutilation to assuage their Satanic masters.
SOURCES:
— — — — surgery – Protect Children
UN ‘Gender’ Treaty Threatens Free Speech
[United States v. Skrmetti] Oral Argument | C-SPAN.org
Supreme Court to hear challenge to ban on transgender health care for minors – SCOTUSblog
US Supreme Court to Hear Arguments in Tennessee’s Transgender Care Ban Case