SCOTUS: Child Mutilation Laws Showcase Best (And Worst) Of Our Sitting Justices

When the stakes involve children, and such divided opinion on the medical value or harm of irreversible surgery, it was inevitable that this question would find its way before SCOTUS.

The issue at question: Tennessee legislators outlawed a medical procedure they deemed to be harmful to minors, forcing them to defer any such life-altering decisions until they reach the age of majority. This obviously conflicts what activists will consider ‘rights’ of children said to be experiencing gender dysphoria.

When both sides can’t have their way, someone will prevail. That’s why we have courts.

A quick look at the headlines show that gender activist sympathizers are panicking with how the case is progressing:

The most obvious example on the initial list of headlines that popped up was Vox bleating on about ‘The Horrifying Implications of Today’s Supreme Court Argument On Trans Rights…’ blah blah blah. Very journalism-y.

Because of federalism’s deliberate creation of states as ‘laboratories of democracy’, individual states have a broad scope of authority over which medically dubious treatments to permit and which to block. The only way to challenge this is by accusing the state of discriminating in some way.

Naturally, the case revolves around that question.

One reason the activists are seen as losing this case has to do with a major setback in the logic that drives the urgency of waiting until adulthood in the first place: the suicide risk.

By now we’ve all heard some version of the refrain ‘is better to have a living daughter or a dead son?’ The guilt was weaponized to silence any objections on the part of parents, and to push the normalizing of what has been called ‘gender-affirming care’ at a rapid race.

In this case, the lawyers opposed to Tennessee’s law have been made to admit that claims that rates of suicide would increase dramatically if gender-affirming care was not provided to minors. Alito made specific reference to a CASS study.

But there’s more to the story of why the activist left is bracing for defeat. It’s evident in the interactions with 4 justices in particular.

First, from the left:

Sotomeyer, who shockingly, compared the risks of permanent sterilization and inability to orgasm the adverse effects of an Aspirin.

No joke, Sotomayor should simply be impeached for this statement

Cavalierly dismissing the butchering of children by saying “well aspirin has side effects too” is beneath the dignity of the highest court in the land
pic.twitter.com/TjhWE7ZaMZ

— Will Chamberlain (@willchamberlain) December 4, 2024

Sure would have been nice of her to consider those arguments before supporting Biden’s VAX requirements.

Meanwhile, Biden’s DEI nominee who once made a point of telling us she was ‘not a biologist’ when asked about what a woman is fared no better. She tried to compare banning the genital mutilation of children for medically dubious reasons to… can you believe it… banning inter-racial marriage.

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson just compared Tennessee banning minors from getting transgender surgeries to banning interracial marriage. She is a moron. No lawyer with a functional brain would make this argument. pic.twitter.com/oPFNyfJiO7

— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) December 4, 2024

So much for the old saw about ‘sober as a judge’. This is clown-show stuff.

If that’s what the left was doing… how about the right?

We’ve already seen Alito once. But he does make another appearance. So does the man himself… Justice Clarence Thomas.

Let’s begin with Justice Thomas, as Severino captions this clip:

Justice Thomas sprung a killer question on the ACLU lawyer: “What remedy are you seeking?” Strangio, flummoxed by such a seemingly simple question said an injunction. Justice Thomas then asked “practically, you would get different treatment based on sex?” and the trap was laid.

Strangio said the plaintiff (a girl who identifies as a boy) would be allowed to get drugs for “a typical male puberty” despite having a “birth sex [of] female.” That answer made clear that girls who identify as boys would get a right under the Constitution to testosterone, but boys who identify as boys would not, which is…sex discrimination! Genius.

Justice Thomas sprung a killer question on the ACLU lawyer: "What remedy are you seeking?" Strangio, flummoxed by such a seemingly simple question said an injunction. Justice Thomas then asked "practically, you would get different treatment based on sex?" and the trap was laid.… pic.twitter.com/CI4dJI74H2

— Roger Severino (@RogerSeverino_) December 4, 2024

Definitionally, discrimination laws protect people from being singled out for traits over which they have no control: ‘immutable’. Skin color, for example.

Alito sets up a potential knockout punch, and the legal counsel doesn’t even see it coming: