Posted on 06/24/2025 5:37:31 AM PDT by John Semmens
This week the US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that a Tennessee law prohibiting surgical mutilation and chemical castration of minors is not unconstitutional. The ruling parallels the Court's 2022 decision recognizing that states have the authority to determine for themselves whether abortion is or isn't permissible within their jurisdiction.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, saying that "the majority's view that questions about such medical treatments should be resolved by the people, their elected representatives and the democratic process tramples the individual's right to choose his or her own sex and goes against the consensus of the experts who have testified against the Tennessee law."
Justice Clarence Thomas concurred in the decision, saying "the contention that anyone can change their sex via the methods proposed by the medical experts is false. In no way is the claimed sexual dysphoria 'cured' by the drugs or surgery offered. The idea that a minor is qualified to make a truly informed decision on such a life-changing decision is debatable. In many states minors are prohibited from purchasing alcohol or cigarettes or getting tattoos. If states can prohibit these less permanent and less severe body alterations they can surely protect minors from being induced to mutilate their bodies and sterilize themselves."
"The plea to allow 'experts' to override the will of the people as represented by the legislature they elected is not supported by the constitutional framework of our government," Thomas added. "Not all 'experts' agree that the medical interventions advocated are helpful. There is considerable evidence that they are not. Finally, the most ardent advocates of sexual transition are not totally disinterested parties. Many expect financial remuneration for the surgeries and follow-up treatments that the so-called transsexuals will need throughout their lifetimes."
“To choose his or her own sex and goes against the consensus of the experts “ Justice Sodimize myrear.
How can such a retard be a Supreme Court Justice?
I like to see things accurately described because I think describing things inaccurately is part of the problem, like calling it "gender affirming surgery".
“tramples the individual’s right to choose his or her own sex”
Try stomping your foot, shaking a raised fist, and screaming _that_ at Almighty God.
Oh, and do let us all know how that works out for you!
This clown was quite clear in her dissent. She feels that all laws should be run by her and she will consult experts that she will choose to deliver proclamations on the facts involved. No words allowed from the rabble, only self-appointed experts.
She is the type of person who would have gleefully sat on the board that decided that Jews did not deserve protection under 1930’s German law and if the gov’mt decided that humanity and morals did not apply that is OK by her.
She is a horror of a human being.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.