Posted on 06/11/2024 12:50:23 PM PDT by conservative98
Florida's blanket restrictions on medical care for transgender children were ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge on Tuesday, striking down a key pillar of Gov. Ron DeSantis' platform.
In his ruling from Tallahassee, U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle invalidated a Florida health code rule and a new state law that prohibited Medicaid payments for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. He found these bans violated federal laws, including the Affordable Care Act's prohibition on sex discrimination in healthcare.
"Florida has adopted a statute and rules that ban gender-affirming care for minors even when medically appropriate," Judge Hinkle wrote in his 105-page order. "The ban is unconstitutional."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
So Obamacare politics are more important than the medical findings in the states about an issue that has arisen years after Obamacare was imposed on us..
These freakin judges. Overturn the bull crap and move on with sanity.
Enough about the problem. What about the solution?
Will Desantis actually DO anything here?
It’s some sort of mass hysteria or delusion, and as in Emperor’s New Clothes, everyone’s too chicken to state the obvious.
Only a few years ago, genital mutilation was condemned, even when practiced by Those Who Must Not Be Criticized. Today it’s “care,” for the dear little children!
What has become of America that insanity is so hard to point out? That newborns and the infirm may be killed, and children permanently mutilated?
Why are we not marching against this? What does it take?
Chemical castration of minors is NEVER “medically appropriate”.
One of the beliefs proposed in many of these cases is that children who allegedly want to change their sex have a higher suicide rate than the total population. I wonder if that rate is higher or lower after "gender affirming care," especially for those whose view of gender may revert to favor gender at birth eventually.
In my unscientific opinion, the number of authentic cases is non-zero but extremely rare. In most alleged cases, I think that the medical professional should deny minor care that could result in any permanent damage. However, the legal case is about what the government can prohibit, even if medically indicated, or claimed to be indicated by a medical professional.
Perhaps the legal system cannot compensate for a malfunctioning medical system. Too many in the medical system have forgotten first do no harm. There is an abundance of medical care treating what insurance will pay for.
True, but obviously, some judges are buying the "gender affirming care" mantra. If a case is seeking only that an apparently-trans-convinced child not be harrassed, OK. But "trans affirming care" might also be a euphemism for mutilation.
Because we can't be certain what a 10 year old might believe in 20 years, a judge might allow such "care." But in 20 years, that child might also be a drug addict, and we would not allow parents to make him a 10 year old addict.
pedo ‘judge’ being grooming kids isn’t exactly a shocker.
the fact he’s in that position is the shocking part.
if you think the Founders would have wanted any part of the US govt to be used to mutilate little kids, you’d be in for a surprise.
you’d be lucky if they didn’t label you some sort of devil worshipper for suggesting such things.
These leftists really love to abuse children. May they all rot before going to Hell.
Remember when Roe v Wade was called settled “law”?
It was never a law, SCOTUS doesn’t legislate.
Is there a Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Humans?
Appeal to SCOTUS. No more the perview of the Federal Government than Abortion.
Robert Hinkle sounds like a pedophile.
As we say in Florida, “Well bless your heart” while rolling our eyes behind our sunglasses….
:^))
That goes a long way toward making the case for the judge.
Here you provide me with a good example of one of the absurdities of our legal system. The judge does not exhibit rational agency here. The concession by the defendant is nonsense and should be treated as such by the court.
That the judge takes this claim seriously is evidence the Judge is a wack job. He is like Kentaji Brown who can't define a "woman" because she's not a biologist.
Rational judges would not entertain the notion as being true, regardless of whether the Defense conceded it or not.
Yes, stopping mutilation of children or crazy people *IS* a valid state interest.
"...The widely accepted standard of care ..."
No. What has happened in the medical community is that a huge swath of it has jumped on the crazy train because they behave like a herd, and not for valid medical reasons. What researchers who have actually looked at this issue have discovered is that encouraging gender change creates a much worse outcome than discouraging them.
I used to have links on this topic, but I don't even bother debating it anymore.
The medical community has jumped on the crazy train because of social pressure, not because of valid medical studies showing this "treatment" is beneficial to the patient. In that regard, they are very much like the herd mentality exhibited with their insane and non-medical covid response to masks, distancing, and experimental gene therapies
The bulk of the medical community is demonstrably wrong on every measure, and took these steps not because they made good medical sense, but only because of political and social pressure to conform to the diktats of the government and the industry.
In fact, the medical community's response made everything worse.
In any case, an appeal to the "The widely accepted standard of care..." is argumentum ad populum with a side helping of argumentum ad vericundiam. It's a fallacy and has no place being accepted by a rational judge.
Federal judges don’t answer to mere peasants!
Gender dysphoria should be treated as a mental illness.
Answering my own question: There used to be a Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Humans but the IRS yanked its exempt status.
Rational judges would not entertain the notion as being true, regardless of whether the Defense conceded it or not.
If the court is to ignore the evidence presented and rule by his individual opinion, why have a trial at all? Just proceed directly to the judge's decision.
Would that particular methodology apply to trials with a judge who disagrees with your particular opinion? Assuming the judge believes that all such procedures should be legal, he should so rule, regardless of what evidence is presented?
Yes, stopping mutilation of children or crazy people *IS* a valid state interest.
I linked, cited, gave the page number, quoted the order, and underlined the portion stating the order had nothing to do with gender-affirming surgery. It appears that in your court, that is ignored along with any testimony or other evidence.
At 4:
The kinds of care at issue are puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. See Fla. Stat. § 456.001(9)(a). This order uses the term “gender-affirming care” to refer only to these two kinds of treatment, not to gender-affirming surgery.
What has happened in the medical community is that a huge swath of it has jumped on the crazy train because they behave like a herd....
Nah, many have jumped on the cash train. It pays well. If the government or insurance pays for it, you may expect more of it. When the recipient has to pay for it, or the doctor has to do it for free, you will see less of it.
The bulk of the medical community is demonstrably wrong on every measure....
Who do you consult when you have a medical problem, such as chest pains? Wikipedia? Or a doctor? If they are demonstrably wrong on every measure, why would you bother?
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.