Federal judges block Arkansas & Alabama laws restricing gender affirming care for minors

jmdrake

Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Messages
51,888
https://www.alreporter.com/2023/06/...n-arkansas-law-banning-gender-affirming-care/


A federal judge Tuesday permanently struck down an Arkansas law banning gender-affirming care.

U.S. District Judge James Moody Jr. ruled that the state violated several sections of the U.S. Constitution by banning all gender-affirming care for minors. Arkansas was the first state in the country to pass such a law.

The ruling could be a glimpse of what to expect once a similar Alabama law reaches full trial.

U.S. District Judge Liles C. Burke, a Trump appointee, has already blocked the Alabama law for the time being until it reaches trial, and his reasoning closely matches parts of the ruling on the Arkansas law.


“The decision, issued after the Brandt court heard expert testimony from both sides, confirms what every court considering challenges to state laws banning health care for transgender minors has found to date: the care is essential, well-established medical treatment, and there is no valid justification for state laws prohibiting parents from obtaining this medical care needed for their transgender adolescents to thrive,” said Melody Egan, an attorney representing the plaintiffs in the suit against Alabama’s law.

During the eight-day trial on the Arkansas law, several of the state’s experts admitted they had no experience treating transgender teens.

While Alabama didn’t offer all of its experts in the injunction hearing last year, Burke has already found their witness James Cantor to be unreliable and has disregarded his testimony entirely.

Cantor is a Canadian clinical psychologist specializing in hypersexuality who has appeared numerous times over the last five years as an expert witness on behalf of conservative entities challenging gender-affirming medical care.

He was first hired by the conservative law firm Alliance Defending Freedom in 2018 on a case to ban trans girls from girls’ school sports in West Virginia.

In striking down the Arkansas law, the judge found that medical care for transgender youth is helpful, not harmful.

“Rather than protecting children or safeguarding medical ethics, the evidence showed that the prohibited medical care improves the mental health and well-being of patients and that, by prohibiting it, the State undermined the interests it claims to be advancing,” the ruling reads. “The testimony of well-credentialed experts, doctors who provide gender-affirming medical care in Arkansas, and families that rely on that care directly refutes any claim by the State that the Act advances an interest in protecting children.”

Burke similarly enjoined Alabama’s law under the context that transgender minors would suffer if cut off from gender-affirming care.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals is still considering an appeal of the injunction. The case is tentatively scheduled to go to full trial on April 2, 2024.

 
Seems quite simple, affirm the gender the child was born with, anything else is affirming a mental problem.
 
Hmmm. Judge strikes down a government "ban". Seems like the glass is half full there.

Medical malpractice lawsuits make more sense. And no more leftist, Munchausen by proxy, teaching or subject matter in schools. Take back the schools.
 
Yeah, go along with the agenda to reduce the world population by sterilizing your offspring.

Hell on earth.

I'll say it again:

If this shit is not stopped, now, hard, in another ten years, maybe less since the courts are now cementing the precedent in place, it will be a felony hate crime to interfere or hinder or stop in any way, a weirdosexual from diddling your minor child.

Some asshole like this.
 
Shut up bigots.

The science is settled.

Now, go castrate your kids.

Somebody tell Norway, Sweden and Great Britain.

Hmmm. Judge strikes down a government "ban". Seems like the glass is half full there.

Medical malpractice lawsuits make more sense. And no more leftist, Munchausen by proxy, teaching or subject matter in schools. Take back the schools.

This ruling wasn't based on limited government but rather based on the "science" which pretty much kills medical malpractice lawsuits. It's not just the schools that need to be taken back. It's the medical profession.
 
Hmmm. Judge strikes down a government "ban". Seems like the glass is half full there.

Medical malpractice lawsuits make more sense. And no more leftist, Munchausen by proxy, teaching or subject matter in schools. Take back the schools.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Brian4Liberty again.

This ruling wasn't based on limited government but rather based on the "science" which pretty much kills medical malpractice lawsuits. It's not just the schools that need to be taken back. It's the medical profession.

You cannot give Reputation to the same post twice.
 
...
This ruling wasn't based on limited government but rather based on the "science" which pretty much kills medical malpractice lawsuits. It's not just the schools that need to be taken back. It's the medical profession.

What a sad state of affairs. The Judges are now acting as Doctors. Elementary school teachers are now acting as Doctors. Union leaders are now acting as Doctors. Legislators are now acting as Doctors. And the Doctors with medical degrees are now just brain dead drug pushers for big pharma.
 
I suppose we should be happy if the bans on theft and murder get struck down. (the left is working on those right now)

That ship sailed through the barn door a long time ago.

Laws are only enforced based upon politics and ungood think.
 
Judge Moody Jr. flaunts law in Arkansas' case banning sex-altering procedures on minors

.
See: How the 14th Amendment is changing the fight for gender-affirming care for minors

U.S. District Judge Jay Moody struck down Tuesday Arkansas' first-in-the-nation ban as unconstitutional, arguing it violated young people's right to equal protection under the law and due process, and those of their parents.

Under “III. Conclusions of Law, (B. Equal Protection)”, Judge Moody WRITES:

“The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment “is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.”

But what Judge Moody writes is an outright lie.

The text of the Clause in question, and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text, simple commands, whatever a State’s laws are, a person within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal application of those specific laws.

Keep in mind, unlike the Nineteenth Amendment which does in fact prohibit a distinction in law based upon “sex” with respect to the right to vote, the Clause which Judge Moody points to does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law based upon sex or age, and, its documented legislative intent was specifically intended and limited to forbid distinctions in law based upon “race, color or previous condition of slavery”.

The irrefutable fact is, under the Clause in question, whatever laws are adopted by a State with regard to sex or age, the State may not deny to any person, blacks and whites alike, within its jurisdiction, the equal application of those specific laws.

Judge Moody is perpetuating the big lie that the Fourteenth Amendment altered the States’ and people therein, their Tenth Amendment reserved powers to enact laws making distinctions based upon sex and/or age. Judge Moody ignores the fact that the “Equal Rights Amendment” was wisely rejected by the American People in the 1980s which would have, if adopted, prohibited distinctions in law based upon sex.

Moody also goes on to argue the Arkansas law fails because it is not rationally based in his opinion. Of course, this violates our system’s separation of powers which prohibits a judge from substituting their personal views for those of the peoples’ elected Legislature, and in so doing, Judge Moody flagrantly violates our Constitution’s guarantee to a “Republican Form of Government” under which the people's elected legislature has the exclusive authority to enact law.

Finally, Judge Moody argues the law violates due process within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. He writes, the “… Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids states to “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law....” The reference made is to State action and applies to “any person” as opposed to “citizens of the United States” and it expressly forbids every State to deprive any “person [within its jurisdiction] of life, liberty, or property without due process of . . . ” a State’s laws.

Due process of law refers to procedure and the administration of justice in accordance with established rules and principles. In the instant case the state of Arkansas is well within constitutional limits. Every one of the United States has adopted regulations based upon age, e.g., drinking, driving, age limits on marrying, etc.


The Arkansas Legislature, considering the fact our medical community is not of one mind on this issue with respect to children, and more importantly, that a child involved will have to live with an irreversible sex-altering procedure which others have made on the child's behalf, has passed lawful legislation designed to prohibit such procedures on minors until a reasonable age of maturity is reached by the child, who will then be in a better position to make such a life altering choice on their own.

The bottom line is, Judge Moody went beyond his constitutionally assigned duties and second guessed the Arkansas Legislatures’ exclusive power to enact regulatory and policing laws with respect to minors and medical procedures.

JWK


…..we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress' action, however, is not within our province to second guess. __ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003)
 
Back
Top