Washington (Nexstar) – The Supreme Court of the United States confirmed a law of Tennessee on Monday, which prohibits the gender -known medical care of transgender mining year olds, a decision that could have widespread effects on families across the country.
The 6-3 judgment enables Tennessee and possibly more than 20 other countries to enforce prohibitions for treatments such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender youth.
The Attessee General Prosecutor, Jonathan Skrmetti, who defended the law in court, welcomed the decision.
“There is still evidence that this is not adequate treatment for children,” said Skrmetti and added: “The real scandal is how we got to this point.”
Missouri’s Republican Senator, Josh Hawley, also praised the verdict.
“These are children. They come in with often mental health problems, they feel depressed and doctors say what has to happen, an operation is the gender crossing,” said Hawley. “This is common sense.”
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority and said that the case was not violated to the same protective clause of the constitution. He emphasized that the topic included sophisticated scientific and political debates that were to be left to the states.
Democrats criticized the decision tough.
“It is a terrible decision,” said Chuck Schumer, majority leader of the Senate, (DN.Y.). “The Supreme Court has forgotten that one of its tasks is to protect individual rights.”
In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the Court of Justice “picks up children and their families on the political mood” and described the decision as failure of a proper judicial review.
The American Civil Liberties Union, who brought the case in the name of the families concerned, warned that the decision could force thousands to leave their home states to seek medical care elsewhere.
“It is devastating for the most affected people,” said Chase Strangio, a lawyer at ACLU.
Medical groups, including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, reject such bans. They argue that gender -affirming care can be life -saving if it is adequately managed.
The decision marks a significant setback for supporters of the transgender rights and leaves the future of youth gender policy in the hands of the state governments.
