Good news for anyone who thinks we shouldn’t be mutilating children (which is not as many people as it should be):
BREAKING: U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issues Saturday opinion allowing Tennessee's prohibition on sex changes for minors to take effect pic.twitter.com/0VUXBfjExR
— Election Wizard (@ElectionWiz) July 8, 2023
That would be an opinion staying a preliminary injunction prohibiting Tennessee from enforcing a prohibition essentially on sex change surgeries and puberty blockers for children. America First Legal links to the opinion, here:
🚨BREAKING: Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Stays Lower Court Order, Allowing Tennessee Law to Go Into Effect that Protects Children from Irreversible Chemical Castration and Genital Mutilation
— America First Legal (@America1stLegal) July 8, 2023
AFL filed a brief earlier this week in this critical case. https://t.co/XmSSMOLOQG
They go on, taking a victory lap.
Late last night, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted a stay of a lower court injunction in L.W. v. Skrmetti–allowing to go into effect Tennessee’s law that protects children from irreversible chemical castration and genital mutilation.
— America First Legal (@America1stLegal) July 8, 2023
Tennessee passed its law with bipartisan support earlier this year, and it was promptly challenged by individuals represented by the American Civil Liberties Union.
— America First Legal (@America1stLegal) July 8, 2023
The ACLU intervened, because of course. The right of people not to be irreversibly mutilated without their consent (and children can’t consent) is apparently not among the civil rights or liberties that the ACLU believes in protecting.
Recommended
A federal district court issued a preliminary injunction three days before the law’s effective date, temporarily preventing state officials from punishing medical providers who provide hormone therapy to minors.
— America First Legal (@America1stLegal) July 8, 2023
On Monday, America First Legal (AFL) filed a brief with the Sixth Circuit in support of the law. https://t.co/IsTrtJsLY7
— America First Legal (@America1stLegal) July 8, 2023
In granting the stay of the injunction, the Sixth Circuit agreed with the arguments advanced by AFL, Tennessee, and a coalition of other Attorneys General from other states.
— America First Legal (@America1stLegal) July 8, 2023
The Sixth Circuit admonished the district court’s order based not only on the clearly problematic scope of relief it granted (essentially a statewide injunction covering all people and institutions, including those not party to the case)...
— America First Legal (@America1stLegal) July 8, 2023
... but also on the likelihood of success for the challengers’ due process and equal protection claims.
— America First Legal (@America1stLegal) July 8, 2023
While the Sixth Circuit’s granting of a stay of the preliminary injunction is tremendously important, the case is far from over. AFL will proudly stand by the State of Tennessee to protect minor children from being subject to life-altering procedures.
— America First Legal (@America1stLegal) July 8, 2023
Statement from Gene Hamilton, America First Legal Vice President and General Counsel:
— America First Legal (@America1stLegal) July 8, 2023
"The stakes of this case and this issue generally could not be higher. The State of Tennessee rightly decided–through the legislative process–to prohibit children from being subjected to...
...irreversible chemical castration and genital mutilation. We are thrilled that the Sixth Circuit granted a stay in this case, removing any doubt regarding the enforcement of this law while this case is litigated on the merits."
— America First Legal (@America1stLegal) July 8, 2023
The most ridiculous part of the decision below is that in order for a preliminary injunction to occur, the plaintiffs had to show an irreversible harm would result. But the entire point of the law—banning puberty blockers and sex change surgeries for minors—was to prevent irreversible harm, and no amount of twisting and turning could turn the prevention of an irreversible harm into itself being an irreversible harm.
And contrary to what many people mindlessly say, this is not a ban on all of the elements of gender transition. Changing a person’s name, having children dress more typically like the opposite sex and the like are not prohibited by the law. Just puberty blockers and sex change surgeries, because they involve irreversible physical changes.
The opinion itself has some really well-written passages. The lower court opinion argued that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits because of new rights discovered in the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Sixth Circuit chewed them out on that point, saying the following:
First, the challengers do not argue that the original fixed meaning of either the due process or equal protection guarantee covers these claims. That prompts the question whether the people of this country ever agreed to remove debates of this sort—about the use of new drug treatments on minors—from the conventional place for dealing with new norms, new drugs, and new technologies: the democratic process. Life-tenured federal judges should be wary of removing a vexing and novel topic of medical debate from the ebbs and flows of democracy by construing a largely unamendable federal constitution to occupy the field.
Every time the courts make up a new constitutional right, they make America less of a republic and more like an oligarchy—and certainly less democratic. Yet weirdly, the ‘Democratic’ party generally applauds when they do so.
The court also answers the claim that transitioning children is a part of parental rights:
Parents, it is true, have a substantive due process right ‘to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.’ Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 66 (2000). But the Supreme Court cases recognizing this right confine it to narrow fields, such as education, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), and visitation rights, Troxel, 530 U.S. 57. No Supreme Court case extends it to a general right to receive new medical or experimental drug treatments.
We would add that there is no constitutional right to abuse one’s children. If a parent proposed to remove a child’s arm as a punishment for stealing, we believe every state in the union would stop it if it is informed ahead of time and punish everyone involved. But if the appendage is hanging between a boy’s legs, suddenly people think there is a constitutional right to remove it.
Still on hiatus for another week but coming back to celebrate the fact that the law against child mutilation can now be fully enforced in Tennessee. Still a long way to go but as I’ve said all along the butchers will ultimately lose this fight. https://t.co/wWXasRN7Pp
— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) July 8, 2023
Truly, this transgender movement goes against what is normally human nature. This author remembers reading The Autobiography of Malcom X in his youth, and being saddened to read how , early in his life, Malcolm X would pour burning chemicals into his hair to straighten it and appear more ‘white.’ As he grew older, Malcolm X correctly drew the conclusion that there was nothing wrong with being black. And last year, there were two movies adapting the story of Pinocchio—Disney’s terrible live action remake and the sublime Guillermo del Toro's Pinocchio on Netflix—and both had a moment where Geppetto apologized to Pinocchio for making him think he had to become a real boy. That is two movies made by otherwise woke companies argued against a puppet transitioning into a human boy! Because what is actually normal, is for people to accept themselves as they are.
***
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy Twitchy's conservative reporting taking on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth. Join Twitchy VIP and use the promo code SAVEAMERICA to get 40% off your VIP membership!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member