Men Are Going to Strike Back
Wait, That's Why Dems Are Scared About ICE Agents Wearing Body Cams
Bill Maher Had the Perfect Response to Billie Eilish's 'Stolen Land' Nonsense
Some Guy Wanted to Test Something at an Anti-ICE Rally. Their Reaction Says...
The Trump Team Quoted the Perfect TV Show to Defend a Proposed WH...
Why This Former CNN Reporter Saying He'd Fire Scott Jennings Is Amusing
Democrats Have Earned All the Bad Things
Canadian PM Carney Just Announced a Plan to Make Canadian Inflation Worse
CA Governor Election 2026: Bianco or Hilton
Same Old, Same Old
The Real Purveyors of Jim Crow
Senior Voters Are Key for a GOP Victory in Midterms
The Deep State’s Inversion Matrix Must Be Seen to Be Defeated
Situational Science and Trans Medicine
Trump Slams Bad Bunny's Horrendous Halftime Show
Tipsheet

Clarence Thomas Rails Against Trans Youth 'Experts'

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File

This week, Townhall covered how the Supreme Court of the United States upheld Tennessee’s ban on so-called “gender-affirming care” for minors suffering from gender dysphoria.

Advertisement

In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that Tennessee’s law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment because it does not classify based on sex or gender identity. It concluded that the state has a legitimate interest in protecting children from the adverse impact of these treatments.

Going forward, Tennessee children will be protected from puberty blockers, hormone replacement therapy, and sex reassignment surgery.

Justice Clarence Thomas penned a solo concurring opinion slamming so-called transgender youth “experts.”

“The Court rightly rejects efforts by the United States and the private plaintiffs to accord outsized credit to claims about medical consensus and expertise. The United States asserted that ‘the medical community and the nation’s leading hospitals overwhelmingly agree’ with the Government’s position that the treatments outlawed by SB1 can be medically necessary…The implication of these arguments is that courts should defer to so-called expert consensus. There are several problems with appealing and deferring to the authority of the expert class…contrary to the representations of the United States and the private plaintiffs, there is no medical consensus on how best to treat gender dysphoria in children,” he wrote.

Advertisement

Related:

SUPREME COURT

“This case carries a simple lesson: In politically contentious debates over matters shrouded in scientific uncertainty, courts should not assume that self-described experts are correct,” Thomas wrote.

Anymore, if medical providers try to “transition” children, they could face $25,000 civil fines for breaking the law. 

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement