United States Supreme Court Hears Arguments In U.S. V. Skrmetti
Date
12/8/2024 6:30:48 AM
(MENAFN- EIN Presswire)
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The United States Supreme Court today heard oral arguments in United States v. Skrmetti, a constitutional dispute regarding the authority of state lawmakers to protect vulnerable kids from risky and unproven medical practices.
The Office of the Tennessee Attorney General presented a robust legal and evidence-based defense of the State's legislative response to the recent explosion of childhood gender-transition interventions. The law at issue restricts the provision of irreversible medical interventions to minors with gender dysphoria-a psychiatric condition marked by mental distress from a conflict between a person's sex and asserted gender identity.“We are here defending Tennessee's law protecting children from irreversible and unproven gender transition procedures,” Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti stated. “Tennessee's General Assembly reviewed the medical evidence, as well as the evidence-based decisions of European countries that restricted these procedures, and ultimately passed this bipartisan law prohibiting irreversible medical interventions. The plaintiffs in this case are asking the Court to take the power to regulate the practice of medicine away from the people's elected representatives and vest it in unaccountable judges.
Challengers claim the Tennessee law's prohibition of the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for the purpose of“gender transition” discriminates based on sex and transgender status, which they say is a violation of the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. Tennessee argued that the law presents an across-the-board rule that represents a reasonable exercise of the States' longstanding authority to regulate the practice of medicine within their borders.
"Our arguments were ultimately about constitutional clarity and common sense," said Attorney General Skrmetti . "Our Founders guaranteed States the right and responsibility to protect children, regulate the medical profession, and independently evaluate the evidence of the risks and benefits of practices to be regulated. We cannot allow ideology to override medical evidence at the expense of our right to self-government and our duty to protect our children."
To read a copy of Tennessee's filing at the Supreme Court, please click here .
###
Legal Disclaimer:
EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability
for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this
article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.
MENAFN08122024003118003196ID1108968364
Legal Disclaimer:
MENAFN provides the information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the provider above.