This week, the Supreme Court upheld, in US vs Skrmetti, that Tennessee’s ban on medical providers providing gender-affirming medical care for youth was constitutional. Approximately half of the US states have enacted such bans in the last few years. As Justice Sotomayor explains in her dissent, the Court went to great lengths and convoluted logic to reason that a statute which is specifically based on a person’s sex is not actually based on sex and therefore is not subject to strict scrutiny.
The decision to provide a teen with gender-affirming care is a very personal one, as is a woman’s decision to have an abortion. It should be a decision involving the medical provider and the patient, or, in the case of a young person, their caretakers. I would think the decision to provide such care would depend upon the maturity and understanding of the child, the length and extent of the child’s dysphoria, the acceptance of the parents, and the medical provider’s experience and expertise.
I do not understand why lawmakers think it is their prerogative to override a medical decision. The ban has many negative effects. Unlike abortion, which is generally not an ongoing event, gender-affirming care requires ongoing treatment, which some young people in these states have already begun. They will either have to stop the treatment midway or, if they are able, travel to medical providers who are not subject to such a ban.
I have spoken with parents who have moved long distances to keep their trans kids safe. They had to pack up, find new jobs, disrupt their whole lives, and start over – just to protect their children. I’ve also had talented, smart, and kind trans adult clients who describe having had very dark times when their very survival was not a given. This is a dangerous decision, for it could endanger the lives of trans youth. And, taken in context, it is part of an outsized attack on the trans community, which is an aggression against a small but vulnerable population.
Luckily, also this week, the New York State Senate passed a bill protecting gender-affirming care in this State, which Gov. Hochul is expected to sign. It states, in part,
The legislature finds and reaffirms that the state has a paramount interest in protecting access to healthcare, including reproductive healthcare and gender-affirming healthcare, as such healthcare is fundamental to each person’s exercise of bodily autonomy, dignity, and equal citizenship. The state has enshrined the fundamental right to bodily autonomy and reproductive decision-making in its constitution … Every individual has the right to privacy and equality concerning their personal medical decisions.
NYS S4914