Tennessee Ban on Child Medical ‘Transitions’ Back in Force


The U.S. district judge Eli Richardson, in late June, ruled that a Tennessee law that seeks to ban the mutilation of children for “gender-affirming care” is a violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

Reuters covered the story and spun it as part of a series against states who had tried to protect children from these procedures. ACLU took a victory walk in the aftermath, while others brag on social media.

In Tennessee, U.S. district judge Eli Richardson stated that he would be hesitant to enjoin any law “enacted by a democratic process,” noting however that other judges have blocked similar laws on the basis of the constitutional right to equal protection.

The Court is not averse to providing relief of this kind. Richardson wrote that if Tennessee wants to regulate access to certain medical procedures it must do so without violating the rights granted by the United States Constitution.

I am always amazed at the way in which the media reports on this. It is quite literal that we are talking about permanently mutilating a child in order to confirm mental illness. But those who oppose this are painted as bad guys. You wonder if the extreme left will embrace anything. Even though modern transgender ideologies are crazy, something worse is always around the corner.

In a rare ruling on Saturday, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals stepped in and silenced all the leftist celebration.

The law was initially set to take effect on July 1, but after only one week, it has been rescheduled. This is a quick turnaround for the legal world. This is also a huge win for sanity.

It is absurd to think that a state cannot regulate medical elective procedures that leave permanent scars on children. Hormone and puberty-blocking medications do exactly that. Can a state ban a child’s tattooing? If a child feels that they shouldn’t have arms, can a state also ban them from getting a tattoo? Not all medical procedures are the same, and many states have long been able to set guardrails for what’s allowed and what’s not.

I don’t think the equal protection argument is logical, nor do I believe that parents have a right to force any “treatment” they want on their children. I can understand libertarian concerns, but the issue of children is a completely different one. It’s hard to understand how we got here.

These laws will likely end up in the Supreme Court. There’s hope that states that are protecting children can get some relief.