14th Amendment preserves power of states to regulate so-called gender affirming care, AKA child mutilation

Politics
1

The 14th Amendment declares in crystal clear language:

”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

As we can see from the language of the 14th Amendment it:

  1. Makes ”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof … citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The amendment then goes on to declare:

  1. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

This wording forbids State action from abridging a United States citizen’s “privileges or immunities” which a State has adopted under law. Note that the wording does not forbid a State to deny “privileges or immunities” to “persons” who may not be “citizens of the United States”! Nor does the wording declare what “privileges or immunities” a state may or may not adopt.

The amendment then continues with:

  1. “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”

Again, the reference is to State action and applies to “any person” as opposed to “citizens of the United States” and it expressly forbids every State to deprive any “person [within its jurisdiction] of life, liberty, or property without due process of” a State’s laws. Due process of law refers to procedure and the administration of justice in accordance with established rules and principles.

Section one of the Amendment then concludes with:

  1. ”…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

This wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal application of those specific laws. Keep in mind the wording does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law, e.g., based upon sex or age, but whatever laws are adopted by a State with regard to sex or age, the State may not deny to any person, blacks and whites alike, within its jurisdiction the equal application of those specific laws. The laws must be enforced equally upon all, e.g., if a distinction in law is made with respect to civil rights, (not political) that the wife may not testify, sue or contract, it must be enforced equally upon all regardless of race, color or previous condition of slavery.

And, keep in mind, the Fourteenth Amendment’s objectives were eloquently summarized by one of its supporters as follows:

“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Representative Shallabarger, a supporter of the amendment, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293

1 Like
2

I found this helpful for those interested.

3

What does the CNN article have to do with the reserved power of the States to regulate the subject matter in question?

JWK

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.___ Tenth Amendment

4

I think there’s definitely some misunderstandings. On both sides of the debate.

1 Like
5

Does that include trans kids born to illegal parents?

1 Like
6

It defines a term you used.

7

do you own your body?

or it isn’t your body until it gasps for air?

8

It also makes mention of “LGBTQ+”, AKA our sexual deviant crowd.

9

The efficacy of this type of treatment is very questionable:

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2023-07-12/why-european-countries-are-rethinking-gender-affirming-care-for-minors

2 Likes
10

And is irreversible, leaving children mutilated for life.

11

With respect to the topic of so-called gender affirming care for children, our sexual deviant crowd was not joking when screaming:

“We’re Here, We’re Queer, We’re Coming For Your Children”

4 Likes
12

It’s a huge problem when the one side cannot even define the terms man or woman. How do you treat someone on something (gender) that is ostensibly rather arbitrary? Here’s one caption from the link:

The process typically starts with a conversation between a clinician and the individual. If the patient is a child, the conversation will also include the family when possible.

There’s actual NOTHING in the link indicating medical tests using modern medical equipment to determine the factual nature of the condition. Do we have just a “conversation” regarding something like a broken bone or diabetes? Trans should be considered nothing but a subset of homosexuality and treated as such.

1 Like
13

ACLU’s, sexual deviant lawyer, Chase Strangio, schooled by Chief Justice John Roberts in oral arguments on gender affirming care case

See: Justice Alito spars over trans rights with first openly trans attorney at the Supreme Court

“The Constitution leaves that up to the people’s representatives, rather than to nine people, none of whom is a doctor,” said Chief Justice John Roberts, referencing the nine-member panel, which includes three justices appointed by Donald Trump, who has vowed to prosecute doctors who prescribe gender-affirming care treatments to minors.

Indeed, as summarized in the Federalist Papers, Justice Roberts is spot on with respect to the reserved powers of the States and their elected representatives:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." Federalist No. 45

Additionally, the Tenth Amendment declares:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.”

JWK

“If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection [the Tenth Amendment] was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?”___ Justice Story
.

14

Time to amend the 14th.

15

Why? Just curious.

16

They’re one sick ■■■■■■■ people.

2 Likes
17

Then you have that ■■■■■■■ idiot Jackson on SCOTUS. I mean what the ■■■■ is she doing on the court?

2 Likes
18

“Gender affirming” is code for the adults in their life, mentally confusing them about their sex and then trying to pass it off as their actions being "V"irtuous.

1 Like
19

They are afflicted with a mental disorder. They need professional help.

20

Isn’t the karma in this life…eerily accurate? Just look at the wording and his name. :sunglasses: :tumbler_glass:

1 Like