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

14th Amendment… :rofl:

What is wrong with woke libs???

If they aren’t killing their unborn they are mutilating their children. :scream:

2 Likes

What percentage of those in the ranks of elite libism actually have children?

Fox News ‘Outnumbered’ panelists are delinquent in not discussing whether or not the Tennessee ban on transgender care for children is constitutional.

Today, [12/5/24] Fox News ‘Outnumbered’ panelists rambled on and on about their personal and obvious objections associated with so-called gender affirming care for children, while they totally ignored what the court is being asked to rule upon which is, whether or not the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits Tennessee’s SB1, which regulates a medical procedure, “ . . . violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause because it discriminates on the basis of sex.” See: Landmark Supreme Court case weighs gender-affirming care for trans kids

The negligence exhibited by the panelists [not discussing what is actually being challenged] is one of the reasons our Constitution has been eroded over the years. Instead of our media actually discussing the constitutionality involved, they muddy the waters with their incidental objections and feelings against the effects of so-called gender affirming care for children, while the big lie, asserting the 14th Amendment prohibits a state to make distinctions based upon sex, is not addressed and lives on.

Our perverted sexual deviant crowd has long known the 14th Amendment does not prohibit distinctions in law based upon “sex”, and is the very reason why they have, for generations, worked to have the depraved “equal rights amendment” added to our Constitution. Adopting that amendment would in fact prohibit all female sports, bathrooms, locker rooms, and allow all the other perverted desires of our sexual deviant crowd which today are now on display, including grooming adolescent children into irreversible sex changing medical procedures.

Would it not be to the credit of Fox News to expose the big lie once and for all, that the 14th Amendment never was intended to, nor does it, prohibit distinctions in law based upon sex, and merely prohibits distinctions in law based up race, color or previous condition of slavery?

Figure out who is part of the “elite libism” and see if they have kids.

1 Like

Not as many of the rest of us i suppose since they kill so many of their unborn.

:rofl:
“Strangio” is Italian for “I’m killing” :clap::clap::clap::clap:

Performing such an irreversible medical procedure on a child is obviously medical malpractices and child mutilation, but what I can’t understand is the petitioner’s argument alleging Tennessee’s SB1, discriminates on the bases of sex, and is therefore forbidden by the 14th Amendment.

1 Like

Trying to figure out what the definition of a woman is.

3 Likes

In my opinion the dem elites wanted to make an entire industry of castration and mutilation of kids.
Just like the planned planned parenthood is sales system to a sell abortions and make millions.

It’s sick!

1 Like

So, how are they going to sell their ■■■■ to the Supreme Court and defend their argument alleging Tennessee’s SB1, discriminates on the bases of sex, and is therefore forbidden by the 14th Amendment?

1 Like

The assumption that the main motivating factor for doctor’s opinions is always the welfare of the patients has not been proven, IMO.

2 Likes

The petitioners argument is sick and twisted.

Supreme Court focuses on effects and feelings associated with so-called “gender affirming care”. Ignores our rule of law, our Constitution.

What is most disturbing to me is, during Strangio’s argument before the Court, there was little to nothing offered to the Court defending the petitioner’s argument alleging Tennessee’s SB1, discriminates on the bases of sex, and is therefore forbidden by the 14th Amendment. The oral arguments, almost exclusively, focused on the effects and feelings associated with so-called “gender affirming care”. Even the Justices focused on everything but the fundamental question of whether or not the 14th Amendment prohibits Tennessee’s SB1.

All the emotionally stated effects and feelings associated with “gender affirming care” are irrelevant with respect to Tennessee’s constitutionally protected authority to regulate those “. . . 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.”

Seems to me our constitutional system of a rule of law, and the division of power commanded by the Tenth Amendment, are subtilty being replaced by the whims and fancies of those which our Constitution was explicitly designed to control and regulate by a written constitution.

So, why is the fundamental question not being argued before the Supreme Court which is, does Tennessee’s SB1, violate the 14th amendment as the petitioners allege?

Why are the Courts Justices focusing on all the emotionally stated effects and feelings associated with “gender affirming care” rather than focusing on the rule of law which is our Constitution?

JWK

Why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?

1 Like

Keep in mind, Strangio, is a woman pretending to be a man, and is one sick puppy.

I remember going to Coney Island when I was a kid and saw this:

image

And now, we are seeing this, a woman pretending to be a man:

Aside from that, Strangio made an absolute fool of herself when arguing her case before the Supreme Court.

1 Like

Strangio argues before the Supreme Court that Tennessee’s Code Ann. § 68-33-103(a)(1), violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Tennessee’s Code Ann. § 68-33-103(a)(1), reads as follows:

(a)
(1) A healthcare provider shall not knowingly perform or offer to perform on a minor, or administer or offer to administer to a minor, a medical procedure if the performance or administration of the procedure is for the purpose of:
(A) Enabling a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex; or
(B) Treating purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity.

The Section of the Fourteenth Amendment which she asserts is violated reads as follows:

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

It must be noted the above 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. 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, black or white, 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 “sex”, which Strangio has identified as a contested subject matter, it must be enforced equally upon any person regardless of race, color or previous condition of slavery.

Nowhere in her argument does Strangio explain how any person is actually being denied the equal application of Tennessee’s Code Ann. § 68-33-103(a)(1).

The irrefutable fact is, as written, the law (Code Ann. § 68-33-103(a)(1).) applies equally to “any person”, regardless of race, color or previous condition of slavery, which was the object to be accomplished by the Fourteenth Amendment. And, in addition, the law as it turns out, also applies equally to any person, whether male or female, even though the Fourteenth Amendment allows for distinctions in law based upon sex.

The distinction being made under the law is directed at a minor, considering that the medical procedure in question is life altering, irreversible, and as such, ought to be made after a person transitions from adolescents to an adult, as defined by law.

JWK

“Until you realize how easy it is for your mind to be manipulated, you remain the puppet of someone else’s game.” ― Evita Ochel

Our wise Latina Supreme Court Justice, Sotomayor, compares Aspirin’s possible side effects to child mutilation procedure.

And nitwit Justice Jackson, outrageously compared banning child mutilation medical procedures to banning interracial marriage, during the oral arguments.

.

.

How on earth did either of the above two pass the Senate’s “advice and consent” process?

1 Like

Justice Elena Kagan indicated

“sounds to me like, ‘We want boys to be boys, and we want girls to be girls.’” The state’s lawmakers appeared to be motivated, Kagan added, by a view that “we think that there’s something fundamentally wrong, fundamentally bad about youth who are trying to transition.” SOURCE

You bet there is something fundamentally wrong and bad.

What is “… fundamentally wrong, fundamentally bad …” is, adolescent children are not mature enough to make the irreversible sex altering, body-mutilation decision in question.

1 Like

Wow she’s dumb.

Wanna know something funny? Aspirin was invented by the same guys that invented heroin. The Bayer company.