Federal Judge Hinkle gives green light in Fl. to child mutilation procedure

See: Judge’s blistering ruling halts Florida’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors

In a strongly worded ruling, a federal judge said that minors who filed suit against Florida’s gender-affirming care bans would “suffer irreparable harm.” An appeal to the injunction is expected.

If I were the Governor of Florida, I would hold a press conference and tell the sexual deviant federal judge Hinkle to keep his nose out of a subject matter reserved by the States under the Tenth Amendment, and recently affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

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.
.

1 Like

states cannot discriminate.

which is what this law does.

Allan

The very purpose of criminal law is to discriminate. I believe every state has laws prohibiting the sale of cigarettes and alcohol to minors.

3 Likes

from an article about the case

“He said a Florida health code rule and a new state law violated federal laws on Medicaid, equal protection and the Affordable Care Act’s prohibition of sex discrimination.”

can not violate the 14th amendment.

Allan

There is nothing in the federal Constitution prohibiting state laws making distinction based upon sex other than with respect to voting. And, with regard to the Fourteenth Amendment it 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 protection 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 protection 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

JWK


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.
_____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

equal protection clause of the 14th amendment

you disagree with the judges opinion.

shocked.

Allan

”…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 protection 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 protection of those specific laws. This is the documented intention of the law. The laws must be enforced equally upon all.

Judge Hinkle needs to keep his nose out of a State regulatory matter.

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.
.

discrimination makes it a federal matter.

we will just have to agree to disagree on that point.

Allan

According to you, but not our Constitution.

In case you are unaware, every state has discriminatory laws prohibiting the sale of cigarettes and alcohol to minors.

“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.

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

Getting back to the subject of the thread, the nitwits at NPR (which ought to be known as National Propaganda Radio) point out Judge Hinkle called the ban, “an exercise in politics, not good medicine.” And he said it amounts to purposeful discrimination.”

But the fact is, the very purpose of criminal law is to discriminate, e.g., every state has discriminatory laws prohibiting the sale of cigarettes and alcohol to minors. The fact is, the Florida law is directed at minors. Additionally, there is nothing in the federal Constitution prohibiting state laws making distinctions based upon sex other than with respect to voting. Hinkle needs to keep his nose out of a State regulatory matter.

Why on earth would anyone encourage an irreversible mutilation procedure to be performed on a minor when therapy ought to be pursued until the subject is mature enough to make such a life altering change?

JWK

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And that is why the Democrat Party Leadership detests federalism . . . it is an obstacle to controlling and subjugating the people completely.

Hinkle is a Bill Clinton appointee. Not that he has a partisan interpretation of the federal goobermint’s role in Florida state law or the like.
But it just seems lately that who appointed federal judges and their rulings are being touted as “politically motivated”.
So there’s that.
The Florida law includes (I believe), prohibiting expenditures of Medicaid (state) and “unAffordable Care Act” payments for “gender reaffirming treatment”.
I personally think protecting children from the physical and mental anguish they are certainly going to endure from being coerced into becoming something other than their biological gender by pedophiles is a good thing.
Lately the transactivists have assumed they are entitled to protected class status. Not sure what the outcome will be but one thing for certain, preying upon God’s children always ends bad.

2 Likes

Being a Bill Clinton appointee explains a lot.

How sick and twisted does a person have to be to favor mutilating kids and thereby ruining their lives???

That Biden has his “justice” department appealing all these laws speaks volumes about him as well.

2 Likes

Gotta ask yourself why these libs are so feverishly interested in little boys being chemically mutilated into resembling a female. :man_shrugging:

4 Likes

Maybe because the “big guy” is getting a piece of the child mutilation action?

See: Transgender Surgery Poised To Become A $5 Billion Industry

and then see:

HHS secretary signals sex-change surgeries for minors should be covered by taxpayers: Report

I got this gut feeling that the “big guy” is somehow getting his piece of the action for promoting taxpayer financed, child mutilation surgery.

.

JWK

We are here today and gone tomorrow, but what is most important is what we do in between, and is what our children will inherit and remember us by.

1 Like

When there are $BILLIONS in profits to be made, has the Biden Crime Family ever let a “crisis” [in this case a child’s mental dysphoria] go to waste?

JWK

“We often give enemies the means of our own destruction.” – Aesop.

The article concludes:

“It is most unfortunate that our government and most social-media platforms continue to stifle these important discussions — just as they did, with catastrophic results, during the Covid pandemic. What is really needed now is not the suppression of opinions but open and robust debate in the medical community and among the public as to how we might best treat children for what might be an essentially psychological condition. The Swedes have outlined the proper scientific approach to this most delicate and controversial question.”

Swedes are kinda progressive. This is promising.

1 Like

So, when are you going to give teenagers the right to keep and bear arms?

1 Like

5 Likes