Judge Strikes Down Arkansas Ban on “Gender Transition Procedures” for Minors
The judge held the law discriminated based on sex, denied parents their liberty interest in caring for their children, and restricted physicians’ speech.
Judge James Moody Jr of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas – Central Division in Arkansas struck down the Save Adolescents from Experiment (SAFE) Act, which banned “gender transition procedures” and medical referrals for those procedures. The judge found the law unconstitutional as a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
The judge’s decision included extensive findings of fact, including that “[t]ransgender care is not experimental care,” that gender transition procedures reduce depression and suicide rates, and that “[g]enital surgeries for adolescents are extremely rare.”
UPDATE 6/27/23: “Some medical practitioners subject minors to procedures that are unproven and experimental in this context,” Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin told Legal Insurrection. “These include puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, double mastectomies and surgeries to create simulated genitalia. There are no scientific studies establishing any mental health benefits for minors as a result of undergoing these procedures.”
The SAFE Act asserted “a compelling government interest in protecting the health and safety of its citizens, especially vulnerable children,” as justification for banning procedures on minors that
(i) Alter or remove physical or anatomical characteristics or features that are typical for the individual’s biological sex; or
(ii) Instill or create physiological or anatomical characteristics that resemble a sex different from the individual’s biological sex. . . .
The SAFE Act also amended the professional standards for physicians to provide that
Any referral for or provision of gender transition procedures to an individual under eighteen (18) year of age is unprofessional conduct and is subject to discipline by the appropriate licensing entity or disciplinary review board with competent jurisdiction in this state.
The SAFE Act violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
The judge found the law discriminated on the basis of sex, for example, because a male would not be prohibited from “receiving testosterone or surgical procedures . . . for the purpose of aligning himself with his biological sex.” However, a female could not receive testosterone or the same surgical procedures to align herself with the opposite biological sex.
The judge also found the SAFE Act discriminated against transgender people, which, in light of Bostock v. Clayton County, entailed discrimination on the basis of sex because transgender status is intrinsically linked to sex.
Finding discrimination based on sex, the judge applied the intermediate scrutiny test. Under that test, a law discriminating based on sex must “further an important government interest and must do so by means that are substantially related to that interest.” The judge found Arkansas could not carry this burden.
The judge’s findings of fact included determinations that the banned care was effective, no more dangerous than many procedures legal to perform on minors, associated with little risk of regret and detransitioning, and based on proper evaluation and informed consent.
The SAFE Act violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
The judge found the law denied parents “the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests,” namely the right to care for one’s children. He found parents “have a fundamental right to seek medical care for their children and, in conjunction with their adolescent child’s consent and their doctor’s recommendation, make a judgment that medical care is necessary.”
According to the judge, “[t]he Arkansas Medical Board is the best option for regulating the ethical considerations as well as the duties of the healthcare community in circumstances like the treatment of gender dysphoria.”
The SAFE Act violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment
The judge rejected the state’s argument that the SAFE Act regulates professional conduct, not speech, because the law barred physicians from even telling patients about treatment options available elsewhere.
Finding the law regulated speech, the judge evaluated it as “a content and viewpoint-based regulation of speech because it restricts healthcare professionals from making referrals for ‘gender transition procedures’ only, not for other purposes.”
Based on this finding, the judge applied the more stringent strict scrutiny test. Under that test, a law making content- or viewpoint-based distinctions must advance a “compelling governmental interest” in a manner “narrowly tailored” to achieving that interest.
The judge found Arkansas did not have a compelling governmental interest in restricting physician speech to keep children from gender transition procedures: “The problem with this argument is that the State has failed to prove that gender-affirming care for minors with gender dysphoria is ineffective or riskier than other medical care provided to minors.”
The judge granted a permanent injunction barring enforcement of the SAFE Act.
The judge’s opinion:
The SAFE Act:
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
In the coming years, there will be 10s of thousands of butchered and broken people as a result of this madness.
Just like all of the Ritalin-addled kids who are now adults. I have to wonder how many of those totally-wrecked street people are the children “the authorities” threatened to take away unless the kids took the school-mandated mind-bending substances.
Robed overlords strike again. You can’t spank your kid without cps getting involved, but you can chemically castrate them and chop off their body parts.
I never thought that the United States would fall so low that the federal court would allow the children in this country to be physically mutilated, sterilized, and made into eunuchs all for the passing fad of transgenderism. And don’t doubt it, this is a passing fad. In the future I predict there will be a whole generation of people wondering why their parents allowed them to be mutilated in such a horrific manner. But by that time it will be forever too late.
We’ve allowed children to be mutilated for decades, as long as they’re boys.
The law was enacted to protect children, and the judge rules that the law must be found unconstitutional to protect children. Common sense, decency and morality are all dead. We would be better off with no law now, but that of the jungle, where the smartest, strongest and most tribal vanquish the stupid, weak and depraved.
We do have “no law now.” The decision ignored propriety, decency, evidence, and common sense in order to rule in favor of leftist ideology that is patently ridiculous, not to mention child abuse. Frankly, the state should refuse to follow the idiotic ruling and go ahead and protect the children.
The PEOPLE should protect the children, and make those who attempt to injure them pay a grievous price.
And, that includes the tyrants with black dresses and toy mallets.
If you want to see how ineffective this “care” is all you have to do is wait a decade
We can see it now. Stories from “detransitioners” demonstrate the suffering of the child victims and the dishonesty and depravity of the “experts” getting rich from butchery.
And kids really don’t know how it works. I have had two confused young female students (after onset of puberty) come and ask me how it all works, so I asked their parents for permission to discuss the topic with them. After that discussion they changed their minds because the procedures are horrible and irreversible.
So, apparently, a judge may make a finding of fact that 2+2=5
When is the appeal going to be heard?
Real soon, I hope!
” The judge’s decision included extensive findings of fact, including that “[t]ransgender care is not experimental care,” that gender transition procedures reduce depression and suicide rates, and that “[g]enital surgeries for adolescents are extremely rare.” ”
Sounds like somebody didn’t make their case to uphold the law.
The judge has a point re the Constitution, but the findings of fact are inconsistent with what I’ve been reading.
I think the real solution to this particular problem will be lawsuits against the “medical” professionals.
I submit that a law extending the statute of limitations for medical malpractice against minors would be Constitutional and would go further to correct improper practice.
The same types said that abortions would be “extremely rare”.
Don’t believe it for a minute.
The judge would have ignored any evidence contradicting the Party line.
And if the care isn’t “experimental” then: 1) there are studies showing it actually fixes something, and 2) why do they make parents sign waivers saying they understand the procedures are experimental.
Guess who nominated Moody to his current position? I’ll give you a hint: his last name starts with “O” and ends with “a.”
Moody’s insane decision was as predictable as the sun rising in the east.
So that sets a precedent for buying weapons, alcohol, serving int eh military, and a host of other things.
Mainly consent to interactions with Pedos.
That is what this is moving toward.
findings of fact, … that gender transition procedures reduce depression and suicide rates
And how did he find this fact? Because a lot of studies show otherwise. And most of the studies that show any “benefit” are really bad studies and the benefit is marginal.
He was following the Party line, not facts.
You aren’t wrong. he’s another Obama judge.
The judge found the law discriminated on the basis of sex
That entire paragraph is nonsensical. It describes a perfectly neutral view and calls it discriminatory. Yeah, this judge needs to be removed from this case and from the bench. His religion is clouding his judicial judgment.
So neither males nor females could do the thing but it is still discrimination on the basis of sex? Sound like Lefty “logic” to me.
no more dangerous than many procedures legal to perform on minors
Say what?! You’re making them sterile! And it’s irreversible. How do you even remotely justify that statement? Is this another Roe v Wade where they search high and low until they find an “expert” (who isn’t) who will testify to an abject stupidity like “We don’t know when life begins”?
When I read the decision of the California judge that ruled the state initiative against gay marriage unconstitutional, it had the same unfounded assertions and outright falsehoods labeled as “facts.” It now seems to be a common act of judicial art to deny objective reality and make political fantasies the new foundation of law in this country.
So as a practical effect the Judge here just said that if the Parents want to do x procedure/treatment to their kid and can find a physician to agree to the therapeutic value and the ‘adolescent agrees’ the Parents can go ahead.
Now let’s talk about Prolonged Exposure Therapy for PTSD. A hypothetical child was molested and sent to foster care. The Weirdo Doc, the Kinky foster Parents and the confused, fragile, vulnerable adolescent all sign off on Prolonged Exposure Therapy but by the kinky adoptive Parents who also molest the vulnerable adolescent but for ‘medical reasons’. Cool beans according to the Judge. That was hyperbole but give it a few years. Hope I am wrong.
I would be curious if this Judge had any cases in front of him during Covid in which he also required affirmative consent by the Patient/individual re the jab? After all if an adolescent needs to give consent here and this is ‘not an experimental treatment’ then surely consent would be required for a jab under an EUA?
So does this mean that the states no longer have any effective means of regulating the medical establishment when it comes to parent’s alleged rights to allow a doctor to subject their children to any “treatment” no matter how horrific if the parent, a doctor, and the dependent child “agree to the treatment”? Never mind the child might not have the maturity to understand the consequences of such a treatment? Anything goes as long as parent, doctor, and dependent agrees?
This is really not going to end well for may children. Thats for sure.
I’m going to say something a little radical here: The judge is dead wrong and the authorities should enforce the law anyway.
Pardon my ignorance, but why is a federal judge ruling on a state law?
Here’s your answer as to why a federal judge can make binding decisions regarding state law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_RightsBefore all the above happened the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution did not apply to the states. That is until the Supreme Court said they did. And the rest is history.
How many things can’t a juvenile do even if they want to.
13 or 12yo drive cars?
10yo sign contracts?
12yo work 40 hours?
Robed Overlords
“The judge found the law discriminated on the basis of sex, for example, because a male would not be prohibited from “receiving testosterone or surgical procedures . . . for the purpose of aligning himself with his biological sex.” However, a female could not receive testosterone or the same surgical procedures to align herself with the opposite biological sex.”
WTF? I mean WT Serious F? That logic had to come from some educated way beyond human reasoning. This statement was enough to confirm the judge was appointed by our pal Barack.
Lets summarise this – Obama judge rules child abuse (sterilisation, mutilation, and lifelong drug dependency) is protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.