Parents of Four FL Youth File Suit To Stop Anti-Trans Treatment Law

[Carolyn Marie]

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/23/florida-gender-affirming-care-ban-lawsuit-00088644

 

 

Carolyn Marie

[Ivy]

These laws certainly seem unconstitutional to me.  But I have less faith in the courts than I used to.

[VickySGV]

My Law School Constitutional Law professor made a point to us many times that there is a deep divide between UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNCONSCIONABLE.  The first involves the courts, the second is more elusive and requires a change of legislative personnel via the ballot boxes or a well know result of old age.

[Marcie Jensen]

2 hours ago, VickySGV said:

My Law School Constitutional Law professor made a point to us many times that there is a deep divide between UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNCONSCIONABLE.  The first involves the courts, the second is more elusive and requires a change of legislative personnel via the ballot boxes or a well know result of old age.

That was well said! I've got a sinking feeling that these laws fall into the UNCONSCIONABLE category rather than the UNCONSTITUTIONAL category for a couple of reasons. These start with the fact that medical care of any sort isn't written into the constitution, which makes these laws among those things "reserved for the several states," as the constitution puts it.  

 

The answer would appear to lie in the ballot box as opposed to the courts. I find it ironic that after more than 100 years, politicians still haven't learned from prohibition; you can't legislate certain things like morality or medical care.

[Carolyn Marie]

9 minutes ago, Marcie Jensen said:

These start with the fact that medical care of any sort isn't written into the constitution, which makes these laws among those things "reserved for the several states," as the constitution puts it.  

 

 

I agree that it is not as cut and dried a Constitutional issue as it might appear, @Marcie Jensen.  There are probably precedents regarding laws that legislate certain medical procedures, such as "assisted suicide," lobotomies, etc.  But there are many things that are unconstitutional that are not spelled out in the Constitution, such as the right to privacy, which the SCOTUS has repeatedly affirmed.  So the issue will end up with the SCOTUS, but the outcome is anything but certain.

 

Carolyn Marie

[Marcie Jensen]

You're correct @Carolyn Marie. The constitution doesn't specifically mention a right to privacy, but such a right is implied via the 3rd, 4th and 5th amendments and has been successfully argued a number of times as you noted. That said, your point is extremely well taken and I completely agree that this legislation will end up in front of the SCOTUS. And, sadly, given the court's current composition, will most likely be allowed to stand. Sadly.

 

This is another example of elected officials trying to legislate morality under another guise. And, we (generally speaking) keep right on electing them. We, as a people, just don't seem to learn from past mistakes and keep on making the same ones ad infinitum. *sigh* I wonder when it will end.

[awkward-yet-sweet]

1 hour ago, Carolyn Marie said:

 

I agree that it is not as cut and dried a Constitutional issue as it might appear, @Marcie Jensen.  There are probably precedents regarding laws that legislate certain medical procedures, such as "assisted suicide," lobotomies, etc.  But there are many things that are unconstitutional that are not spelled out in the Constitution, such as the right to privacy, which the SCOTUS has repeatedly affirmed.  So the issue will end up with the SCOTUS, but the outcome is anything but certain.

 

Carolyn Marie

 

I'm not sure how well the privacy argument will work.  Since the advent of HIPAA, privacy in medicine seems to be backwards.  You have privacy from the people (such as family) who might need to help with your care, but practically zero privacy from the government.  This is a result of the government increasing its involvement in medical care for the last several decades. 

 

1 hour ago, Marcie Jensen said:

The answer would appear to lie in the ballot box as opposed to the courts. I find it ironic that after more than 100 years, politicians still haven't learned from prohibition; you can't legislate certain things like morality or medical care.

 

Those in power haven't learned from Prohibition in multiple ways.  I think this is in our favor, in the end.  The "War on Drugs" has led to strong movements to legalize useful substances, promote addiction therapy instead of criminal penalty, as well as improving the quality alternative medicines.  The failed "Assault Weapons Ban" and efforts to resurrect it have led to a better-armed and more mechanically knowledgeable American public.  Any time the government tells us not to put our hands in the cookie jar, its the first thing we want to do.  I think we can have some hope that the current anti-trans agenda can eventually lead to better options for us, and more widespread acceptance. 

 

A recall a quote from a union leader that is often mis-attributed to Gandhi, but that I think it is relevant.  "First they ignore you.  Then they laugh at you.  Then they fight you.  Then you win."  Right now, trans folks and those who love freedom are enduring the "fight" stage of that cycle.