11th Circuit Court of Appeals Allows AL Trans Health Care Ban To Take Effect

[Carolyn Marie]

https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/statement-on-11th-circuit-order-allowing-alabama-transgender-adolescent-medical-ban-to-take-effect

 

 

Carolyn Marie

[VickySGV]

🤬🤬🤬

[awkward-yet-sweet]

We'll keep seeing this chaos until we get a firm Supreme Court decision.  Between all the new cases, and the various Circus Court decisions, its nearly impossible to know what is legal and where. 

[KayC]

What @VickySGV said 🤬!

[emeraldmountain2]

6 hours ago, awkward-yet-sweet said:

We'll keep seeing this chaos until we get a firm Supreme Court decision. 

Don't count on them to rule in favor for us on this issue. What if they go the way of the abortion decision? What if the right wing gains power federally this year? What do we all think will happen to us?

[Ivy]

3 hours ago, emeraldmountain2 said:

What if the right wing gains power federally this year? What do we all think will happen to us?

Open season 

[emeraldmountain2]

9 minutes ago, Ivy said:

Open season

Yup, sadly.

[KatieSC]

Unfortunately, the courts have turned into a partisan politics cess pool. I do not anticipate any real progress from the Supreme Court, despite the overwhelming information provided by all of the healthcare professional associations. The supermajority Republicans feel they know better, and barring any amazing breakthroughs by the Supreme Court, I am resigned to some rocky times in the next couple of years. 

[emeraldmountain2]

Let us hope the spirit of MLK Jr. fills the hearts of these monsters and changes their wicked ways.

[VickySGV]

Part of the problem is that no person has been harmed by the law either physically by being imprisoned or monetarily by a court imposed fine or other order.  This court is one of the ones in the U.S. that takes those requirements to the bank.  Until an arrest is made or a judgment rendered in court, they do not see the injury occurring and therefore no case or controversy to be adjudicated.  To those judges, the potential injury to the victim of the law cannot be considered. 

[MaeBe]

2 hours ago, VickySGV said:

To those judges, the potential injury to the victim of the law cannot be considered. 

Justice is blind, she only acts if the scales teeter--potentiality bears no weight, so to speak. Bollocks!

 

Pro-life, but not "pro-live". "Be born and suffer your fate without compassion or care from we!"

 

Scheißters...

[VickySGV]

@MaeBeIf you have studied law as I did  years ago you have to study that doctrine and prove you know what it means by actually using it in your tests and on Bar Exams.  The doctrine that demands this type of reasoning has also produced law in our favor.  There have been cases in the relaxation of a number of so called moral disaster types such as at least one case involving freedom to seek and abortion.  The Anti-abortion folks lost on the same grounds used here when they imagined harm on society.  It can go both ways in either side's favor.  It is just that there are some areas in which it seems your ox is being gored when you do not own an ox,  PS.  I do not like this outcome and do wish it could be different, and although someone will have to hurt for a bit I think it will go the way of the Dodo in our favor.

[MaeBe]

20 minutes ago, VickySGV said:

The doctrine that demands this type of reasoning has also produced law in our favor.

I totally get it, it's just some things can be seen before actual harm occurs. If a law can be created to harm and only can be proven to harm once there are damages; if those damages are denied to exist by a court, then what? Go to the next court. Then the next. All the while damages pile up. That is why laws that deny should be held to higher rigor, but most laws only need a simple majority to pass. Anyway, I am no lawyer, nor have I played one on TV. However, I did work for a firm for many years, so I get it...