The U.S. Supreme Court is tackling one of today’s most debated issues: how much power states have over medical decisions for children questioning their gender.
On Wednesday, the court will hear a case about a Tennessee law banning puberty blockers, hormones, or surgeries for minors dealing with gender dysphoria—a condition where a person feels their gender doesn’t match their biological sex. The main question is whether this law violates the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.
So far, 26 states have passed laws restricting “gender-affirming care,” a term that refers to treatments like puberty blockers or surgeries, which can significantly impact a young person’s future. While a few states have also considered limiting access for adults, this case focuses on children, who many believe need extra safeguards.
Uncertainty in the Science
Supporters of gender-affirming care argue it’s essential for children’s well-being, but critics say there isn’t enough long-term research to know if these treatments are safe or effective. Puberty blockers, for instance, stop the natural process of puberty, and some worry about unknown risks or potential harm.
Even countries often seen as progressive, like those in Europe, are rethinking these treatments until more research is available. Tennessee’s law aims to protect children until the science becomes clearer or until they are old enough to understand the lifelong consequences.
Mixed Opinions in the Medical Field
While some U.S. medical organizations still support these treatments for minors, others urge caution. For example, the president of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons has said he doesn’t perform surgeries on adolescents because he’s not convinced the data supports it.
ACLU and Biden Administration Challenge the Law
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Biden administration are representing families and doctors challenging Tennessee’s law. They argue that children’s rights are at stake, similar to a previous case where the Supreme Court supported transgender rights in the workplace.
However, this case is different because it involves children and scientific uncertainty. Groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) support Tennessee’s law, saying it’s about protecting kids from experimental procedures that lack solid evidence and could pose risks.
A Cautious Approach
The ADF and others believe states like Tennessee should have the right to put safeguards in place for children. Given the unsettled science and potential long-term impacts, they argue it’s better to proceed with caution.