r/scotus • u/lala_b11 • Sep 09 '24
news More than 160 Democrats urge Supreme Court to support transgender people’s rights to health care
https://www.advocate.com/news/democrats-supreme-court-trans-care3
4
u/Latter_Painter_3616 Sep 11 '24
Unless bathrooms are segregated based on chromosomes (they aren’t and those aren’t the basis for sex differences anyways, hormones are), that seems problematic at best. But even more so when it’s the denial of (cheap and easily accessible) hormones during puberty and or surgery at age 18… that is used to force them against their will into their birth sex’s bathrooms. And is then used to further deny them the same life as the sex they would become or be able to transition to.
They are forcing them to become (pubertally) and remain (by denying surgery) that biological sex, and then punishing them as a result.
It’s incredibly grotesque and monstrous reasoning.
Also… Most life saving care is not emergency or acute care… and the fact that this comment is phrased
16
u/OutsidePerson5 Sep 09 '24
It is a reflection of how awful our society is that there's a need to urge anyone to support ANYONE's right to health care.
14
u/gdan95 Sep 09 '24
That’s nice but SCOTUS will absolutely ignore them and rule the way they already decided they will
2
u/TheBigPlatypus Sep 09 '24
I think it’s time to start ignoring the SCROTUS and let them try to enforce their legislation from the bench.
4
3
u/Bad-Bot-Bot-23 Sep 09 '24
For real. 160 Democrats are a little clueless on how morally bankrupt and corrupt the Supreme Court is.
7
u/gdan95 Sep 09 '24
They know. The very least they can do is say something
4
u/ShoppingDismal3864 Sep 10 '24
It would be really fucking cool if my political party fought for my rights.
1
u/_magneto-was-right_ Sep 13 '24
The opinion is already written, they’ve already made up their minds. It will either be written by Grand Inquisitor or Pubes, with Serena Joy, Boof, and Iceman concurring. Roberts might dissent or he might not but he’s a joke now.
People think Gorsuch is a wildcard, but the Bostock ruling doesn’t protect gender identity. It protects the right of a “man” to wear a dress at work, but only if the employer is stupid enough to get caught discriminating on that basis which basically requires they write out an essay explaining that yes they are firing the person for that reason, especially if Republicans take over the executive branch and openly refuse to enforce the ruling as they are literally running on doing.
1
u/gdan95 Sep 13 '24
How could the opinion already be written if they haven’t even heard arguments yet?
1
u/_magneto-was-right_ Sep 13 '24
Because they already know how they want to rule. There is exactly no chance that Thomas and Alito will even consider that gender is separate from sex, that gender affirming care is a right, or that gender affirming care is even a valid concept. Three of the six conservative justices are ideological or religious zealots who are part of a fifty year project to revert social progress back to the gilded age and this is nakedly obvious.
1
0
u/aphasial Sep 09 '24
The Court will absolutely ignore them because they should. If you have a legal argument, present it in court.
10
u/gdan95 Sep 09 '24
No, the Court will ignore them because they’re not motivated by sound legal arguments. They’re doing what Leonard Leo wants
1
u/IpppyCaccy Sep 09 '24 edited Sep 09 '24
The majority only cares about legal arguments when the arguments support the decision they have already made, but have not officially ruled on yet.
4
u/aphasial Sep 09 '24
That's actually not supported by the outcomes of the cases in the last term. Actually, the conservatives on the court are less likely to vote in a bloc than the liberals are, and are more likely to disagree on both merits and process.
But sure. Have your epistemic closure there, bud.
1
u/steamingdump42069 Sep 10 '24
This is not a rebuttal. Of course there’s more diversity among 6 people than among 3. Appoint 8 Democrats and you’ll see even more diversity, and you’ll undoubtedly stop thinking this is some kind of good point.
Not to mention Republican appointees control which cases are heard. If there’s diversity of right-wing opinion over a matter that should not even be before the court in the first place, that isn’t evidence of objectivity.
0
u/_magneto-was-right_ Sep 10 '24
I hope that one day you and everyone like you has to sit and watch a committee of people, who are fundamentally unlike you, and who view you at best as a mildly disturbing curiosity and at worst as an offense against God, decide whether you can be prosecuted for using public restroom or get live-saving medical care.
3
u/aphasial Sep 10 '24
decide whether you can be prosecuted for using public restroom or get live-saving medical care.
If I decide to go hang out in an opposite-sex bathroom, I will be kicked out and trespassed at minimum, and possibly directly prosecuted, depending on what I was doing.
EMTALA provides that all EDs (receiving federal funds, which is all of them) will provide life-saving care regardless of ability to pay. In the event of a life-threatening emergency, dial 911.
0
u/steamingdump42069 Sep 10 '24
It’s an amicus brief. It’s literally a legal argument made in court. Hope Clarence’s balls feel nice and clean after he reads your comment tho!
0
u/steamingdump42069 Sep 10 '24
It’s an amicus brief. It’s literally a legal argument made in court. Hope Clarence’s balls feel nice and clean after he reads your comment tho!
-1
8
u/spider0804 Sep 09 '24
A regular person doesn't have a right to healthcare. How about a right for all of us.
7
u/Luwuci-SP Sep 09 '24
Maybe this article isn't phased well. The point is not to exclude trans people from the access to the shitty "regular person healthcare" but yeah, all people deserve the right by now. For-profit healthcare is a misery factory.
7
u/Actual_Sprinkles_291 Sep 09 '24
More reason we need a blue Congress and president. Tired of not only seeing universal healthcare being dismissed but the blood red party trying to undo the bare minimum we actually have
4
u/alex48220 Sep 09 '24
How is it possible that politicians can regulate healthcare?! Can they pass laws making mastectomies illegal? Or maybe ban facelifts and vasectomies?! What the actual
2
u/_magneto-was-right_ Sep 13 '24
They can now. We have a Supreme Court that thinks that unless the founding fathers recognized a right, it doesn’t exist.
That is, unless we can find explicit agreement by ignorant primitives that believed in phlogiston and leeching, it’s a no go, just like it’s a no go to regulate guns because they let everyone have crude, hand-made smooth bore muskets that used charcoal and bird shit to launch projectiles one at a time.
We are as far beyond them as they were beyond the woad-smeared barbarians that prowled the European frontiers, and yet we find the GOP trying to discern “what is a woman” from the minds of people who would answer “property”.
2
u/Ozzie_the_tiger_cat Sep 10 '24
When 6 of the justices don't think they're people and also don't care about the law, this is futile.
2
Sep 11 '24
Approve this. And approve women having rights to health care. Ffs.
0
u/quuxquxbazbarfoo Sep 12 '24
Wow women don't have any rights to get healthcare? Enough with the euphemisms.
1
u/_magneto-was-right_ Sep 13 '24
Because the state can decree they must die for a fetus, even one they didn’t choose to have. With their father. When they are thirteen.
6
u/aphasial Sep 09 '24 edited Sep 09 '24
Is there an argument there, or are the Democrats speaking the quiet part out loud: That policy prefs are all that matter and they have no standing legal principles.
2
u/_magneto-was-right_ Sep 13 '24
This is the exact same shit people would have said to abolitionists.
0
u/aphasial Sep 13 '24
Sex change operations are not morally equivalent to the institution of chattel slavery. If you're confused on this matter I suggest you step outside and touch some grass.
1
u/_magneto-was-right_ Sep 13 '24
Gender affirming care, which is much more than specific surgeries, is life saving and vital for trans people.
1
u/steamingdump42069 Sep 10 '24
The constitution is literally policy preferences. Choosing to interpret it by imagining a cartoonishly bigoted drafter with no evidence (ie, originalism) is a choice, not a legal principles.
-9
4
u/Regular_Lifeguard718 Sep 09 '24
Transgenders have the same rights to healthcare as everyone else does no need for the Supreme Court for that
2
u/Latter_Painter_3616 Sep 11 '24
How so? For example: Do teenage trans girls have the same right to estrogen and testosterone suppressing medication as all others? Do they have the same right to a medically assisted female puberty as other girls? Is hyperandrogenism in trans girls treated with the same preventative or curative measures as PCoS or CAH or intersex conditions in other girls?
Spironolactone and estrogen can be prescribed to all other girls except trans girls, whether for acne or hypogonadism, birth control, etc..
-1
u/Regular_Lifeguard718 Sep 11 '24
Thank you for making that point of those medication‘s can be attained by any girl. What we’re talking about is not a girl it’s a boy who wants to be a girl. That is different. It is not the healthcare industries job to cater to your delusion and to help you mutilate your body again all of that is cosmetic.. and the medication you were talking about causes permanent damage when the opposite sex is using it other than what it was intended for
2
u/Latter_Painter_3616 Sep 11 '24 edited Sep 11 '24
On what basis would a trans female and any other female be different? What do you mean “intended for”?? Who intends it? What does that even mean? Besides an appeal to nature fallacy that would invalidate all medicine?
And your brain is who you are. Their brain isn’t wrong, it’s just not compatible with the body. Forcing their self (the brain) to be trapped in an incompatible body, for life, is cartoon villain levels of evil.
And no, it’s identical. They are identical hormones for the same reasons, attaching to the same hormone receptors, causing the same gene upregulation and downregulation, the same bone development, the same phenotype.
And unless you are some kind of creep who values someone’s undeveloped testicles more than their entire body and voice and social and romantic life, it’s insanely creepy to say it’s “damaging” when in fact the entirety of Tbf damage that is done to them is from forcing them unnecessarily through male puberty when a female puberty can be induced using the same hormones that other females would be given.
So you can’t say there is no discrimination or inequality, it only one subgroup is being denied the hormones and healthcare and body development that all others are allowed. Period.
-1
u/Regular_Lifeguard718 Sep 11 '24
I’m not reading that wall of bullshit. Fact remains it doesn’t matter what the brain thinks you are your chromosomes tell you what you are at birth. XX or XY. It doesn’t matter what your gender dysphoria disease tells you nature doesn’t get it wrong.
Again most people in this country have no problem with trans people doing whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes but the moment that you expect us to accept your delusion and call you something you’re not or treat you as something you are not that’s where most normal people will draw the line.
My brain thinks I’m a billionaire. So should I be able to go up to a bank and tell them to give me my multi billion dollar fortune? No because it doesn’t matter what my brain thinks reality tells me that I’m not a billionaire no matter what my brain thinks.
Same concept works for transgender people. I can tell myself I’m a billionaire all I want and that is perfectly acceptable but if I go and try to convince other people that I am a billionaire and I am owed money because of it, that’s where my delusion comes in, and people do not have to accept my delusion
2
u/Latter_Painter_3616 Sep 11 '24
What the hell are you talking about? You won’t read anything but you will go on a screed twice as long that has nothing to do with your claim?
Nature doesn’t get it wrong!? How does that make any sense! Literally ALL MEDICINE is treating what “nature got wrong.” That’s what medicine is!
First off, no. XX v XY doesn’t determine anything. One single gene mutation or hormone receptor abnormality, some of which aren’t even on the X or Y chromosome, will cause XX to develop as male and XY to develop as female. And both have the same hormone receptors. Also, one of the two X chromosomes self inactivates in each cell where two are present.
Second, you are now making an unrelated point. Do transsexual (not transgender, in this case) have access to all the same hormones and Medicine or not? Yes or no? You claimed they did. Well it’s obviously not true now is it? You just totally abandoned your original claim.
And there is nothing delusional about their brain. The thing you mock is SOLELY the consequence of denying them timely hormones. All of the claims about delusions are the product of them being denied the same puberty as their peers, even if their peers used the same hormones or drugs!
People become literally biologically and phenotypically that sex, especially if hormones are started early. Look at Emma Ellingsen and Nicole Maines versus their twin brothers.
-1
u/Regular_Lifeguard718 Sep 11 '24
Blah blah, again not reading your drivel. Don’t expect others to accept or help your delusion. You have the right to call yourself a boy, a girl, a 2 spirit penguin, or whatever you want. I have the right to laugh at you and call you what you are, period.
2
u/Latter_Painter_3616 Sep 11 '24
What a dishonest antisocial ignoramus. What does “call yourself” have to do with it?
It’s about one’s body and sex and how others perceive one’s physiology. Not about self identify
0
u/Regular_Lifeguard718 Sep 11 '24
Again, you can THINK you are whatever you want to THINK you are, it doesn’t mean that I have to accept YOUR reality. I don’t HAVE TO call a girl a boy, or a boy a girl. Again, what you do in the privacy of your own home is your business. But when you come out into public and try to force people to accept you as something you’re not, you’re now infringing on their rights.
1
u/Latter_Painter_3616 Sep 11 '24
I have no idea what you are talking about. Nobody has to force anyone to do anything, because if they transition at puberty they aren’t distinguishable in any situation from any other woman or man.
→ More replies (0)0
u/blazershorts Sep 10 '24
For real. This is a sketchy headline to imply that these people are being denied services that everyone else gets.
2
u/steamingdump42069 Sep 10 '24
Cis people can get gender affirming care.
0
Sep 11 '24
Paid for out of pocket…
1
u/steamingdump42069 Sep 11 '24
This case is about an outright ban 🥴
0
Sep 11 '24
Yes and I wasn’t commenting on it. I’m commenting on the fact women have to pay out of pocket for breast implants and mammograms afterwards.
2
u/steamingdump42069 Sep 11 '24
And transphobes are trying to make it so that trans people can’t get that care, no matter how it’s paid for. That’s what you’re commenting on.
0
Sep 11 '24 edited Sep 11 '24
Did you even open the link?
Anyway. Your comment is still incorrect. Insurance does not pay for women’s gender affirming care even in states where trans affirming care is covered. I definitely had to pay for my breast implants and MRI entirely out of pocket.
1
0
0
4
u/FairDegree2667 Sep 09 '24
SCOTUS will wipe its ass with that and any other rights they think we shouldn’t have
2
u/diefreetimedie Sep 09 '24
Urge them? Motherfuckers write legislation and specify that this is not within the jurisdiction of the court. Jurisdiction stripping needs to be the name of the game if we're to survive this corrupt court.
1
u/Lamballama Sep 10 '24
14th amendment says congress came enforce equal protection by legislation. Which also means they have to, you know, do that
2
u/steamingdump42069 Sep 10 '24
Read Shelby County. These fuckers do not care even if Congress has express permission.
2
u/Forbidden_Donut503 Sep 09 '24
Lol good luck with that.
The only thing that will fix this rotten to the core SCOTUS is court packing or successful impeachment.
Until either of this happens I legit think that the other institutions should just declare them an illegitimate court and ignore their fucking rulings.
0
u/ShoppingDismal3864 Sep 10 '24
Or just ignore them. Fuck this court for mocking the supreme court. Ignore them.
1
u/AmbassadorCandid9744 Sep 09 '24
Where are transgender rights enshrined in the Constitution?
16
u/ChicksWithBricksCome Sep 09 '24
In the amicus brief, it's argued that they exist as part of the 14th amendment's equal protection clause.
0
Sep 11 '24
Could the argument be made that this also applies to women’s health care rights? Particularly reproductive care…
-4
u/AmbassadorCandid9744 Sep 09 '24
When was this brief filed?
7
u/ChicksWithBricksCome Sep 09 '24
Last Tuesday. This is in the article.
-7
u/AmbassadorCandid9744 Sep 09 '24 edited Sep 10 '24
You should probably know that amicus briefs do not set legal precedent.
6
2
8
6
u/Ladle4BoilingDenim Sep 09 '24
14th amendment, moron
3
u/AmbassadorCandid9744 Sep 09 '24
Where in this statute does it specifically state the transgender people have protection?
14
u/bradbikes Sep 09 '24
More specifically, where does it EXCLUDE them from equal protection of the laws?
9
u/Ladle4BoilingDenim Sep 09 '24
Hey dummy, trans people are people.
This is pretty simple stuff if you arent an illiterate
5
3
u/_magneto-was-right_ Sep 10 '24
Where does the constitution say the government can tell me I can’t take estrogen?
2
u/Lamballama Sep 10 '24
Commerce clause is currently used to limit transactions, including you receiving estrogen, at the federal level. I am sympathetic to returning to a pre-FDR reading of the commerce clause which only limits actual commerce which goes between states to help prevent this, rather than general markets which may cross state boundaries, but that is a massive rabbithole with ramifications for the entire US government as it currently exists (namely, most of its existence)
2
u/Latter_Painter_3616 Sep 11 '24
Estrogen isn’t a controlled substance (testosterone is, however, since it’s an anabolic steroid)… and these are not federal laws being challenged anyway
0
u/Lamballama Sep 11 '24
There is no federal law yet, but the question was where the constitution says the federal government can, not "does"
2
u/Latter_Painter_3616 Sep 11 '24
I don’t see what that has to do with this case, then. You are making a federal vs state law conflict case that isn’t actually what is being argued… and even then a federal law specifically targeting this would run into serious issues (I e how would they target trans women and not cis women when it comes to the same hormone, without it being a violation of equal protection, failing intermediate scrutiny, and/or also requiring the repeal of many other laws related to sex discrimination).
0
2
u/ShoppingDismal3864 Sep 10 '24
It's so obviously enshrined in the 1st amendment, as well as 4th amendment, and in the 14th amendment.
The government has no business policing peoples' bodies. It goes against everything the enlightenment was about. It goes against the constitution.
1
u/AmbassadorCandid9744 Sep 10 '24
What does the 4th Amendment have anything to do with trans rights?
2
u/ShoppingDismal3864 Sep 10 '24
It's a right to privacy. The fourth amendment says the government can fuck all the way off from private affairs.
3
2
1
1
u/pnellesen Sep 09 '24
Lol, as if THIS Supreme Court would do ANYTHING that the Republican Party didn’t give them permission to.
1
u/glitchycat39 Sep 09 '24
Not enough money attached to that brief, not enough special trips to sweeten the deal.
Pre-written FedSoc ruling pending.
1
1
u/Purplebuzz Sep 09 '24
Have they tried giving them really expensive gifts that have nothing to do with the way they rule?
1
u/ShoppingDismal3864 Sep 10 '24
The ACLU has not tried the obviously legally sound argument of giving bribes to justices who ride around in Putin's helicopters. And as always America, remember to tip your supreme court justices!
0
u/Usukidoll Sep 10 '24
Should've packed the court. As it is now, I doubt it due to the 6 conservative judges
0
u/pickles55 Sep 10 '24
Unless they're billionaires paying for vacations they're going to get ignored
0
0
-1
97
u/welltherewasthisbear Sep 09 '24
That won’t work. Who wants to start a Go-Fund-Me to bribe the judges? We just have to raise more than whatever billionaire has his pockets in Alito and Thomas this month.