BP photo by Roy Burroughs
Washington, D.C. | Protestors on both sides of the debate massed outside the U.S. Supreme Court building Dec. 4, chanting and singing “Sweet Caroline” loud enough to drown out the reporters’ live shots. Inside, the justices heard arguments in a case which will determine the constitutionality of a Tennessee law banning gender transition procedures for minors. The ruling could have impact on similar limitations in 25 other states.
“It sounds like Southern Baptists can be cautiously optimistic that the Supreme Court will uphold states’ ability to protect vulnerable minors from a kind of medical experimentation that was unthinkable in our nation just a few years ago,” said Scott Foshie, board chair of the SBC’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC).
Three transgender teenagers and the Biden administration are suing Tennessee officials in order to bar the state from enforcing the ban. Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti is named as the defendant in the case, called U.S. v. Skrmetti.
The Tennessee law prevents health care providers from prescribing medication or performing procedures on minors in order to “transition” them to an identity opposite of their biological sex. Doctors in the state were required to end gender treatments on minors by March 31, 2024.
“The Supreme Court’s decision will have a monumental impact on the safety and security of children vulnerable to a harmful gender ideology, not just in the state of Tennessee, but across the nation,” said ERLC president Brent Leatherwood. “Harmful procedures like hormone therapy, puberty blockers and surgery impose lifelong, devastating consequences on their well-being.”
Chloe Cole, who underwent significant medical intervention in an attempt to become a male and is now a well-known detransitioner, addresses crowds outside the Supreme Court building. BP photo by Roy Burroughs
The ERLC, in conjunction with the Tennessee Baptist Mission Board, previously filed an amicus brief in the case supporting the Tennessee law. It was one of 50 briefs filed in support of the law. IBSA ministry partner ADF, the Alliance Defending Freedom, has supported the Tennessee law. Matt Sharp, senior counsel for ADF, has been on the front lines all the way to the Supreme Court. He spoke at the protest outside.
Elizabeth Prelogar, solicitor general of the U.S., spoke on behalf of the Biden administration in the case.
“This case is about access to medications that have been safely prescribed for decades to treat many conditions, including gender dysphoria,” Prelogar said. “But SB1 (the law) singles out and bans one particular use. In Tennessee, these medications can’t be prescribed to allow a minor to identify with or live as a gender inconsistent with the minor’s sex.
“It doesn’t matter what parents decide is best for their children. It doesn’t matter what patients would choose for themselves. And it doesn’t matter if doctors believe this treatment is essential for individual patients. SB1 categorically bans treatment when and only when it’s inconsistent with the patient’s birth sex.”
The law would apply equally regardless of sex, and the discrimination component of the solicitor general’s argument is based on the Court’s 2020 Bostock decision, which reinterpreted the sex-based discrimination to include gender identity. The plaintiffs alleged the law intentionally targets transgender individuals and is therefore sex-based discrimination that interferes with the parents’ ability to make medical decisions for their children.
Matthew Rice, solicitor general for the state of Tennessee, said in his opening arguments that the state’s law is not discriminatory and instead focuses on banning the use of the medications and procedures on minors for safety or medical reasons.
Matt Sharp, senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, has been on the front lines of defending the Tennessee law all the way to the Supreme Court. BP photo by Roy Burroughs
“Tennessee lawmakers enacted SB1 to protect minors from risky, unproven medical interventions,” Rice said. “The law imposes an across-the-board rule that allows the use of drugs and surgeries for some medical purposes but not for others. Its application turns entirely on medical purpose, not a patient’s sex. That is not sex discrimination.”
The attorneys then faced questions from the justices, who seemed to lean on the side of upholding Tennessee’s ban. A majority of the six conservative justices seemed skeptical of the arguments presented by the challengers, while the three liberal justices seemed to side with the challengers.
Leatherwood affirmed Rice’s arguments and called on the High Court to uphold Tennessee’s law banning the dangerous procedures for minors.
“As Tennessee’s Solicitor General pointed out, these novel and experimental treatments often leave children infertile and with permanently damaged bodies,” Leatherwood said. “Given those harmful effects, it is not only entirely appropriate, but constitutionally permissible, for the state to intervene to protect these vulnerable minors. They need care and compassion, not a radical remaking of their bodies.”
Another speaker at the protest was Chloe Cole, who underwent significant medical intervention in an attempt to become a male and is now a well-known detransitioner, trying to reverse the procedures. Cole has testified in a U.S. House subcommittee about the harm done to her.
Foshie concluded, “I am hopeful that a favorable ruling by the Supreme Court on this case will help wake up those in the medical community who need to see minor gender transitioning for what it is and admit they were wrong to ever support it.”
A decision in the case will likely come in May or June of 2025.
— excerpted from Baptist Press, with additional reporting by Illinois Baptist staff.