WASHINGTON – Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in United States of America v. Skrmetti, urging the court to let state legislatures protect children from experimental medical procedures. In the case, which the Supreme Court will hear later this year, the state of Tennessee is defending its law that protects children from harmful, unnecessary, and high-risk medical procedures that alter their bodies to make them look like the opposite sex.
On December 4, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear United States of America v. Skrmetti, a case in which the Justices will decide whether to affirm states’ freedom to protect children from harmful and unnecessary drugs and surgeries. The legal challenge argues that this ban violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by discriminating based on sex (ACLU; Constitutional Accountability Center).
Tennessee’s Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti contends that the state should be free to make healthcare decisions in the best interest of its citizens, similar to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health case. Concerned Women for America submitted an amicus brief arguing that Tennessee’s law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause, as it applies equally to males and females.
The Supreme Court decided to review this case after the Biden-Harris administration appealed a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upholding Tennessee’s law. As it has in other cases across the country, the administration has taken aggressive actions to invalidate laws like Tennessee’s protecting children from these harmful medical procedures that can have life-long consequences.
Prisha’s Story
Prisha’s early teen years were very hard. Tragically, she suffered sexual assault at the age of 14. Not long after, she was diagnosed with multiple mental health disorders. But instead of providing Prisha with trauma therapy, doctors set her on a path to procedures that could permanently sterilize her and would “transition” her body to make her appear more like a boy.
Prisha later realized this was all a mistake. But it was too late. Doctors left her with a scarred body, sexual dysfunction, and chronic pain in her shoulders, neck, and genital area. All of this could have been prevented by a law like the one now being challenged before the Supreme Court.
“It’s imperative that we have the freedom to live according to the truth—and protect our children from this kind of tragic damage that will affect them for the rest of their lives,” said John Bursch, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Appellate Advocacy of Alliance Defending Freedom.
Bursch says that while Prisha has been able to give birth to a healthy baby boy, she’s struggled with the inability to nurse him or feel him curl up on her chest.
Dangers of Puberty Blockers and Hormon Injections
“Subjecting children to puberty blockers, hormonal injections, and unnecessary surgical procedures is dangerous, and we’re increasingly learning that these actions do not alleviate children’s mental health struggles. Instead, they inflict more pain,” said Bursch.
Advocates for the law argue that it is a necessary measure to protect children from what they consider dangerous and life-altering medical procedures. They assert that these interventions may not effectively alleviate mental health struggles and could lead to long-term consequences, including impacts on fertility and overall well-being.
“These procedures have devastated countless lives, which is why countries that were previously leaders in so-called ‘gender affirming’ care are reversing course and curtailing these experimental efforts to permanently alter children’s bodies,” Bursch added. “We urge the Supreme Court to affirm the lower court’s ruling that Tennessee is free to implement laws that follow the best science available in protecting vulnerable children from high-risk medical procedures.”
Currently, 26 states have laws that regulate similar procedures, and European countries like Sweden, Finland, Norway, and the United Kingdom have each concluded that the risks of these experimental procedures outweigh their benefits.
In Idaho, ADF attorneys are serving as co-counsel alongside the state attorney general defending a similar law in that state. In the case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in April that Idaho can enforce its law against everyone but plaintiffs and can protect children throughout the state as the case proceeds. The state is now asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to allow Idaho to fully enforce its law.
The Supreme Court’s decision will likely have significant implications for state authority in regulating medical treatments for minors.
