LGBTQ Civil Rights, Health Groups Respond to Supreme Court Argument in U.S. v Skrmetti

Following Wednesday’s Supreme Court argument in 美國訴斯克爾梅蒂案, LGBTQ+ civil rights and health organizations expressed encouragement that the Court will be receptive to the U.S. and Plaintiff families’ position that Tennessee’s law banning health care for transgender adolescents discriminates based on sex and must therefore be held to a higher level of scrutiny.

National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR):

“The plaintiffs today made a strong case that this law discriminates by barring medications based solely on a person’s birth sex,” said Shannon Minter, Vice President of Legal at the National Center for Lesbian Rights. “The State of Tennessee had no effective response to that obvious fact, which several Justices made clear. Based on today’s argument, we are hopeful the Court will rule that Tennessee’s law discriminates based on sex and must therefore be subject to the same high standard of review applied to all other sex-based laws. That would be a huge victory and would provide clear guidance for the lower courts about how to evaluate these laws.” 

GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law):

“Today’s argument powerfully showed how these bans unfairly target transgender adolescents and deny them medications that all other adolescents can obtain when medically indicated. You don’t have to know about health care to know that these bans are not about medicine – they are about discrimination,” said Jennifer Levi, Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law). “They insert politicians between families and medical providers and block parents from getting their transgender children the health care that allows them to be healthy and thrive. The stigma and discrimination baked into these laws is intentional, clear, and devastating.”

The Movement Advancement Project: 

“The arguments at the Supreme Court made it unequivocally clear: banning medically necessary care for transgender youth is unlawful discrimination that puts their health and well-being at risk,” said Naomi Goldberg, Executive Director of the Movement Advancement Project. “Tennessee is one of 24 states that have taken away families’ freedom to obtain essential health care for their transgender child. These are decisions that rightfully rest with doctors, families, and patients—and based on the case laid out in yesterday’s arguments, we’re hopeful that the Court will see these bans for the discriminatory laws they are.”

特雷弗計劃

“I am encouraged by the arguments before the Court, as the justices had the opportunity to directly engage with the real-world harms that discriminatory laws have on the health and well-being of transgender young people and their families,” said Casey Pick, Director of Law and Policy at The Trevor Project. “The Trevor Project regularly hears from young people across the U.S. about the life-saving nature of the medical care at risk in this case. For any parent, it is unimaginable to think of the government telling you that you can’t give your child the medicine they need to stay healthy. But that is exactly what Tennessee’s law says to parents with transgender children.”

Whitman-Walker Institute:

“The plaintiffs’ arguments on Wednesday made a powerful case for ensuring that transgender youth can receive the medical care they need,”  said Dr. Kellan Baker, executive director of Whitman-Walker Institute, an LGBT health-focused research organization. “Solicitor General Prelogar shared the story of Ryan Roe, whose gender dysphoria was so severe that he was throwing up daily and almost became mute because of the intense distress he experienced at the sound of his own voice. When Ryan’s parents were able to get him the care he needed, he started thriving—but then Tennessee took that care away. Though this care is supported by every major medical expert organization, transgender youth and their families in two dozen states are facing the same cruel denial of care that Ryan experienced. We hope the Supreme Court will issue a ruling addressing the discrimination inherent in these dangerous bans.”