Federal court rules Indiana ban on gender-affirming care for minors can take effect
pbs.org
A federal appeals court on Tuesday allowed Indiana’s ban on gender-affirming care to go into effect, removing a temporary injunction a judge issued last year.
The ruling was handed down by a panel of justices on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. It marked the latest decision in a legal challenge the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed against the ban, enacted last spring amid a national push by GOP-led legislatures to curb LGBTQ+ rights.
You are viewing a single comment
Thank the lawmakers, the court probably didn't have a choice
That’s an odd take. Courts interpret laws. What law or constitutional measures forces them to ban healthcare?
Yes, they interpret what the lawmakers have written. If lawmakers made a law saying minors shouldn't receive healthcare, that's what the court should say.
Not taking sides btw, if I was I'd just get mad at the state of US politics
They can say “it’s not constitutional to ban healthcare.” They aren’t bound only by the text of the law.
Via ACLU
Does the constitution say that though?
I’m quite sure a constitutional scholar could come up with a well worded reply to make that argument in detail. I’ll just say that I think part of individual liberty is accessing healthcare.
You're making massive leaps
The constitution doesn’t say we have a right to lay bricks so we should ban construction, right? Reading into the constitution and assuming they understood modern brick making would be a massive leap.
Or something like that? I don’t really get what you’re saying.
The law on the ban for youth care was challenged in court, the courts decided the law is not against the constitution, and so it can take effect.
A court made that decision.
Not sure how that's a gotcha, sure, a court, has the same weight either way
And another court could overturn it. Because courts aren’t bound by the text of the laws.
Laws aren't real
Where?
Where they constructed a right for healthcare out of the word liberty.
Right, I’m asking how that doesn’t follow. You don’t have a right to force doctors to specialize in something you want them to, but being restricted by your government from accessing modern healthcare endorsed by the AMA and APA doesn’t seem like liberty to me.
Let's take it from the other side.
Should I have the liberty to not pay taxes? The liberty to dump my garbage into a lake? The liberty to burn a forest down?
You're flexing words into meanings that suit you, but if they actually were possible to be interpreted this widely, it'd be chaos.
Those each hurt third parties, which is a very good reason to restrict a liberty. This one doesn’t, so I don’t really see how it fits with the others.
But that's an opinion, isn't it? We all don't have the same opinions, that's why politics is a thing?
Maybe transcare hurts someone's feelings, you might not agree with that, but we live in a world where their opinion matters, too, for better (or in this case) for worse.
Why wouldn't they have a choice?
Because laws tell them what to decide. The courts are there to make sure the laws don't infringe on constitutional rights, on federal laws etc., but they don't create rules.
I see you're unfamiliar with our court system and only know the idealized version.
If a court decides to interpret a law some way or another, it's because the law's wording allowed for some leeway.
That's on the lawmakers.
Got it. Judicial decisions are always correct.