Current Events > Court: "Trans healthcare not deeply rooted in nation's history"

(+) Yeah! (+)

Specifically the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
Also, can we please get rid of the title character limit?
https://theintercept.com/2023/08/22/trans-health-care-alabama-supreme-court/?utm_campaign=theintercept&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

So, can this be used for any modern issue? Like if I sue because I can't get oil subsidies can some liberal judge just say "oil subsidies are not deeply rooted in our nation's history" and end them?

A lot of modern healthcare is not "rooted in nation's history" for a fucking damn good reason.

Yeah and black people and women being treated as more than objects isn't deeply rooted in our nation's history but most of us can agree we shouldn't go back to doing that

Conservative logic is so fucking stupid

The ? and anything after is tracking garbage. You don't need it.
https://theintercept.com/2023/08/22/trans-health-care-alabama-supreme-court/

This is all just "parents' rights! - except when I don't like it!"

What does that even mean? Why do things need to be "rooted in our nation's history?" That sounds like nonsense words.

creativerealms posted...

What does that even mean? Why do things need to be "rooted in our nation's history?" That sounds like nonsense words.

And yet it was used to overturn Roe V Wade and will now likely be used to prevent Transpeople from getting healthcare alongside anything else that conservatives don't like. Pretty soon it will be birth control, vasectomy procedures, and IVF.

ScazarMeltex posted...

And yet it was used to overturn Roe V Wade and will now likely be used to prevent Transpeople from getting healthcare alongside anything else that conservatives don't like. Pretty soon it will be birth control, vasectomy procedures, and IVF.

But it can be used to end healthcare period if they wanted it to.

Wait.

Is that the end game?

wow fuck this

ScazarMeltex posted...

And yet it was used to overturn Roe V Wade

Which is hilarious in the first place seeing as we as a nation have been vehemently arguing over it for over 50 years. It's most definitely rooted in our history.

who gives a shit if it's deeply rooted in the nation's history, trans people deserve healthcare just like everyone else. fuck these conservative dipshits. things don't need to be rooted in the nation's history to be the right thing to do. the nation's history is rife with injustices.

theAteam posted...

Which is hilarious in the first place seeing as we as a nation have been vehemently arguing over it for over 50 years. It's most definitely rooted in our history.

We're we, though?
"What if, not that?"
"lalalala I'm not listening lalala settled law lalalala"
...repeat for fifty years

creativerealms posted...

What does that even mean? Why do things need to be "rooted in our nation's history?" That sounds like nonsense words.

The case is whether the ban violates substantive due process rights, which in this case is the claimed "fundamental right" for parents to direct healthcare decisions regarding their transgender child in the transitioning process.

The test for those claimed rights not expressly derived from those listed in the BoR is whether such rights are deeply rooted in American history/ideology (muh freebrams, basically). This test has been further divided down two pathways: there is the originalist/conservative approach, and the liberal approach.

The former takes the test to its absolute extreme: did the right actually exist or is it otherwise closely attached to a right that actually existed throughout the early days of the nation. This is, of course, moronic and easily twisted. There of course existed the right for parents to direct the healthcare of their children, but not specifically for transgender-oriented healthcare. Thus, this result.

The liberal approach looks to the spirit of closely related rights. It reaches the same point described above, but instead concludes that this is one other facet of healthcare a parent may direct for their child. Thus, the ban would violate the Due Process Clause.

Might as well ban modern medicine if that was tge case and go back to using cocaine.

Time to ban all rights past the first 10 years of American history.

This argument is deeply fucked up. I hate everything

Sounds like just openly saying they want to go back to the past where white landowners got to do everything and everyone else could eat shit

No fucking joke. Next you'll tell me modern computer systems aren't deeply rooted in American history. Times change, you dinosaurs.

It's amazing how some people are so deeply committed to being on the wrong side of history

We cant have this thing now because it used to not exist before now.

Obvious bullshit reason. It's a shame how backwards this country is going and how trans people are getting more and more oppressed. It's also a shame how goddamn nazis are just able to do basically whatever they want with no actual consequences. Guess I better learn to love my male body/self, because as someone in a red state, I have no other choice.

The nation changes, therefore the laws should change with the times. Quit pearl clutching the past. If we limited ourselves to what was at the roots of our history, life expectancy be a lot lower.

texanfan27 posted...

The nation changes, therefore the laws should change with the times. Quit pearl clutching the past. If we limited ourselves to what was at the roots of our history, life expectancy be a lot lower.

But muh heritage.

America is far too obsessed with the opinions of a couple dead slavers.

Republicans:

Trans Healthcare? You know, we're not sure if it's been around long enough

Roe V Wade? Is 50 years really long enough to be a cornerstone of this country

The confederacy? 5 years? Well sign me up partner!

That's a really mealy mouthed way to prop up bigotry