Thread: Fl. appeals Hinkle’s injunction on Fl’s law banning minors' sex altering surgery

.
See: Florida appeals two rulings regarding gender-affirming care

"The state is appealing two rulings this month by a federal judge that rejected efforts to limit treatments such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender people."

.
Also see: DeSantis signs Florida ban on transgender treatment for minors
.

"This will permanently outlaw the mutilation of minors," DeSantis said at a bill-signing ceremony in Tampa.

"I mean they're trying to do sex change operations on minors, giving them puberty blockers and doing things that are irreversible to them," the Republican governor said."

Judge Hinkle’s injunction flagrantly subjugates a State’s Tenth Amendment inherent regulatory authority dealing with minors, e.g., drinking, driving, age limits on marrying, etc.

.

JWK


Our federal Constitution is not a rubber ruler, subject to the whims and fancies of shadow government authoritarians.

…
See: Federal appeals court allows Tennessee ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors to take effect

"After determining the law, Senate Bill 1, likely violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, a district court had previously issued an injunction on the law’s enforcement across the state. However, the state of Tennessee appealed and moved for an emergency stay of the district court’s order.

“Because Tennessee is likely to succeed on its appeal of the preliminary injunction, we grant the stay,” a panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Saturday."

It’s more than likely the same will happen with Judge Hinkle’s ruling on Florida’s law . . . his injunction will be put on hold, as applied to minors.

.
The federal appeals court that lifted an injunction against Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors confirms why Judge Hinkle's ruling is totally incompetent as a judge. For example, scroll to page 8 of THE COURT’S RULING allowing the ban to be re-activated, which shreds Hinkle’s activism.

The ruling also addresses the ludicrous charge of parental rights, equal protection, due process and in this particular situation, where irreversible damage may be a consequence to the child from an experimental treatment.

Judge Hinkle obviously imposed his personal views and ignored the rule of law.​

As pointed out in The UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS RULING, which reinstated Tennessee’s ban on sex-altering procedures on minors and parallels the Florida case, the court points out:

"Equal protection. “No state,” the Fourteenth Amendment says, “shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Statutory classifications are ordinarily valid if they are rationally related to and further a legitimate state interest. San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 55 (1973)." . . .

“It’s highly unlikely, as an initial matter, that the plaintiffs could show that the Act lacks a rational basis. The State plainly has authority, in truth a responsibility, to look after the health and safety of its children. In this area of unfolding medical and policy debate, a State has more rather than fewer options. Tennessee could rationally take the side of caution before permitting irreversible medical treatments of its children.”

Also pointed out by the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS:

“. . . state legislatures play a critical role in regulating health and welfare, and their efforts are usually “entitled to a ‘strong presumption of validity.’” Dobbs, 142 S. Ct. at 2284 (quotation omitted); Planned Parenthood Cincinnati Region v. Taft, 444 F.3d 502, 505 (6th Cir. 2006). As a result, federal courts must be vigilant not to “substitute” their views for those of legislatures, Dobbs, 142 S. Ct. at 2284, a caution that is particularly apt when construing unenumerated guarantees, see Collins, 503 U.S. at 125. Judicial deference is especially appropriate where “medical and scientific uncertainty” exists. Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 163 (2007); see also Marshall v. United States, 414 U.S. 417, 427 (1974); Collins v. Texas, 223 U.S. 288, 297–98 (1912).”


Judge Hinkle went beyond his constitutionally assigned duties and second guessed the Florida Legislatures’ exclusive power to enact regulatory and policing laws.


JWK


…..we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress' action, however, is not within our province to second guess.
_________ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003)

.
See: This ruling on Tennessee’s transgender treatment law could disrupt the status quo

By Nicole Russell July 14, 2023

"Tenesesee’s law bans minors from receiving any kind of transitioning treatment. In this decision, Sutton argues that the ban is neutral on the issue of sex since both sexes are prohibited from gender-related treatments. Thus, Sutton determines Tennessee’s law should stand. Sutton’s ruling demonstrates such a unique, strong stance on the issue that Vox’s Ian Millhiser worried the ruling in this case “potentially sets up LGBTQ Americans for a historic loss in the Supreme Court.”

Sutton’s opinion reads, in part:"

“The Act bans gender-affirming care for minors of both sexes. The ban thus applies to all minors, regardless of their biological birth with male or female sex organs. That prohibition does not prefer one sex to the detriment of the other. The Act mentions the word “sex,” true. But how could it not? That is the point of the existing hormone treatments—to help a minor transition from one gender to another. That also explains why it bans procedures that administer cross-sex hormones but not those that administer naturally occurring hormones. A cisgender girl cannot transition through use of estrogen; only testosterone will do that. A cisgender boy cannot transition through use of testosterone; only estrogen will do that.”

It should also be noted that there is nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment’s text, or its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text, prohibiting state law which make distinctions based upon “sex”. In fact, the only provision in our federal Constitution which does prohibit distinctions in law based upon “sex” is the Nineteenth Amendment:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."


Judge Hinkle’s injunction flagrantly subjugates a State’s Tenth Amendment regulatory authority dealing with minors, e.g., drinking, driving, age limits on marrying, etc. And that is in addition to interfering with Florida's Tenth Amendment regulatory authority over its healthcare industry.

JWK

Our Constitution is not a rubber ruler, subject to the whims and fancies of shadow government authoritarians.

.

SEE: International endocrinologists speak out against US gender transition medicine

July 14, 2023

"A group of 21 international endocrinology clinicians and researchers from nine countries signed an open letter published yesterday arguing that gender transition medicine for minors has been pushed in the United States for political reasons rather than based on medical evidence."

The article goes on to point out that ". . . the risks of life-long sterility and medical dependency, as well as continued mental trauma, have greater certainty than the little-supported evidence in favor of hormonal transition."

Judge Hinkle used his office of public trust to impose his personal predilections as the rule of law, rather than being obedient to his oath of office and our Constitution, part of which, under the Tenth Amendment, reserves to the States and people therein all power not delegated to the United States, and that includes regulating its medical industry.

JWK

Our Constitution is not a rubber ruler, subject to the whims and fancies of shadow government authoritarians.

.
See: How the 14th Amendment is changing the fight for gender-affirming care for minors

“U.S. District Judge Jay Moody struck down Tuesday Arkansas' first-in-the-nation ban as unconstitutional, arguing it violated young people's right to equal protection under the law and due process, and those of their parents.”

Under “III. Conclusions of Law, (B. Equal Protection)”, Judge Moody WRITES:

“The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment “is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.”

But what Judge Moody writes is an outright lie.

The text of the Clause in question, and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text, simple commands, whatever a State’s laws are, a person within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal application of those specific laws.

Keep in mind, unlike the Nineteenth Amendment which does in fact prohibit a distinction in law based upon “sex” with respect to the right to vote, the Clause which Judge Moody points to does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law based upon sex or age, and, its documented legislative intent was specifically intended and limited to forbid distinctions in law based upon “race, color or previous condition of slavery”.

The irrefutable fact is, under the Clause in question, whatever laws are adopted by a State with regard to sex or age, the State may not deny to any person, blacks and whites alike, within its jurisdiction, the equal application of those specific laws.

Judge Moody is perpetuating the big lie that the Fourteenth Amendment altered the States’ and people therein, their Tenth Amendment reserved powers to enact laws making distinctions based upon sex and/or age. Judge Moody ignores the fact that the “Equal Rights Amendment” was wisely rejected by the American People in the 1980s which would have, if adopted, prohibited distinctions in law based upon sex.

Moody also goes on to argue the Arkansas law fails because it is not rationally based in his opinion. Of course, this violates our system’s separation of powers which prohibits a judge from substituting their personal views for those of the peoples’ elected Legislature, and in so doing, Judge Moody flagrantly violates our Constitution’s guarantee to a “Republican Form of Government” under which the people's elected legislature has the exclusive authority to enact law.

Finally, Judge Moody argues the law violates due process within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. He writes, the “… Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids states to “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law....” The reference made is to State action and applies to “any person” as opposed to “citizens of the United States” and it expressly forbids every State to deprive any “person [within its jurisdiction] of life, liberty, or property without due process of . . . ” a State’s laws.

Due process of law refers to procedure and the administration of justice in accordance with established rules and principles. In the instant case the state of Arkansas is well within constitutional limits. Every one of the United States has adopted regulations based upon age, e.g., drinking, driving, age limits on marrying, etc.


The Arkansas Legislature, considering the fact our medical community is not of one mind on this issue with respect to children, and more importantly, that a child involved will have to live with an irreversible sex-altering procedure which others have made on the child's behalf, has passed lawful legislation designed to prohibit such procedures on minors until a reasonable age of maturity is reached by the child, who will then be in a better position to make such a life altering choice on their own.

The bottom line is, Judge Moody went beyond his constitutionally assigned duties and second guessed the Arkansas Legislatures’ exclusive power to enact regulatory and policing laws with respect to minors and medical procedures.

JWK

…..we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress' action, however, is not within our province to second guess. __ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003)

.
SEE: Arkansas to ‘Fight’ Ruling Against Ban on Gender Transition Procedures for Minors

"Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Tuesday that Arkansas will “fight” a federal judge’s ruling that struck down the state’s ban on gender transition procedures for minors.

U.S. District Judge Jay Moody, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, issued a permanent injunction against the Arkansas law on Tuesday, declaring the state’s ban on gender transition procedures unconstitutional."

The article goes on to mention that Gov. Sanders wrote on Twitter after the ruling: “This is not ‘care’—it’s activists pushing a political agenda at the expense of our kids and subjecting them to permanent and harmful procedures.”

.
Governor Sanders is spot on!

JWK

Just because we [the courts] do not think the legislators have acted wisely or responsibly does not give us the right to assume their duties or to substitute our judgment for theirs. Hillis v. Department of Ecology, 131 Wash. 2d 373, 932 P.2d 139 (1997).

.
See: Gov Huckabee Sanders fires back at Obama-appointed judge blocking ban on sex change treatments for kids

"Judge James M. Moody Jr., a senior district judge appointed by former President Obama, recently struck down the Save Adolescents From Experimentation (SAFE) Act, legislation banning life altering sex change treatments for children.

"This is not ‘care’– it’s activists pushing a political agenda at the expense of our kids and subjecting them to permanent and harmful procedures," Sanders said in a statement. "Only in the far-Left’s woke vision of America is it not appropriate to protect children."

SEE: Federal judge blocks Arizona law banning transgender athletes from girls’ sports teams


Obama’s appointed judge, Jennifer Guerin Zipps, has perpetuated an outright lie that the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the States, and people therein, from adopting laws which make a distinction based upon sex. The fact is, the states and people therein wisely rejected the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1980s which would have, if adopted, prohibited distinctions in law based upon sex. The Nineteenth Amendment is the only amendment in our federal Constitution which does in fact prohibit a distinction in law based upon “sex”, but that prohibition is specifically with respect to the right to vote, being denied based upon sex.


The irrefutable fact is, the Fourteen Amendment’s clause which judge Jennifer Guerin Zipps relies upon to block Arizona’s law, was specifically adopted and intended to forbid distinctions in state laws in a very narrow area, i.e., based upon “race, color or previous condition of slavery”, and does not, nor was it intended to, preclude a State’s Legislature to enact laws making distinctions based upon sex which in the wisdom of the State’s Legislature promotes the general welfare of the people of Arizona.


Judge Jennifer Guerin Zipps, violated her oath to support and defend our Constitution, and especially so with respect to our system’s separations of powers between its Executive, Legislature and Judiciary, when she took it upon herself to substitute her personal judgement for that of the Arizona’s elected Legislature, and for that she ought to be punished and removed from her office of public trust.

JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968