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.