Gov. Spencer Cox of Utah signed a bill on Saturday that blocks minors from receiving gender-transition health care, the first such measure in the country this year in what is expected to be a wave of legislation by state lawmakers to restrict transgender rights.
The law prohibits transgender youth in the state from receiving gender-affirming surgery and places an indefinite ban on hormone therapy, with limited exceptions.
Mr. Cox, a Republican, said in a statement that banning these treatments was necessary until more research could be done on their long-term effects.
“While we understand our words will be of little comfort to those who disagree with us, we sincerely hope that we can treat our transgender families with more love and respect as we work to better understand the science and consequences behind these procedures,” the governor said.
Once again, a State ignores medical science (yes, I know they claim not to), the wishes of parents (so much for "family values") and pushes to harm a significant part of the US population as political theater. I expect this will be struck down in short order. The Supreme Court - particularly the "conservatives" - have long pushed the fundamental interest of parents in the care and raising of children:
"The liberty interest at issue in this case-the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their childrenis perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court. More than 75 years ago, in
Meyer v.
Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 399, 401 (1923), we held that the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause includes the right of parents to "establish a home and bring up children" and "to control the education of their own." Two years later, in
Pierce v.
Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510, 534-535 (1925), we again held that the "liberty of parents and guardians" includes the right "to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control." We explained in
Pierce that "[t]he child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."
Id., at 535. We returned to the subject in
Prince v.
Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158 (1944), and again confirmed that there is a constitutional dimension to the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. "It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder."
Id., at 166.
Continued.
