Hats off to the U.S. Supreme Court for stepping in to address one of today’s most critical (and debated) issues.

This Wednesday, the court will hear a case that may clarify the extent of state powers regarding medical decisions for children questioning their gender identity.

Currently, 26 states have enacted laws prohibiting “gender-affirming care,” a term that may seem harmless yet could profoundly impact a young person’s future.

The Supreme Court’s involvement concerns a challenge to a law in Tennessee, which prohibits administering puberty blockers, hormones, or surgeries to minors experiencing gender dysphoria — a disconnect between one’s biological sex and gender identity. The court’s task will be to ascertain if this law breaches the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

A small number of states have also attempted to restrict access to these treatments for adults. Though this warrants discussion, adults generally possess greater autonomy regarding their life choices.

In contrast, involving children in such decisions raises distinct concerns.

Medical Science on Gender Interventions Remains Uncertain

Advocates of medical interventions for youth often claim the scientific consensus is established and crucial for children’s health; however, this is not accurate.

There is currently insufficient long-term data to determine the safety of puberty blockers (which halt normal puberty) and other medications, along with their unknown effects or potential risks.

This uncertainty has led several European countries, often seen as more progressive than the U.S., to pause these treatments until more evidence is available.

Additionally, the Tennessee law bans sex reassignment surgeries for teenagers, but the Supreme Court will not address this aspect as a lower court dismissed a challenge to this part of the legislation.

The state argues that it seeks to protect minors from making irreversible decisions until they comprehend the long-term consequences, or until scientific understanding evolves sufficiently for a reassessment of these treatments.

While some U.S. medical organizations still endorse gender-affirming care for minors, others recommend a more measured approach.

For example, earlier this year, the president of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons announced his refusal to perform these surgeries on minors due to uncertainty about their appropriateness.

“I do not perform gender-affirming care in adolescents because I believe the current data does not support such procedures,” Dr. Steven Williams stated at that time.

Safeguard Children Against Experimental Medical Practices

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Biden administration are backing three families and a healthcare provider in contesting the Tennessee law.

The ACLU plans to present arguments similar to those made in a previous case it handled concerning a transgender individual terminated from a Michigan funeral home. The court ruled in favor of transgender rights in that instance, which centered on workplace discrimination laws including gender matters.

However, this case presents different stakes since it involves minors and uncertain scientific knowledge.

The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which has supported similar youth treatment bans in various states, has submitted an amicus brief advocating for state rights to shield children from “experimental medical procedures.”

“We are extremely concerned regarding the administration of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to children with gender dysphoria,” the lawyers contend. “Extensive reviews worldwide have highlighted (a) an inadequate basis for endorsing such practices, and (b) the potential risks to children surpass any presumed benefits.”

“Given the high stakes and uncertain scientific landscape, this caution is justifiable.”

This seems like a reasonable stance to hold.

States like Tennessee that desire to implement protective measures for children should be permitted to do so.