(LifeSiteNews) — Parents do not have a “right” to have their gender-confused children surgically and chemically mutilated, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed recently.
The ruling, Poe v. Drummond, upholds Oklahoma’s protections for minors, which include a general prohibition on permanently damaging transgender drugs and surgeries. These drugs are used in an effort to make gender-confused children look like the opposite sex, such as stimulating facial hair growth in females. Similarly, the surgeries are meant to aid minors in attempting to look like the opposite sex. They include irreversible procedures, such as the removal of breasts – and thus the ability to breastfeed – and other reproductive organs.
Trump appointee Judge Joel Carson wrote the 3-0 decision, joined by George W. Bush appointee Judge Harris Hartz, and Obama appointee Judge Gregory Phillips.
The plaintiffs are not likely to succeed in their lawsuit, the three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit ruled on Wednesday. The case, which included a request for preliminary injunction against the law, was put on hold while the Supreme Court considered a similar suit against Tennessee’s law. However, the Supreme Court ruled in June in a case called U.S. v. Skrmetti that states could prohibit the procedures, at least for minors.
Using a “rational basis review,” the Supreme Court affirmed the legality of Tennessee’s limits “on the basis of age and medical use.” Opponents of the restrictions argued that the state violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution and tried to read “transgender status” into federal law.
However, the 10th Circuit, applying the Supreme Court’s ruling, upheld the age-based restrictions for the procedures. “Rational basis review” means the court will uphold laws “if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification.”
“Oklahoma has a legitimate interest in the health and welfare of its children and using age to determine the accessibility of gender transition procedures rationally relates to that legitimate interest,” the judges ruled.
The judges also said that the state is in the right to differentiate between using the drugs and surgeries for legitimate medical reasons, such as correcting undeveloped reproductive organs, and illegitimate ones, such as a boy who wants to pretend to be a girl.
Oklahoma can argue that it acted rationally, due to “ongoing debates among medical professionals” about the procedures, the court ruled. Indeed, numerous medical organizations, experts, and international bodies have criticized policies pushed by groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics in favor of the surgical and chemical mutilation of children.
“We conclude that Oklahoma’s enactment of SB 613 rationally relates to Oklahoma’s interest in safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of minors in light of the debate among medical experts about the risks and benefits associated with treating a minor’s gender dysphoria with gender transitioning procedures,” the judges concluded.
The judges also ruled against a claim that the law violated the rights of parents and children. Plaintiffs alleged that parents have the “right” to take their children to have their reproductive organs permanently removed.
However, there is no historical right for transgender drugs and surgeries, the judges affirmed. After an analysis, they concluded “there is no deeply rooted tradition in parents’ right to access gender transition procedures for their children.”
“We also have consistently held that individuals do not have an affirmative right to specific medical treatments the government reasonably prohibits,” they added.
The case drew national interest, with Republican states generally siding with Oklahoma, and Democratic states generally siding with the plaintiffs. Advocacy groups also lined up both sides of the case.
The Skrmetti ruling did not automatically end challenges to similar state laws but rather opened the door for states to defend their laws. Soon after that ruling, the nation’s highest court remanded related challenges in North Carolina, West Virginia, and Idaho, as well as this case in Oklahoma, back to lower courts to reconsideration, as LifeSiteNews previously reported.
The Oklahoma ruling drew praise from well-known legal scholar Jonathan Turley.
Professor Turley is a center-left civil libertarian, but he believes the court ruled correctly in this case.
“I have been a strong advocate for parental rights for decades,” the George Washington University professor wrote on his commentary website. “However, such rights are not absolute. The government has a core responsibility in barring practices that may be harmful for minors when based on objective, scientific evidence.”
“I believe that the Tenth Circuit is correct in rejecting the parental rights claim in Poe,” he concluded.
