“The LGB Courage Coalition rejects the notion that the SB99 ruling defines Montana’s path forward.”
If only a single judge struck down SB99, then I’d probably agree with you. But the fact that it was struck down by judges AND the Montana Supreme Court (which doesn’t even have a Democrat majority) makes it hard to think they wouldn’t rule a similar way on other transgender related bills. I mean, if they don’t think kids should be protected from gender medicine, why would they want to protect those harmed by it?
Makes me wonder which billionaire transgender donors (like Hyatt family Pritzker) wallets have aided these judges in their 'decision making.' We need to be following the money because something reeks of bribery, especially when medical evidence overwhelmingly points to gender mutilation as the cruelest malpractice. Also why was the John's Hopkins study proving these treatments made suicidality worse was covered up by the trans activists and quacks as Joanna Kennedy-Olsen? Seems like covering up any clinical trial proving certain drugs are harmful for a particular treatment would be illegal and at the very least fraud. I hope the Trump administration and Pam Bondi look into this and hold accountable quacks who cover up scientific proof of harm.
Proud donator to LGB Courage Coalition here: This is a brilliant, perfectly pitched piece of reporting. Thank you also for providing a link to Elle Palmer's articulate, compelling testimony. I posted both in Substack notes. With grateful thanks to you all for your dedication and superb advocacy.
People should always keep in mind that lawsuits are tried with the best half truths, misleading information, testimony from carefully selected supposedly expert witnesses who are rarely disinterested in the outcome, and occasionally outright lies the parties think they can get away with. "Junk science" is the bane of the process. Litigation is easily the least reliable way to decide difficult questions, especially those such as medical or scientific issues.
The saying goes "hard cases make bad law." While most of the readers of this Substack, including myself, would consider this an "easy" case - one where they clearly got it wrong and should have found that there was a rational basis for the regulation of an out-of-control medical community which is experimenting on young people with no scientific basis and clear harm being inflicted -- it's a hard case in the sense that both sides will bring lots of information, documents, and "expert" witnesses that directly conflict with each other.
Because court cases aren't really meant to create policy, we don't regulate any industries through the Courts. We use legislation. Unfortunately, the courts are inappropriately interfering with the legislation with respect to this issue by claiming the legislation is somehow prejudicial.
The only way to combat this is by making the public aware of what's actually happening, so people (and eventually judges) stop assuming that any limitations on medical transition are mean-spirited and narrow-minded. We have to make the public aware that what's really happening is that (proto and actual) gays and lesbians and vulnerable young people (autistic, anxious, socially awkward, traumatized, in foster care, etc.) are being converted into less healthy medical patients through medical harm under the guise of allowing people to become their "true, authentic selves" (a more untrue notion is hard to imagine).
To me, it's a scandal how much "big law" is assisting, pro bono, in this anti-gay litigation. I haven't tried to make an exhaustive list, just occasional checks out of curiosity. I found Sullivan and Cromwell in the Arkansas case (eight of their lawyers listed on the pleadings), WilmerHale on the DOJ's effort to force West Virginia's Medicaid to cover wrong sex hormones, and Baker and Botts, James Baker's firm, in the assault on Dr Haim.
Clear grounds for appeal if the judge relied on WPATH.
Yes, the HHS report documents and summarizes the issues with wpath and as a federal document it is surely admissible.
“The LGB Courage Coalition rejects the notion that the SB99 ruling defines Montana’s path forward.”
If only a single judge struck down SB99, then I’d probably agree with you. But the fact that it was struck down by judges AND the Montana Supreme Court (which doesn’t even have a Democrat majority) makes it hard to think they wouldn’t rule a similar way on other transgender related bills. I mean, if they don’t think kids should be protected from gender medicine, why would they want to protect those harmed by it?
Makes me wonder which billionaire transgender donors (like Hyatt family Pritzker) wallets have aided these judges in their 'decision making.' We need to be following the money because something reeks of bribery, especially when medical evidence overwhelmingly points to gender mutilation as the cruelest malpractice. Also why was the John's Hopkins study proving these treatments made suicidality worse was covered up by the trans activists and quacks as Joanna Kennedy-Olsen? Seems like covering up any clinical trial proving certain drugs are harmful for a particular treatment would be illegal and at the very least fraud. I hope the Trump administration and Pam Bondi look into this and hold accountable quacks who cover up scientific proof of harm.
They are misinformed. How does one change that?
Proud donator to LGB Courage Coalition here: This is a brilliant, perfectly pitched piece of reporting. Thank you also for providing a link to Elle Palmer's articulate, compelling testimony. I posted both in Substack notes. With grateful thanks to you all for your dedication and superb advocacy.
People should always keep in mind that lawsuits are tried with the best half truths, misleading information, testimony from carefully selected supposedly expert witnesses who are rarely disinterested in the outcome, and occasionally outright lies the parties think they can get away with. "Junk science" is the bane of the process. Litigation is easily the least reliable way to decide difficult questions, especially those such as medical or scientific issues.
The saying goes "hard cases make bad law." While most of the readers of this Substack, including myself, would consider this an "easy" case - one where they clearly got it wrong and should have found that there was a rational basis for the regulation of an out-of-control medical community which is experimenting on young people with no scientific basis and clear harm being inflicted -- it's a hard case in the sense that both sides will bring lots of information, documents, and "expert" witnesses that directly conflict with each other.
Because court cases aren't really meant to create policy, we don't regulate any industries through the Courts. We use legislation. Unfortunately, the courts are inappropriately interfering with the legislation with respect to this issue by claiming the legislation is somehow prejudicial.
The only way to combat this is by making the public aware of what's actually happening, so people (and eventually judges) stop assuming that any limitations on medical transition are mean-spirited and narrow-minded. We have to make the public aware that what's really happening is that (proto and actual) gays and lesbians and vulnerable young people (autistic, anxious, socially awkward, traumatized, in foster care, etc.) are being converted into less healthy medical patients through medical harm under the guise of allowing people to become their "true, authentic selves" (a more untrue notion is hard to imagine).
To me, it's a scandal how much "big law" is assisting, pro bono, in this anti-gay litigation. I haven't tried to make an exhaustive list, just occasional checks out of curiosity. I found Sullivan and Cromwell in the Arkansas case (eight of their lawyers listed on the pleadings), WilmerHale on the DOJ's effort to force West Virginia's Medicaid to cover wrong sex hormones, and Baker and Botts, James Baker's firm, in the assault on Dr Haim.
Don't forget -- If Pharma is profiting from all the medicalization-- Conservative judges might not rule the way you think they would.