Fl. appeals Judge Hinkle’s injunction on Florida’s law banning sex altering surgery on minors

[johnwk]

.
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.

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

millions of libturds can't wait to get their hands on 7 yr olds

we need to start executing deviants stalin style

 

[johngaltshrugged]

Most states won't even allow a minor to get a tattoo because it's a permanent body alteration... but cutting their junk off is okie dokie.

The judicial system is run by circus clowns on a power trip

 

[Votto]

Leftists, SCOTUS awaits you.

 

[Polishprince]

Its pretty fucking stupid getting a Sex Change operation if you are a fucking adult. It isn't like surgery can make a dude into a broad. A fellow with his junk lopped off isn't suddenly a chick. He's just a literally dickless dude.

Maybe there isn't much you can do to protect adults from themselves, and it might not be that wise to try.

But these are Minors. Protecting people who just aren't that wise yet is part of society.

 

[johnwk]

Its pretty fucking stupid getting a Sex Change operation if you are a fucking adult. It isn't like surgery can make a dude into a broad. A fellow with his junk lopped off isn't suddenly a chick. He's just a literally dickless dude.

Maybe there isn't much you can do to protect adults from themselves, and it might not be that wise to try.

But these are Minors. Protecting people who just aren't that wise yet is part of society.

The sexual deviant extremist crowd is very clear about their intentions!
.

 

[johnwk]

Ban on sex altering procedure for minors in Tennessee goes back into effect!

…
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.

 

[johnwk]

Most states won't even allow a minor to get a tattoo because it's a permanent body alteration... but cutting their junk off is okie dokie.

The judicial system is run by circus clowns on a power trip

.
Reasons why a federal court put Tennessee’s ban on “gender-affirming care” back in effect.
.

The federal appeals court that lifted an injunction against Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors confirms your thinking with respect to Judge Hinkle’s total incompetency 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.​

 

[johnwk]

Most states won't even allow a minor to get a tattoo because it's a permanent body alteration... but cutting their junk off is okie dokie.

The judicial system is run by circus clowns on a power trip

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)

 

[Augustine_]

Most states won't even allow a minor to get a tattoo because it's a permanent body alteration... but cutting their junk off is okie dokie.

The judicial system is run by circus clowns on a power trip

You stupid fucks actually believe that's happening

 

[TNHarley]

You stupid fucks actually believe that's happening

Link after link after link has been posted. And you fucking perverts STILL say this lie.

 

[bodecea]

millions of libturds can't wait to get their hands on 7 yr olds

we need to start executing deviants stalin style

MAGAt accusations that always end up being con-fessions.

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

MAGAt accusations that always end up being con-fessions.

medusa.....that was so lame even for you

 

[johnwk]

The UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS' Tennessee RULING, (a case which parallels Florida's ban), established Judge Hinkle went beyond his constitutionally assigned duties and second guessed the Florida Legislatures' exclusive power to enact regulatory and policing laws.

As 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)."

And the above statement about second guessing the Legislatures wisdom was also pointed out in ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003)

"…..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."

 

[themirrorthief]

The sexual deviant extremist crowd is very clear about their intentions!
.

if you cant abort them...mutilate them.....hooray for insanity

 

[johnwk]

if you cant abort them...mutilate them.....hooray for insanity

Most rational thinking people don't give two twits if adults want to have medical procedures which delude them into thinking they are now of the opposite sex.

But with respect to Florda's law, we are talking about preventing elective irreversible medical sex-altering procedures which a minor will have to live with that others have made on the child's behalf. This is a heinous type of child abuse . . . one of the worst kinds!

 

[johnwk]

Court of Appeals confirms ban on gender care for minors does not discriminate on the basis of sex
See: This ruling on Tennessee’s transgender treatment law could disrupt the status quo[/URL]

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’s inherent regulatory authority dealing with minors, e.g., drinking, driving, age limits on marrying, etc.

JWK

Our Constitution is not a rubber ruler, subject to the whims and fancies of shadow government authoritarians.

 

[Blaster]

Minors should not receive transgender surgery.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

You stupid fucks actually believe that's happening

Holy cow! I thought you were stupid but this takes the cake.

Hopefully you have no children to inherit your clear brain damage

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Any parent attempting to physically alter their child via surgery or drugs should PERMANENTLY lose custody for life.

Any doctor performing said activities should be summarily EXECUTED after being found guilty. NO APPEALS