The Supreme Court's involvement in United States v. Skrmetti raises critical questions about the implications of Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming therapies, particularly regarding civil rights and health risks.
The argument that Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care will eliminate medical risk is fundamentally flawed, ignoring the established advantages of these therapies and undermining healthcare best practices.
Tennessee's use of medical regulatory authority as justification for its ban illustrates a troubling trend where anti-LGBTQ+ laws are passed under the guise of health and safety.
Historically, similar tactics have been employed by anti-abortion lawmakers, who argue they are protecting lives while effectively endangering both pregnant individuals and fetuses under restrictive laws.
Collection
[
|
...
]