Recently, a law in the state of Indiana was brought to a Federal Court. I do not think that access to 'gender affirming' care is define in the constitution, so why is the Federal Government involved?
The tenth amendment is clear, if you ask me:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
If anyone reads this and can tell me where in the Constitution this is supposed to be a Federal issue, by all means, use the email link above and let me know. I am stumped. Equal protection for a personal choice? Well, then nullify all DUI's nationwide then. And if the parent is behind it, well, so be it, I guess. On their dime.
- "A federal judge has issued a temporary injunction to block an Indiana ban on puberty blockers and hormones for transgender minors from taking effect on July 1st.
- The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana challenged the Republican-backed law, arguing it would violate the U.S. Constitution's equal protection guarantees and parents' rights to decide medical treatment for their children.
- The judge's order will allow the law's prohibition on gender-affirming surgeries to take effect, but also blocks provisions that prohibit Indiana doctors from communicating with out-of-state doctors about gender-affirming care for patients under 18."