The Supreme Court is hearing 23-477 UNITED STATES V. SKIRMETTI
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-477.html
The argument is regarding whether states have a right to enact legislation protecting children from making life changing detrimental physical changes to affirm their imagined “gender” in opposition to their biological gender.
The plaintiffs argument is claiming the “Equal Protection Clause” of the 14th Amendment prohibits the states from protecting the children.
REQUEST:
Immediately limit the resources for the case:
- At most a few hours/week from a Jr. Trial Lawyer
- At most a few hours/week from a Paralegal
- No funding for external “experts”, consultants, per-diems for supporting witnesses or other support, etc…
RATIONAL:
- Individuals incapable of giving consent should be unable to opt-in to being experimented on with non-approved uses of drugs and medical procedures. Especially if their mental evolution is typically not matured until the age of 25.
- Gender affirming care misrepresents claims of improving the well being of the victims of gender identity disorder (now manipulated to be downgraded to gender dysphoria). This misrepresentation is exposed by the latest research from more topically evolved western countries without healthcare profit motivations / social medicine. Countries like the UK, France, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, etc… are identifying the RISKS to minors far surpassing the benefits of affirming chemical or medical intervention.
- It’s better for the Supreme Court to judge the case and provide the protection for states to protect the children of residents than it is to disrupt the proceedings entirely.
- The taxpayers have already funded gender affirming support by the government, and third parties weaponizing compassion and empathy despite the clear evidence to the contrary, moral, and ethical concerns.
- Taxpayer support includes almost $10M research grant from the NIH with withheld results for years by Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy out of Children’s Hospital Los Angeles that has results that may be detrimental to Dr. Olson-Kennedy’s activism supporting transgenderism. This is also against the wishes of co-authors of the research.