Skrmetti: Conservatives are constructing a bad-faith argument against trans rights at the Supreme Court. It’s worked for them before.

We’ve seen this movie before: Conservatives defending a state ban on medical care at the Supreme Court claim that their ban isn’t actually a ban, cite European restrictions on the same care that fail to prove their point, and dangle cherry-picked stats about patient regret, with some discussion of eugenics sprinkled in. Thomas wrote in a 2019 concurrence that an Indiana ban on abortion due to fetal diagnoses should be upheld because states have “compelling interest in preventing abortion from becoming a tool of modern-day eugenics.” Thomas then drew a comparison to state- Leaving Rights to the States It seemed that the court’s preferred solution is to let gender-affirming care for minors remain a state issue. The Constitution’s neutral on the question.” So, in the face of conflicting arguments on gender-affirming care from the government and multiple states, why not leave it to the “democratic process”? As ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio told Kavanaugh of his proposed states’ rights off-ramp, “It’s important to recognize that my friend’s arguments would equally apply to a nationwide ban if this were enacted by Congress.” Advocates have also warned that the court’s blessing sex discrimination in medical treatment could greenlight state and federal bans on other care, like birth control and in vitro fertilization. Consider this Washington Post headline: “Supreme Court Seems Wary of Blocking Tennessee’s Ban on Transgender Care for Minors.” Or this New York Times push alert: “The Supreme Court appears inclined to uphold a Tennessee law blocking some medical treatments for transgender youth.” Some people will see this coverage, think to themselves, I don’t live in Tennessee, not my problem, or Good, they should wait until they’re 18 to pursue that kind of care, and not read anything further, despite people’s screaming that many more rights are at risk.