In a Supreme Court brief, 82 GOP legislators cite the Bible to oppose gender-affirming health care
A group of 82 conservative lawmakers from state legislatures across the country joined forces with the far-right Christian fundamentalist American Family Association to author a 42-page brief that cites the Bible to advocate for a total ban on gender-affirming care in relation to the Supreme Court case The United States v. Skrmetti.
The brief features many prominent anti-transgender Republican politicians across the country, including Ohio State Rep. Gary Click, Idaho State Sen. Tammy Nichols, Arkansas State Rep. Robin Lundstrum, Nebraska State Rep. Kathleen Kauth, and Texas State Sen. Bob Hall, alongside several dozen other lawmakers.
Related:
The brief begins by criticizing trans advocacy as “identity politics” and instead advocates for a conservative perspective.
Stay connected to your community
Connect with the issues and events that impact your community at home and beyond by subscribing to our newsletter.
“Petitioners’ identity politics is a vision of public policy fundamentally at odds with the original meaning of the Constitution and the biblical and classical tradition that influenced the Founders [of the U.S.],” it states.
When citing previous authorities for support in their argument, they include multiple sections of the Bible, along with opinions from the Founding Fathers. The brief also refers to the “WPATH Files,” which are a series of leaked documents alleging that the World Professional Association for Transgender Health has political ties. These files, however, largely contain information relating to internal policy debates and individual members’ opinions, and do not reveal anything scandalous about the organization.
Admitting a lack of scientific backing for their argument — they refer to leading medical organizations as the “scientific establishment” — the authors instead advocate for “self-control” in regards to “passions” and “impulses,” which they use to suggest that trans youth should be forced to either de-transitioned or prevented from transitioning in the first place. Instead, the brief argues, various adult authorities should practice said “self-control” to stop trans minors from pursuing their gender identity’s expression.
The brief continues with a lengthy argument that no one’s “subjective” sense of self should be used to dictate policy, in spite of this often being the case for public policies protecting self-identified religious people. The brief argues Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1(S.B. The brief argues that Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1 (S.B. 1), which prohibits all gender affirming care for minors restricts care based upon age and “mental status” and is not discriminatory. The brief does not address individual arguments or the fact that puberty-blockers and hormones have been used on children safely for decades in order to treat early puberty, cancers and other medical conditions. The brief then argues against overturning S.B. The brief argues that overturning S.B. 1 would lead to the opening of a Pandora’s Box, which could result in other identities – such as neurodiversity or alcohol use disorder – being protected against Signatories of the brief do not refer to the Americans with Disabilities Act which was used to extend protections for these identity categories. The brief also falsely claims that there is not enough medical history to support trans youth transitioning, even though its history dates back hundreds of years. The brief also falsely claims that there is insufficient medical history to support trans youth transitioning, even though its history goes back hundreds of years.
Throughout this document, many passages reflect back on Christianity and the need to recognize God and the Founders as supreme authorities on legal matters in the United States.
United States v. Skrmetti is a legal case concerning Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1, a sweeping ban on gender-affirming care for minors across the state. The Supreme Court is the final authority in this case, as both the District Court of Tennessee and the Appeals Court have allowed the ban. This case is expected to have sweeping effects by determining how gender-affirming care and other types of healthcare, like abortion, are regulated across the United States for years to come.
Subscribe to the
LGBTQ Nation newsletter
and be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.
Don’t forget to share:
