The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments over a Tennessee law that bans doctors from giving transgender puberty blockers or hormone treatments to minors (or, as supporters call it, "gender-affirming care"). Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, who argued for the law in front of the Supreme Court, joins Glenn to review what happened, what’s coming next, and what evidence he has that these procedures should be banned for kids.
Transcript
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: Many of us look at transgender care, as butchering.
As insanity. As something that honestly returns to the Weimar republic of the 1920s.
This has been around for a while, and it's junk science. And it's dangerous to our children. Look, you're an adult, you can do what you want, I guess.
But when children are affected. That's what's in front of the Supreme Court, and the guy who brought this case to the Supreme Court, is the Tennessee attorney general.
Mr. Attorney General, Jonathan, how are you, sir?
JONATHAN: Great. Great. Thanks for having me on.
GLENN: So I listened to the case. And I don't know how you your head didn't explode with some of the questions that were coming from some of those on the left. Sotomayor for one. But overall, how did you feel it went?
JONATHAN: I think we did a great job of getting our points across. I mean, it went on for two and a half hours or so.
The court asked a lot of questions. They're clearly thinking hard about this.
It will be a long time, before we get our opinion. I think we did everything we could, to win this case. I feel really good about our part about this.
And now it's up to the justices.
GLENN: You know, there was a -- well, first of all, tell me exactly what the case was.
What does it actually cover, and what will it do, if it's decided in -- in favor of Tennessee?
JONATHAN: So we have a law in Tennessee, a journal assembly law that prohibits giving juveniles puberty blocker, hormone treatments, or surgery for the purpose of gender transition. Surgery was not an issue in this case.
So this was just about whether the Constitution presents the state from banning puberty blockers or treatments for the purpose of gender transition.
So if we win, our kids will remain in effect, and kids won't be able to be subject to that in Tennessee.
Potentially, depending on how we win, it could mean that all laws dealing with gender identity, are reviewed under a rational basis standard.
Which gives the people's elected representatives, a lot more latitude. As to how they regulate.
GLENN: You know, when you were -- when you were discussing this, and it was Justice Sotomayor that said, every medication has, you know, side effect.
Even aspirin has side effects.
I don't know how you took that question seriously.
But you answered it very well.
Explain to the average person, why this is so different, than anything else, that is prescribed for kids.
JONATHAN: Every systematic analysis of the evidence shows little to no benefit for kids.
From these treatments for gender dysphoria.
Meanwhile, the risks are enormous. They face losing fertility for the rest of their lives, never being able to have children.
They risk having -- kids don't know what they're giving up. They risk tumors and blood clots and cognitive disorders and bone density disorders. All sorts of serious life-long medical complications.
And, meanwhile, the evidence is, this doesn't help them.
You're talking about very severe physical interventions for psychological
Problems.
With no evidence, that it's helping them with the psychological problems.
And so we're looking at a situation, where kids are really at risk.
Where there's not a good medical reason for putting them at risk.
And whether these people say, the Constitution prohibits the state from protecting kids. Even where the evidence is so powerfully in opposition to allowing this to happen, going forward.
GLENN: I think it was Justice Souter who asked the opposite side. What -- you know, you said that the -- the science backs this up.
Well, now we have all this new science, that is coming out.
You want to where a that statement?
What -- what has happened since you started this process, to the evidence, that's coming out, from everywhere now?
VOICE: So there was a lot of evidence beforehand, but the review in England is a large-scale, long-term study by an extremely respected pediatrician, that looked really hard at these issues. It's controversial around the world. You know, England is not a red state. It's not Tennessee. They were making these procedures widely available to kids for a while.
And they looked at the evidence, and they determined that they should not be doing that. That the evidence showed, that this was hurting kids.
They should severely restrict access.
And they did.
And the report gets into it thoroughly.
It's discussed with a lot of specificity with the court.
It shows there's no redemption in suicide. Which is one of the things we constantly hear.
If you don't let kids do this. They will kill themselves.
We don't want kids to kill themselves.
The evidence is doing these life altering interventions doesn't make a difference.
You know, they just looked at a lot of evidence from a lot of kids.
And it showed what we already knew.
Which is that there's no benefit to justify these radical interventions.
GLENN: So what does this mean, if it comes you out, the way we hope it does?
Does this have any effect on bathrooms and -- and -- and sports, or anything else?
JONATHAN: It really depends on what the court does.
There's a way that we could win. That's at that only deals with kid's transitions. Or there's a way that we could win that's broader. The court says the gender identity issues do not rise to the level of intermediate scrutiny of the Constitution.
In which case, a lot of the litigation of what we're facing with bathrooms. And school sports.
All the things that people have sued over. Are pretty easy to solve.
GLENN: Did you see any indication that any of the judges were leaning that way.
Were there any questions that made you -- gave you any indication that that was possible, or probable?
JONATHAN: It's -- there are -- there are indications that the justices are thinking about it. There were questions about sports that came up.
But I don't know whether that means, they're thinking about issuing a broad opinion, or they're just concerned about, you know, the potential effects.
And, you know, they want to think through exactly how this is going to play out. Because there's no constitutional law from the Supreme Court, on gender identity stuff.
We have one case about a very narrow, very he specifically worded statute.
And the lower courts have been all over the place. They need guidance. They need clarity on this issue.
GLENN: You know, you can't go into a tattoo parlor, if you're young, without parental -- parental permission.
You can't buy a gun, at 12, or 16.
You can't get married. There's all these laws, because we know, there -- you're not mentally prepared to make those kinds of decisions.
How does that logic not work for this issue?
JONATHAN: You know, there's this argument that it's sex discrimination.
Therefore, the Constitution provides a heightened level of scrutiny.
But we have done this forever.
To treat people differently based on their age. Kids can't consent to things that will have lifelong consequences.
Whether it's entering a contract or smoking a cigarette, the consequences for these procedures are so much more profound, and we think we have a strong argument that the state should be able to regulate this. Particularly, given the evidence, that it makes no difference. That it does not help. And it increases the risk of all these different horrible outcomes for the kids.
GLENN: The other side just seems, quite honestly.
And I don't mean to slam people. They seem unhinged.
I want you to listen.
This is a mom standing outside the Supreme Court building while you're arguing the case.
Listen to what she said about her child. Cut four.
VOICE: What motivated to you come out today?
VOICE: We're supporting our child violet.
And her access to the medical care that she needs.
VOICE: Yeah. We're here for her rights. And her ability to be who she is. And she's not going to let anybody silence her. And we're not going to stand in her way.
VOICE: And what age do you think most trans kids determine that they're trans?
VOICE: Mila told us, when she was one and a half. She's been telling us since she could speak.
So she knew since birth.
GLENN: Eighteen months? Eighteen months, she knew?
JONATHAN: Wow. That -- I have a 3-year-old. Last week, she told me she was a pirate.
Like, that's a true story, by the way. Gender dysphoria is a real thing. And it's really hard for kids to deal with it.
We have seen an explosion on these cases, that sure looks like something weird is going on.
And we -- I don't see how it doesn't come out, eventually, that there's massive over diagnosis.
In England, the doctors had over a 4,000 percent increase in the number of girls seeking hormone treatments.
And, you know, the evidence is very, very strong. That the large, large majority of kids, who have any sort of gender identity confusion grow out of it, unless they're put out on medications.
For most kids, this is a passing thing. It doesn't mean that it's not hard for them. Adolescence is really hard, and I have to think gender confusion makes it that much harder.
But most of them are going to grow out of it. And for all of them, the evidence of a benefit is minimal at best.
GLENN: Well, we'll be praying for the Supreme Court, and I thank you so much for you filing suit. And trying to get this corrected.
It's -- it's truly madness.
I don't -- you know, I don't -- I don't care what you do, as an adult.
I mean, I actually do. But it's not my business if you're an adult.
But if you can't decide things like smoking, drinking.
You know, be responsible for -- enough with a gun. You certainly should not be able to do things to your body.
That are permanent. And game-changing.
It's insanity. It's insanity.
We have to stop. Jonathan, thank you so much.
JOHN: It's an honor to be on the show. Thanks for having me, and Merry Christmas!
STU: Merry Christmas!
Jonathan Skrmetti. He is the Tennessee Attorney General, who argued just the day before yesterday, at the Supreme Court.
To protect children from gender procedures.
STU: We should, by the way, take what he said, seriously.
If his 3-year-old is about to plunder passing ships. We should report that to maritime authorities.
GLENN: And don't forget the pillaging and the raping.
STU: Yes!
Immediately. We must take it seriously.
GLENN: We must. If we can save one pillage, or -- pillagette -- pillage -- somebody. If we could save one person from being pillaged.
STU: One. Pillaged, uh-huh.
GLENN: We need to act now.
Isn't it worth it? Isn't it worth it?
