www.newsbusters.org
SCOTUS Upholds TN Ban on Child Hormonal Mutilation: Legacy Media SAD
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States held that Tennessee had a constitutional right to ban hormonal and surgical child mutilation, more commonly referred to by its NewSpeakian nomenclature: “gender-affirming health care.” In covering this landmark ruling, the legacy media chose to identify as “sad.”
The most rational coverage of the ruling comes via the beleaguered CBS Evening News:
CBS EVENING NEWS
6/18/25
6:44 PM
MAURICE DuBOIS: In a major decision today, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors.
JOHN DICKERSON: The ruling was 6-3, with the six conservative justices in the majority. Jan Crawford is with us this evening. Jan, what did the majority say?
JAN CRAWFORD: Well, John, first of all, this case came about when Tennessee, like dozens of other states, passed a law banning the use of puberty blockers, hormones, surgeries, for children who may want to change their biological sex. A group of parents and children, the ACLU, and the Biden Administration sued. They said these laws are unconstitutional, but in that 6-3 ruling written by the Chief Justice, the Court said that people who identify as transgender who are minors, they don't have a constitutional right to access those kinds of treatments. And furthermore, where there is this kind of growing international medical and scientific uncertainty on the long-term health impacts are still kind of unclear, that those kind of policy decisions are best left to the states, not federal courts. So what does all of this mean? It means that Tennessee's law, like those in 26 other states, now can be enforced, and if you are a parent in those states and you want your child to have access to that kind of treatment, you are going to have to go to a state that will allow it.
DuBOIS: Jan, what might be the impact beyond this one particular case here?
CRAWFORD: Well, Maurice, I mean this one obviously focused on that medical transition treatment for children, but yeah, I mean, I think the Court in some of the opinions -- and there were many opinions -- is clearly signaling this will have an impact beyond this case.
DuBOIS: All right. Jan Crawford tonight. Thank you so much.
CBS correspondent Jan Crawford delivered a no-nonsense analysis of the Court’s opinion and future ramifications without caving to any of the Orwellian nomenclature, as did the anchors while setting her up. Crawford describes these procedures as they are, with zero sugarcoating: “puberty blockers, hormones, surgeries.” She also references Chief Justice Roberts’ concerns about the science of “gender care”, and that anyone interested in putting their kids through this torture will have to leave Tennessee (or any of the other bab states) to do so. This report was all Crawford, no activists or child victims.
ABC, on the other hand, went full woke. Their related item for World News Tonight went in on the trans agenda. Correspondent Devin Dwyer cited Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s “sad” dissent, which took 15 minutes to read from the bench. The report featured soundbites from the president of the Human Rights Campaign, and a teen patient who may or may not be in the process of subjecting themselves to further chemical and/or surgical mutilation. As a sop to fairness, ABC booked the legislator who sponsored the legislation.
PBS devoted a whole 8 minutes to their report, which got NewsHour started. A brief introduction from Amna Nawaz and Geoff Bennett led to a panel discussion between John Yang and a couple of liberals- SCOTUSBlog editor Amy Howe and an activist from the Kaiser Family Foundation. In between, more child victim footage.
Spanish-language media carried news of the landmark ruling on their midday newscasts. This, though, was reduced to a couple of briefs that were packed with the same trans language:
NOTICIERO UNIVISION EDICIÓN DIGITAL
6/18/25
12:10 PM
CAROLINA SARASSA: And this is what you need to know at this hour. The Supreme Court upheld today the Tennessee law that bans gender affirming medical care for children- for minors. In a 6-3 ruling (The Court) ruled that the ban is not unconstitutional and supports efforts by President Trump and 26 states, which promote similar laws. Let us also remember that the president also seeks to limit other trans rights in sports, healthcare, and the military.
NOTICIAS TELEMUNDO MEDIODÍA
6/18/25
12:35 PM
NICOLE SUAREZ: Let’s go to breaking news. The Supreme Court upheld a law that restricts gender transition healthcare for minors in Tennessee, with 6 votes in favor and 3 against. This represents a harsh blow to trans rights. Thus, Tennessee joins 24 other states that already have similar laws that ban transition surgeries, puberty blockers, and hormone therapy.
Univision used the Orwellian language, and cast the issue as one of “rights” that President Donald Trump wants to take away. In one fell swoop, Univision reminds viewers that they are also on the wrong side of men in women’s sports and transgenders in the military.
In a slightly more muted report, Telemundo characterized the ruling as a “blow” for “trans rights.” A big part of the reason the Hispanic community has generally rejected Spanish-language media is because of their brazen positioning as appendages of the far left. Coverage of this ruling proves our theory.
NBC couldn’t be bothered to deliver an item on this ruling. Doing so would’ve cut into their report on Caitlin Clark getting (wo)manhandled on WNBA courts, or on the recall of precooked chicken Alfredo.
Although the reports had their variances, one thing is certain: the legacy media continue to push for the hormonal and surgical mutilation of children.
Click "expand" to view the aforementioned transcripts as aired on their respective newscasts:
ABC WORLD NEWS TONIGHT
6/18/25
6:44 PM
DAVID MUIR: We turn next tonight to the Supreme Court's major ruling today on transgender care for minors. For the first time, the justices weighing in on a state law banning treatments for transgender youth. The court upholding the ban. Devin Dwyer covers the Court for us.
DEVIN DWYER: Tonight, the Supreme Court's conservative majority upholding Tennessee's ban on some gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, clearing the way for 24 states to continue enforcing similar bans. In the 6-3 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts citing evolving science and profound implications, rejecting the argument that denying trans kids access to puberty blockers and hormone therapy amounts to sex discrimination. Roberts writing the issue should be left “...to the People, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by the liberal justices dissented “in sadness”, writing the Court's decision inflicts “untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them.”
KELLEY ROBINSON: What they are saying is that trans people do not fall within the sex discrimination classification. You can legally discriminate against trans people.
DWYER: The sponsor of the Tennessee ban praising the court's decision.
JACK JOHNSON: The court affirmed what we believe, and that is that states do have a compelling interest to protect kids.
L.W.:I won't say I'm optimistic…
DWYER: L.W., a trans teen who brought the case and asked us not to show her face, told us last year she'll keep pursuing the treatments in another state, because they changed her life.
L.W.: I think, really, the big difference is when I got on hormones, that was incredibly helpful.
DWYER: David, an estimated 100,000 transgender teens in and their families live in states where those treatments are banned. But today's ruling has no impact in other states where gender-affirming care for minors remains legal. David.
MUIR: All right. ABC’s Devin Dwyer, who covers the Supreme Court. Devin, thank you.
PBS NEWS HOUR
6/18/25
7:02 PM
AMNA NAWAZ: Welcome to the News Hour. The Supreme Court is upholding Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors. In a 6-3 decision today, the justices ruled that the state's law, which prevents children from accessing treatments like puberty blockers or hormone therapy, did not violate the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause.
GEOFF BENNETT: In the court's majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: "The voices in these debates raise serious concerns. The implications for all are profound." But he went on to add that: "The court will leave the issue to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process." Tennessee is one of 27 states that have enacted some form of legislation limiting gender-affirming care for minors. An advocates say today's ruling is a huge setback for trans rights across the country. John Yang has more.
JOHN YANG: The challenge to the Tennessee law came from three transgender teens, their parents, and a physician. The ACLU said today's ruling was a devastating loss for transgender people and creates a class of people who politicians believe deserve health care and a class of people who do not. Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, who defended the law in court, said the decision "recognizes that the Constitution lets us fulfill society's highest calling, protecting our kids." PBS News Supreme Court analyst Amy Howe is co-founder of SCOTUSblog. And Lindsey Dawson is director of LGBTQ health policy at KFF. Welcome to you both. Amy, let's start with you and talk about what the justices said today. Now, in 2019, this Court said that transgender people had workplace protections against discrimination. Why a different outcome today?
AMY HOWE: We don't know exactly. And that was a 6-3 decision as well. Justice Neil Gorsuch, who was in the majority today in upholding Tennessee's ban, was the author of that decision. The chief justice, John Roberts, also joined that decision. The court's dynamics have changed. Obviously, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in 2020 and was replaced by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. But that doesn't explain exactly what was going on. One of the things that may well be going on, the court pointed to both Tennessee's interest, it said, in protecting children and then to the — what Tennessee describes as the uncertainty and the risk surrounding these kinds of treatments for transgender children.
YANG: Lindsey, we have been following a family in Texas. We have given them pseudonyms to protect their identity. Texas, of course, bans gender-affirming care for minors. So they have had to go to New Mexico to get hormone therapy for their 14-year-old trans daughter, Leah.
After the court ruled, we spoke to Mary, Leah's mother. Listen to what she had to say.
MARY: This just kind of gives states the green light to continue to ban this gender-affirming care. We're lucky that we're able to access this care in New Mexico right now, but I don't know what that's going to mean in the future. I don't know if the current sanctuary states are going to hold up what they're doing or not. The first thought is just look for another sanctuary city, but, I mean, if everybody starts following suit, then we're just stuck. I mean, I don't know what that would mean for us. Every time we go, we get another six months of meds and just kind of hold on to that and hope that that's enough.
YANG: Are there a lot of families like Leah and her family across the country? What's sort of the general impact on — across the country?
LINDSEY DAWSON: Sure. So, because the Supreme Court decided that the Tennessee law does not violate the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, that means that states with bans in place, like Texas or like Tennessee, can continue. In states where there are no bans, there is no restriction, so that those minors can still access care. But what you're faced with is a patchwork of access to gender-affirming care, just as we see with this family. And if you're fortunate enough to be able to cross the state line and get access to care somewhere else, then that's wonderful for your family, but many families don't have the privilege to be able to do that.
YANG: Amy, Justice Sotomayor wrote the dissenting opinion for herself and Justice Kagan and Jackson.
She noted that major medical associations say that gender-affirming care is appropriate and necessary. And she said that: "The majority authorizes without second thought untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them." What was your takeaway from that dissent?
HOWE: So she read her dissent from the bench, which is something that justices only do when they feel really strongly and they feel that the majority really got it wrong. It took about 15 minutes and she concluded with kind of an unusual statement. She said, "in sadness," which is not something we hear all the time, even in dissents from the bench. And then she said, "I dissent," without including the respectfully that justices usually include. So it was something that she felt very strongly about. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined all of her dissent. Justice Elena Kagan joined most of it. And her argument was really that the court got it very wrong. You referenced the earlier case involving LGBT protections, protections under federal employment discrimination law for LGBTQ workers. And she said, in essence, this case is just like that one, for all of the reasons that the court held in that case, Bostock, that LGBTQ workers are entitled to protections under federal employment discrimination laws, this Tennessee law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
YANG: Lindsey, where does this fit in with the Trump administrations and the congressional Republicans and Republicans across the country, their drive or their effort to limit the rights of transgender people?
DAWSON: So what's been happening in states that have been seeking to restrict this care is similar to what we have been seeing in the Trump administration. The Trump administration campaigned on restricting access to care for transgender youth and, since taking office and since the early days of the presidency in January, have sought to take actions to restrict this care further. So it is really in line with those efforts as this issue has become more politicized and polarized.
YANG: Amy, Justice Barrett wrote a concurring opinion in which she stressed that she was writing to emphasize that she does not believe that transgender people are a suspect class, that they do not deserve heightened scrutiny in cases. What does that do to the drive, the work in courts to get to protect transgender rights?
HOWE: So that was a separate opinion that was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. None of the other justices joined that. The court, in the chief justice's majority opinion said, we don't need to address that question. We have never held that. We're not deciding it now. But it certainly is something, I think, that will lend itself to other challenges to other laws affecting transgender children, and then also possibly affecting other transgender people. She mentioned a couple of examples in particular. She said that laws affecting transgender people, because transgender people are not a suspect class, they should not be subject to heightened scrutiny. She said courts shouldn't be weighing in. Legislatures should be making decisions on things involving like restrooms and boys and girls sports teams. And so you do suspect that when these issues come to the Supreme Court, as they likely are to come in months or the years ahead, that at least Justice Barrett and Justice Thomas are going to be skeptical of those challenges as well.
YANG: Amy Howe, Lindsey Dawson, thank you both very much.
HOWE: Thank you.
DAWSON: Thanks for having me.
New Posts (Home)
ChatBox
Popular Posts 
Game Zone
Top PodCasts
