Can’t say I’m surprised. Hugely disappointed, but not surprised.
The Texas Supreme Court upheld a recent state law that prohibits doctors from prescribing gender-affirming care to transgender minors after parents and medical professionals challenged the constitutionality of the restriction.
Justice Rebeca Aizpuru Huddle, who delivered the opinion of the court, said that although “fit parents” have a right to raise their children, without government interference, but also said that such a right is not absolute.
“When developments in our society raise new and previously unconsidered questions about the appropriate line between parental autonomy on the one hand and the Legislature’s authority to regulate the practice of medicine on the other, our Constitution does not render the Legislature powerless to provide answers,” she wrote.
State lawmakers barred transgender teenagers from accessing puberty blockers and hormone therapy last year, despite fierce opposition from LGBTQ+ advocacy groups and parents of trans children. Texas’ ban on transition-related care mirrored those in dozens of states led by Republican legislatures.
See here for some background, and here for a copy of the opinion. It was an 8-1 decision, with Justice Debra Lehrmann dissenting. Her dissent is here, and she didn’t mince words.
At its core, this case presents a foundational issue: whether the State can usurp parental authority to follow a physician’s advice regarding their own children’s medical needs. The parents at issue are thoughtful, conscientious caretakers who are doing the best they can to deal with serious health conditions with which their children have been diagnosed. They certainly are not mistreating their children. To the contrary, they are facing this challenge with extraordinary courage, fortitude, and perseverance. The State’s categorical statutory prohibition prevents these parents, and many others, from developing individualized treatment plans for their children in consultation with their physicians, even the children for whom treatment could be lifesaving. The law is not only cruel—it is unconstitutional.
The Court claims that its decision today does not deprive children diagnosed with gender dysphoria of appropriate treatment; it is simply answering the legal question before it. Yet, answering the question does just what the Court denies—it effectively forecloses all medical treatment options that are currently available to these children. And it does so under the guise that depriving parents of access to these treatments is no different than prohibiting parents from allowing their children to get tattoos. Of course, there is nothing remotely medically necessary about tattooing. Confusingly, the Court relies on cases unrelated to medical care to support its holding that the Legislature’s authority to regulate the practice of medicine preempts the fundamental rights of parents. And though it admits that parental autonomy is a fundamental liberty interest encompassing the right to make medical decisions for one’s children, the Court nevertheless refuses to apply the constitutional scrutiny mandated for fundamental liberty interests.
While I agree that the Legislature has the general authority to regulate the practice of medicine, that authority is necessarily limited by the promises and protections of our Constitution; in fact, limiting the State’s intrusion into private action is the very reason for the Bill of Rights. Thus, even when the Legislature exercises its delegated powers, it does so subject to the constitutional rights of citizens—not the other way around. If the Legislature’s enactments infringe upon a fundamental liberty interest, those enactments must be subjected to the appropriate constitutional scrutiny.
Although this Court has enshrined a robust conceptualization of parental autonomy for many years, in the blink of an eye, the Court
tosses that precedent aside today.
It goes from there, so read on as you see fit. Her first analysis section is titled “SB14 is a hatchet, not a scalpel”. Kudos to Justice Lehrmann for having the scruples to see this issue for what it is. A statement from the ACLU of Texas is here, and the Chron and The 19th have more.