Obama Justice Sonya Sotomayor made an idiotic and dangerous analogy during Supreme Court oral arguments on Wednesday in a case regarding the constitutionality of a Tennessee law that bars puberty blockers and hormone therapy for so-called transgender minors.
Twenty-four states currently have laws similar to Tennessee’s dealing with ‘gender-affirming’ care for children. There is no meaningful push to bar adults from mutilating themselves at the moment.
A federal judge in Arkansas ruled last year for the Biden regime and its allies and struck down the Tennessee law. The judge claimed the law ‘discriminates based on sex and targets transgender people’ and that the ‘benefits’ of the health care outlawed by the law are ‘well-established.’
However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit quickly reversed the lower court’s decision and allowed the law to go into effect, leading to the Supreme Court taking up the case.
The Supreme Court is expected to render a final decision on the case in June 2025.
During the hearing, Sotomayor likened the risk of irreparable harm, including mental and physical harm and the loss of fertility, from chemical castration on minors to that of “taking aspirin.”
“There is always going to be a percentage of the population under any medical treatment that’s going to suffer a harm,” said Sotomayor while trying to make the point that children should be able to alter their biological and chemical makeup with synthetic hormones.
Sotomayor may almost be as dumb as Biden Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson, who later piggybacked on Sotomayor’s claims that banning the use of hormones without a legitimate medical purpose is discriminatory on the basis of sex.
As The Gateway Pundit reported earlier, Justice Jackson also compared the bans on child sex changes to bans on interracial marriage.
Sotomayor interrupted Tennessee Solicitor General Matt Rice with the outrageous claim that aspirin has the same risks as life-changing sex change treatments for minors.
Rice: Your Honor, my friend’s arguments with respect to the alternative approaches is pure policy making. As Justice Kavanaugh recognized throughout his questioning, they cannot stand up here and say that if these alternatives were imposed, that there would be no detransitioners. So, they cannot eliminate the risk of detransitioners, so it becomes a pure exercise of weighing benefits versus risk, and the question of how many minors have to have their bodies irreparably harmed for unproven benefits is one that is best left to the legislature.
Sotomayor: I’m sorry, counselor, every medical treatment has a risk, even taking aspirin. There is always going to be a percentage of the population under any medical treatment that’s going to suffer a harm.
Sotomayor then jumped into an equally absurd hypothetical, arguing that the banning of hormone blockers for the purpose of gender transitions on minors is just discriminatory against girls.
Sotomayor told Rice, “The question in my mind is not, do policymakers decide whether one person’s life is more valuable than the millions of others who get relief from this treatment? The question is, can you stop one sex from the other one person of one sex from another sex from receiving that benefit?”
In a confusing and nonsensical argument, she continued, “So, if the medical condition is unwanted hair by a nine-year-old boy, who can receive estrogen for that, because at nine years old, if he has hair, he gets laughed at and picked on, and his puberty is coming in too early. But a girl who has unwanted hair says— or wants unwanted— has unwanted breasts, or a boy at that age can get that drug, but the other can’t. That’s the sex-based difference. It’s not the… The medical condition is the same, but you’re saying one sex is getting it and the other is not.”
Rice responded with common sense, “We do not agree that the medical condition is the same. We do not think that giving puberty blockers to a six-year-old that has started precocious puberty is the same medical treatment as giving it to a minor who wants to transition. Those are not the same medical treatment.”
In response, Sotomayor falsely claimed Rice is “still depending on sex to identify who can get it and who can’t.” She then asked, “If a sex-neutral-looking child walks into a doctor and says, ‘I don’t want to grow breasts,’ doesn’t the doctor have to know whether it’s a girl or a boy before they prescribe the drug?”
“I’ve got to tell you I’ve made that mistake on children often, look at one of them and think it’s a boy, and I’m corrected, and it’s a girl, and vice versa,” she continued as some in the court burst into laughter.
Then Biden Justice Jackson chimed in on the subject after Rice told Sotomayor, “I don’t think that that is an example of where a sex baseline is being drawn.” Jackson responded, “Why not?”
Just as Rice began to speak, Jackson again interrupted with an attitude, saying, “Yeah, please. Why not?”
The rest was just ridiculous as an unhinged and disrespectful Kentanji Brown Jackson spoke down to the Tennessee Solicitor General, clearly triggered over his logical argument that “there has to be a medical purpose for these drugs.”
Watch below:
