If you thought Montana was a sensible state, you’ve never been to Helena. In April of 2023, lawmakers passed a bill banning “gender affirming care” for minors. That bill was signed by the Republican governor and made law - until it was blocked in district court that same year.
Wednesday, the Montana Supreme Court issued an opinion that upheld the block.
The bill’s stated goal was "to enhance the protection of minors and their families... from any form of pressure to receive harmful, experimental puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones and to undergo irreversible, life-altering surgical procedures prior to attaining the age of majority."
The bill levied penalties against doctors for performing gender-related surgeries on minors and also made it illegal for public funds to be used for such procedures. That doesn’t sound so bad right?
The Supreme Court upheld the district court’s injunction noting early on that “The District Court drew its terminology from the parties' expert declarations and reports. At birth, infants generally are assigned a sex, as the District Court wrote, ‘based on their external genitalia, internal reproductive organs, and chromosomal makeup.’ ‘Sex’ is a ‘distinct biological classification,’ which "makes us male or female.’ ‘Gender" is the "social and cultural concept”
The opinion went on, quoting the lower court ruling “the roles, behaviors, and identities that society assigns to girls and boys, women and men, and gender-diverse people.’ Explaining, ‘Gender identity refers to a person's subjective feelings about their core sense of belonging to a particular gender.’
Several transgender children were plaintiffs in the original suit.
“I will never understand why my representatives are working to strip me of my rights and the rights of other transgender kids,” said Phoebe Across, a 17-year-old transgender child. Phoebe was born a girl but claims to be a boy.
Two others are named in the suit as plaintiffs, Jane and John Doe, representing their 16-year-old transgender child. The Daily Montanan identifies the child as a “daughter” likely indicating that the child was born a boy, and thinks they are a girl.
the ruling was largely made with the "right to privacy" in mind. The right to privacy however has never prevented states or the federal government from legally banning minors from alcohol consumption, the consumption of certain non-gender-related drugs, driving, or using tobacco products.
.
