Parental Rights and Medical Decisions

• The U.S. Govt challenges New London's intrusion on parental rights to make critical medical decisions for their children.
• Parental rights are protected by the Constitution, requiring state actions to that infringe upon it to be narrowly tailored to a compelling interest.
• The Ban should be invalidated:
  • The Court has consistently supported a parent's SDP right to the care, custody, and control of their children.
  • The Ban isn't narrowly tailored to achieve its stated interest and fails to protect all NL's minors, especially trans youth.
• Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court REVERSE AND REMAND the case back to the 14th Cir. for strict scrutiny.

Parent's SDP Right to Care, Custody & Control

• The DPC of the 14th Amendment guarantees substantive and procedural protections of fundamental rights, including personal autonomy and bodily integrity.
• The Supreme Court should extend parents' right to seek GAC for their children as rooted nation's H&T of parental autonomy, as recognized in Troxel (2000).
• Troxel said parents act in their children's best interests, especially for health and welfare; state may impede only when it has compelling interest.
• Extending existing right is needed to include a parent's right to affirmatively access life-saving care for their child.
• The Court has consistently extended protections to contexts that implicate dignity and liberty, as in Loving (1967) (marriage), Lawrence v. Texas, (2003) (private consensual matters), and Obergefell (2015) (same-sex marriage).
• Parental rights to make healthcare decisions for children must evolve with modern medicine and societal values, as articulated in Meyer (1923).
• Under the DPC, liberty includes engaging in certain activities and decisions about one's personal life.
• States cannot unreasonably interfere w/ a parent's decision to provide med necessary care for their child, especially when the intent is rooted in forcing minors to appreciate their sex (R. v).
• TC (T-Girl, 14) and LS (T-Boy, 15) have experienced improvements with GAC, like reduced anxiety, alleviated depression, & increased social confidence.
• Craig and Singleton families' experiences show how it transforms the lives of children who need it.
• GAC enables children to thrive, rather than harm them.
• GAC is widely supported by the med establishment as medically necessary and often life-saving, as acknowledged in (R. 14-15) & Brandt (8th Cir., 2022).
• The Ct. held that laws banning such care violate the constitutional rights of parents to make med. decisions for their children.
• Denying parents access to such care disregards their role as decision-makers and also family autonomy; protecting individual dignity with tradition of parental rights.
• Static interpretation of “this Nation's H&T" risks freezing liberty interests in time, rendering DP protections incapable of addressing contemporary realities.
• Constitution safeguards evolving understandings of dignity and freedom is undermined when protect liberty interests in a modern and diverse society erode the ability.
• Parents can secure care for their children aligns with their fundamental role in safeguarding their children's welfare and dignity.
• Justice nor liberty would exist if parental rights were sacrificed, (Washington at 721).
• Court's respect of individuals from discrimination tied to their identity, so must it respect parental liberty to provide their children with care essential to improving health.
• The Ban harms the child by perpetuating stigma and bias against their gender identity, calling TC and LS' clinical med diagnosis a “fantasy” & vector of "social contagion”.
• The parental SDP rights are undermined when there is interference in making decisions ensure their child's health, safety, and psychological well-being.
• Families work with physicians and mental health professionals for months to decide on the best course of action.
• GAC is endorsed by major med organizations, including the AMA and Mayo Clinic, as medically necessary and often lifesaving.
• NL's Ban strips parents of the right to protect their children.

Parental Liberty Right

• To pass strict scrutiny the govt must have a compelling interest, and its law must be narrowly be law infringes on a fundamental DP right, to pass strict scrutiny.
• NL claims it is protecting minors from harm, but the Ban isn't narrow because It criminalizes GAC to trans minors, even when supported by board-certified pediatricians and psychologists.
• NL's singular exception of psychotherapy isn't aligned with the standards of care that are broadly accepted within the med establishment (Mayo Clinic, AMA, WPATH), and therefore, the legislative findings are flawed to ignore such evidence.
• Laws restricting fundamental rights must be precise and not overreaching and is a clear standard in Lawrence v. Texas, (2003),
• NL's Ban sweeps broadly and arbitrarily and without an out for suffering children by denying GD
• Parents are best positioned to make med decisions for their children, as affirmed in Parham v. J.R. (1979), even when treatment involves some risk.
• Ban overrides individualized parental and med judgment, and ignores parental rights.
• Criminalizing med necessary care for trans minors w/o exception and disregarding risks to the lives of TC & LS before care fails the requirement of strict scrutiny.
• The Ban prohibits puberty blockers for trans minors but allows hormone-altering medications for other purposes, like birth control or treatment for precocious puberty.
• Treating minors of different sexes demonstrates undermines protecting all minors from harm
• NL's reliance on European standards is misplaced because those standards still permit GAC under strict oversight, unlike the outright prohibition here.
• The Ban fails strict scrutiny and is unconstitutional because bans unfairly target one group of minors based on unfounded assumptions about their future regret or reproductive capabilities.
• The Constitution has long safeguarded parental rights to make critical decisions for their children, as recognized in Troxel, Parham, and Meyer.
• NL's Ban imposes sweeping and arbitrary restrictions neither narrowly tailored nor supported by compelling evidence.
• This Court should reject NL's unconstitutional intrusion into the private decisions and responsibilities of parenthood, affirm the principle of family autonomy, and hold that strict scrutiny is required for analyzing statutes that engage in such overreach of SDP.

Rebuttals

• Oberefell (U.S. at 671, 2015) cautioned against narrow construction of the asserted right
• The Court recognized the fundamental right to long-standing traditions of personal autonomy
• James Wilson described family and marriage as“the true origin of society foundational to civil society.
• Troxel (at 65) reaffirmed that parental rights to care, custody, and control are among the oldest fundamental liberties.
• Meyer. Parham v. J were the original cases of how parental involvement of health decisions are involved
• Country examples show the countries are still leaning more to psychotherapy to help kids with their gender identities
• A total ban would cause psychological distress
• State can't create a band to allow people to choose for themselves
• Parental rights do not extend to child exploitation
• Overreach occurs by an arbitrary invasion by the court

Cases

• Puberty blockers fully reversible and allow teens to choose their lives
• Washington v. Glucksberg, (1997) + deliberate + cautious approach to new SDP rights
• EknesTucker (11 Cir., 2023) + Not rooted in H&T + novel treatment = state's interest in protecting children outweighed parental autonomy (RB)
• Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) + Highlight that parental rights to control have only extended to education
• Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020) [gender identity linked to sex discrimination -By analogy...]
• Cruzand v. (vegetative state - parents wanted to pull the feeding tube
• Cases involved, and what the court did and what their reasoning for the outcome was.