Is North Dakota protecting minors or denying them ‘health care’?
The North Dakota Legislature passed a law more than two years ago forbidding medical care and procedures which would alter a minor’s biological sex. After its passage, the legislation was predictability criticized by, among others, the ACLU.
It was promptly challenged and, recently, a North Dakota district judge ruled that the state acted within its authority in enacting such a law.
The case was brought in February when a seven-day trial ensued. It was finally decided earlier this month by South Central District Court Judge Jackson Lofgren. There is no indication yet of whether the decision will be appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court.
The plaintiff in the case was Dr. Luis Casas, reportedly a North Dakota pediatric endocrinologist who had been providing such “care” in the state.
The legal question was whether the North Dakota law violated the constitutional principle of equal protection and raised questions of personal autonomy. The Judge’s determination confirms that is does not.
North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley lauded Judge Lofgren’s decision, noting that it affirmed the state’s “constitutionally permissible interest in health care legislation that protects minors”. Noting that the Legislature’s consideration of and decision on the matter was thorough, he added that “The District Court’s thorough and thoughtful decision makes it clear that our elected legislative body appropriately reached this medical health determination and passed legislation that is constitutionally sound.”
In June, the US Supreme Court ruled that states can legislate such restrictions.
North Dakota joined the majority of states (at least 26 others) in passing legislation to restrict such medical “care” for minors.
That’s significant. Not only is North Dakota on solid legal footing, it also joins the majority of America’s states in legislating that some treatments and procedures are clearly not appropriate for minors. The so-called “puberty blockers” prescribed in some such “treatment” apparently accomplish what their title implies, denying children the normal physiological process of puberty. As most know, the surgeries involved actually physically alter one’s anatomy in a quest to assert and attempt to establish a gender different from one’s biology. Those facts should give most pause, when pondering whether such intervention is appropriate for minors.
Many on both the political left and right have seized on statistics, in recent years, which indicate that brains are not fully developed until at least one’s early twenties. This has informed medical care, as well as legislative decisions ranging from education to law enforcement, to legal culpability for crimes. Even before such concepts, minors have been held to a lesser legal standard for their acts because of the common understanding that they don’t yet possess adult judgment and decision making capacity.
Why, then, do some believe that a confused adolescent, even if accompanied by (perhaps equally confused) parental consent, should be allowed to make medical decisions which could alter their sexuality, anatomy, and physical and psychological well being for the rest of their lives?
The discussion of wether this type of medicine is ever appropriate or whether it violates the first tenant of the Hippocratic Oath, itself (“first, do no harm”) will persist. A familiar refrain from supporters states that such “care” is an effort to help and merely alter one’s “gender assigned at birth”. Others would assert that gender at birth is an observation, rather than an assignment. That debate will continue to rage on.
But this legal matter hinges upon whether it’s appropriate for children. On that question, the Legislature (with a veto proof majority vote), the former Governor (in the wake of the overwhelming vote), and, now, the Court, have weighed in, seemingly on the side of common sense.