Tag: suffering
Supreme Court

The Supreme Court Cruelly Condemns Trans Kids (And Families) To Suffering

The US Supreme Court just told American parents in red states that if they have a transgender child or teen, they have no right to make the best health care decisions for them.

Lawmakers in 27 Republican-controlled state legislatures have enacted bans on gender-affirming care for transgender youth, despite the fact that the American Academy of Pediatrics and numerous other major medical associations and world health authorities recommend this care. On June 18, the US Supreme Court gave these states the green light to enforce those prejudicial bans by upholding Tennessee’s law in the US v. Skrmetti case.

Samantha Williams, the heartbroken mom of one of the three transgender teenagers whose families challenged Tennessee’s ban, is devastated by the ruling. She called out the six conservative justices for being unmoved by her “heartfelt plea” to let parents, in consultation with medical experts, decide what treatment is best for their trans child.

“Let us do our job as parents. Let us love and care for our daughter in the best way we and our doctors know how,” she wrote in a brave op-ed in the New York Times on June 19.

But her pleas fell on deaf ears.

Instead, the six right-wing justices took a sledgehammer once again to the right to privacy and the liberty of individuals to make their own decisions about their bodies. Their ruling upholding Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors will now apply to every state with a similar ban.

This same Supreme Court erased a Constitutionally protected right for the first time in 2022, when these same six justices overturned Roe v. Wade and robbed American women of their 50-year right to decide whether and when to have children. Now, the John Roberts Court has snatched rights away from another group—trans teenagers and their supportive parents—to exercise personal liberty.

As the mother of a trans daughter—who, fortunately, is not a minor—I can’t help but feel the pain of these parents who love their children like you and I do, all the way “to the moon and back again.”

It’s terrifying that the Supreme Court and Republican lawmakers have turned into world-class busybodies, no different from the morality police in Iran who check that every Iranian woman is covering her hair (or else!), or the Taliban in Afghanistan, who have taken the rights to an education and to work outside the home away from the oppressed women of their country.

The American Taliban

Yes, we have a whole party and their carefully selected Supreme Court justices running their own morality squads, imposing their right-wing religious extremist beliefs over all 340 million of us.

From the party that says they hate “big government” and any interference in individual rights, we have lawmakers and Supreme Court justices poking their noses right up into women’s uteruses to “protect fertilized eggs”—and now they’re obsessed with examining and ruling on genitals under the guise of “protecting” young people from their parents and doctors.

Are you kidding me?

Unfortunately, no. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Republicans have spent the past several years championing “parental rights”—the right to object to books, vaccines, and school policies. Yet, when a loving parent listens to a child who trusts them enough to share that they are trans, and wants to help them express themselves, those same lawmakers deny them the right to do so. In these states, and now with the Supreme Court’s blessing, parents are told what they cannot do for their children.

It’s especially hypocritical given that Republicans have long accused Democrats of running an intrusive “nanny state.” Yet they are now the ones interfering in the most personal family and medical decisions. They’ve classified paid family leave, unpaid leave to attend children’s events, tax breaks to pay for childcare, and even the minimum wage “nanny legislation.”

Meanwhile, justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito accept massive gifts, like a $267,000 luxury RV, lavish yacht vacations, free homes, and college tuition from their own billionaire benefactors, while they insert their invasive rulings into our private lives.

The problem with busybody red state lawmakers is the cruelty they impose. Gender-affirming care is supported by every major medical pediatric and psychological association in the US, including the American Academy of Family Physicians. It’s evidence-based and essential for innocent trans teens who don’t want to be forced into living with the adult sex organs of a gender they don’t identify with.

As a mom who has listened to her own trans daughter, I admit that I have a heightened awareness of the heavy depression that a trans person feels when they are unable to even look in the mirror at a body that feels like a prison to them. But that’s where gender affirming care comes in. It covers everything from counseling by trained therapists to the provision of puberty blocker medications that delay the onset of adult gender characteristics during puberty. Puberty blockers are reversible, hormone therapy is rare, and surgery on minors is extremely rare. And all of this is done by experienced physicians and with the approval of a trans teen’s parents.

The myth that children are being “mutilated” is false. No parent has ever sent their child to school one day and seen them come home as a different gender. Genital surgeries for minors are exceedingly rare and are not part of standard gender-affirming care for youth. In fact, the most common “gender-affirming” surgery performed on minors in the US is chest reduction surgery for cisgender male youth—not transgender youth. The surgery is performed to treat gynecomastia, a condition where cisgender boys develop excess breast tissue during puberty.

Any news you are seeing about “mutilating” children is solely designed to sow outrage and increase media ratings.

Impact of the Ruling

Despite the constitutional guarantees that are supposed to protect every American equally under the law, the Supreme Court has decided that one special group—trans youths, who account for just 300,000 or 1.4 percent of all American teens aged 13-17—get to have their right to health care decisions obliterated, even when those decisions are made with their adult parents.

The majority in the court writes that it has thrown the decision about access to gender-affirming care for minors back to “the people, their elected representatives and the democratic process.” In other words, they are leaving the decision about whether to pass laws banning gender-affirming care in the hands of the states. However, the reality is that Republican-dominated states have become Republican-controlled through aggressive gerrymandering and voter suppression, ensuring that “the people” don’t get to democratically resolve anything.

The result is that real kids are punished, as Tennessee plaintiff Samantha Williams pointed out in her op-ed.

Her daughter, L.W., came out just before she turned 14, and four years later she is “thriving, healthy and happy after pursuing evidence-based gender-affirming care.”

“But the very care that is improving her life became a primary political target of the Republican supermajority in our home state, Tennessee.”

So how does it affect the Court and Republican state lawmakers anyway, if loving parents provide the health care—approved by 30 respected medical associations—that allows their children to live the full lives in the gender-aligned bodies that they are comfortable with?

Here’s how: Republicans and President Donald Trump have found a small, defenseless minority they can use to distract voters from getting involved with other issues that Republicans want to handle without voter input—such as wages, housing, and health care.

Parents Love Their Trans Kids

I have interviewed multiple parents of trans kids living in red states for stories I’ve written over the years. Like Samantha Williams and the other plaintiffs in US v. Skrmetti, they have done everything they can to protect their children from the “capricious, narrow-minded attacks” of their own state governments.

Their situation has only been made more emotionally and financially dire by the Court’s ruling. They will have to travel long distances regularly or move to blue states so their children can still receive the health care they need.

Put yourself in their shoes. This is no different from you potentially having to travel or move to another city or state for your child to receive vital treatment for cancer. You would do that. In both cases, the care is life saving.

“Data indicate that 82% of transgender individuals have considered killing themselves and 40% have attempted suicide, with suicidality highest among transgender youth,” reports the National Library of Medicine.

No matter what state they live in, trans kids are faced with a hostile national environment, in which our current president has made it his mission to distract his base by bullying trans people of every age, banning them from military service, from participating in school sports, from using bathrooms aligned with their gender identity, and from obtaining passports under their new names and identities.

Trump has even gone so far as to declare in an executive order that in the US there are only two biological sexes from birth: “These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality,” his order states.

The science behind the statement is laughable, considering 0.2 percent to 0.5 percent—or 1 in 1,000 to 4,000—babies are born with ambiguous genitalia which don’t align with typically male or female external genitals.

Sorry, lawmakers in Tennessee and other red states: Nature just doesn’t support your culture war issue.

As liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out in her emphatic dissent: “The court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims.”

Like Sotomayor…. “In sadness, I dissent.”

Bonnie Fuller is the former CEO and editor-in-chief of HollywoodLife.com & former editor-in-chief of Glamour, Cosmopolitan, Marie Claire and USWeekly. She is now writing about reproductive freedom and politics.

Reprinted with permission from Courier Newsroom.

Middle-Class Americans Suffer In Silence, For Now

Sept. 20 (Bloomberg) — President Barack Obama’s proposed tax on millionaires has restored the issue of “class warfare” to the forefront of politics.

The new tax plan follows a week of intense campaigning by the president for his jobs bill, and of considerable attention devoted to a Census Bureau finding that poverty rose to a 17-year high.

Asking the wealthiest among us to pay more, and taking new steps to help the least well-off — the jobless and the poor — are good policy. But politically, and perhaps even economically, the president can’t lose focus on a group often left on the sidelines of the political conflict over rich and poor: the long-suffering middle class.

Recent developments have driven home how urgently middle-class families need to be put front and center in Washington.

First, there was bad news for middle-class households in the Census Bureau’s study of poverty for 2010. The news reports focused on the finding that the average annual income of households at the bottom — those in 10th and 20th percentiles – – had fallen by $1,000 and $1,500 a year, respectively, since 1998. At the opposite end of the spectrum, households in the top 10 percent of the income distribution saw their annual income rise by $3,600, and those in the top 5 percent had a $4,200 increase, over the same period. (All these figures are adjusted to be constant for inflation.)

Rich Get Richer

But ignored in this story of the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer was the less publicized — but equally important — finding of what happened to the household income of those in the middle of the economic distribution, the 50th percentile of national income. In actual dollars, these middle- class families suffered an even bigger drop in annual income than the poor did over the past 12 years: a decline of more than $2,500.

Put another way, American households in the middle of the income spread, those making about $50,000 a year, have lost more than $200 in monthly income since 1998.

The dwindling of middle-class incomes represents a sharp reversal of our tradition. The earnings of families in the 50th percentile rose more than $5,000 over the 12-year period from 1967 to 1979; it then edged up only slightly, by $650, during the tough 1979-to-1992 period; then saw another jump of $5,000 from 1992 to 1998. Thus, looking over the 31-year period from 1967 to 1998, the middle class had periods of strong increases in annual income, and some periods of lesser increases, but the trend moved in one direction: upward. One might even say the fundamental characteristic of middle-class life in America was steadily increasing income.

Decline in Savings

All that changed over these past 12 years, as the incomes of those in the middle fell. Moreover, this loss of annual income is compounded because these families have suffered — more than those above them or below them — a steep decline in savings due to the collapse of housing prices.

While the richest households have their wealth in diverse holdings (including stocks, which recovered after 2008), and the poor have no savings at all, middle-class families have their net worth concentrated in a single asset: accumulated equity in their homes.

Many of these families saw this “nest egg,” which they planned to tap to pay for a child’s college or their own retirement, wiped out when housing prices plummeted in 2008.

Second Blow

If the news on incomes wasn’t bad enough, the middle class was dealt a second blow last week when a report by the Washington research organization Third Way showed that schools serving this segment of the population have vastly under-delivered for their students. (Disclosure: I am a member of the board of trustees of Third Way, though I didn’t participate in preparing the report.)

No one should be surprised by Third Way’s finding that, compared with schools in the wealthiest districts, those serving middle-class families spend about $1,600 less per student, have three more students per teacher, and pay teachers $6,000 less per year.

Sadly, we have come to accept that wealthier districts get better public schools than middle-class areas. What was surprising in the Third Way report, however, was that, compared with middle-class districts, schools that serve the poorest students also spend more per pupil (about $1,400 more), also have fewer students per teacher (about one fewer), and also pay teachers more (about $1,600 a year more).

Behind the Wealthy

The bottom line: On all three of these critical metrics, middle-class school districts are behind both the wealthiest school districts (which use their bigger tax bases to fund their programs) and the poorest school districts (which benefit from more state and federal aid programs).

Is it any wonder, then, that these middle-class schools — which educate more children than the wealthiest and poorest districts combined, and serve a majority of our white, black and Hispanic children — are producing results below our national expectations? Indeed, Third Way found that only about one out of four graduates of high schools in these middle-class districts will finish college before they turn 26.

Falling incomes and floundering schools, that is what our great middle class faces today.

Workers of Tomorrow

Economically, addressing the prosperity of this vast majority of our citizens is essential, because it is impossible to build a prosperous America without a strong middle class. They are the workforce of today and their children are our workers of tomorrow; they are the consumers who power demand; they are the small-business people who create jobs and innovations. They make the cars, build the homes and grow the food that make up a huge share of our national output. They also buy the cars, the homes and the groceries that make up a huge share of our national consumption.

No economic recovery plan can work unless it lifts up the middle class.

Politically, middle-class voters perennially believe that Democrats care too much about the poor, and Republicans care too much about the rich, leaving their hearts and minds up for grabs. As we approach the 2012 election, these voters are alienated from both parties, seeing little benefit for themselves in policies such as the bank bailout; state and local fiscal relief; and extended unemployment insurance; all of which have consumed so much of Washington’s time and money.

Policy Doubts

Over the past few years, these Americans have developed doubts about whether Obama-administration initiatives such as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act really help them, or mostly help the disadvantaged. At the same time, they are deeply skeptical about Republican economic policies. Those misgivings are certain to be reinforced as Republicans race to protect the wealthiest Americans from paying the same share of their income in taxes as the middle class pays.

The president should continue to press for his new “Buffett Rule” to raise taxes on the wealthy, and his jobs bill to help the unemployed. But he also needs to speak directly to the millions of middle-class families that have jobs, but are reeling under the unprecedented income squeeze of the past decade, and are worried that their children may be part of the first generation of Americans that didn’t do better than the preceding one.

Demanding that the wealthiest shoulder the same tax burden as the middle class is only fair, but by itself, doesn’t address middle-class anxieties; likewise, pressing policies that provide jobs and health care to those who lack them is the right thing to do, but may not lift incomes and reduce costs for those who are employed and who have health coverage.

Best Opportunities

Education initiatives need to focus not only on fixing the most broken schools and drawing the best teachers to the most troubled districts, but also on lifting up middle-class schools, so that those students can compete for the very best opportunities in the years ahead.

It is often said that U.S. elections are “won in the middle,” a statement about ideology that reflects the centrist leanings of swing voters. But in 2012, that is more likely to be a true description of the economic profile of the voters who are up for grabs.

The party that can best address the needs and concerns of middle-class voters who have jobs, but are enduring flat incomes, underperforming schools, and shrunken savings, is the one most likely to win next year.

(Ron Klain, a former chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden and a senior adviser to President Barack Obama on the Recovery Act, is a Bloomberg View columnist. He is a senior executive with a private investment firm. The opinions expressed are his own.)

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World