We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

Liberal justices raised eyebrows with their comments as the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on gender transition procedures for children.

During arguments Wednesday in the Tennessee-based case United States v. Jonathan Skrmetti, Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson baffled listeners with their comments on transgender medical procedures on minors.

At one point, Sotomayor interrupted Tennessee Solicitor General Matthew Rice who was speaking on the harmful side effects on children who have gender transition surgeries. As Rice spoke of the “irreparable” harm to minors, the leftist justice brought up the risks of taking aspirin. Justice Clarence Thomas had asked Rice about alternative methods which he dismissed as 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 for —” Rice said.

“‘I’m sorry counselor, every medical treatment has a risk, even taking aspirin,” a patronizing Sotomayor interjected. “There’s always going to be a percentage of the population under any medical treatment that’s going to suffer a harm. So, 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?’”

Tennessee has banned transgender medical procedures for minors, and Rice has been arguing that nations such as Sweden, Finland, and the U.K. have banned the procedures on children. Sotomayor’s comments drew immediate backlash.

“As if removing kids’ body parts and sterilizing them for life is remotely comparable to taking aspirin. This is abhorrent reasoning,” Fox Business host David Asman wrote on X.

“Taking a Tylenol is significantly less risky than surgically removing a child’s penis and installing a ‘neo-vagina’ in its place. This should be … obvious?” wrote Christopher Rufo, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.

“Sotomayor’s response seems laughable until you realize that it’s the default view of millions of progressives, including those who run institutions, the entire education system, corporations and government funded NPO’s,” Outkick’s Ian Miller posted, adding, “Then it becomes actively dangerous.”

But Sotomayor was not alone in sparking backlash, as Ketanji Brown Jackson compared the laws protecting children to bans on interracial marriages. Social media erupted after the justice chimed in following remarks by U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar. Former Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz noted it was “just embarrassing for the Court.”

“Interesting to me that you mentioned precedent, because some of these questions about sort of who decides and the concerns and legislative prerogatives, etc., sound very familiar to me,” Jackson said, pointing to cases such as the landmark Loving v. Virginia case of 1967.

“They sound in the same kinds of arguments that were made back in the day—50s, 60s—with respect to racial classifications and inconsistencies. I’m thinking in particular about Loving v. Virginia, and I’m wondering whether you thought about the parallels, because I see one as to how this statute operates and how the anti-miscegenation statutes in Virginia operated,” the Biden-appointed justice continued.

She questioned the banning of interracial marriage as she saw a “potential comparison” between the Loving case and Skrmetti. Her comments earned her a serious drubbing on X.

Frieda Powers
Latest posts by Frieda Powers (see all)

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.