Montana passed a LAW--no tranny surgery on minors; judges overturned it

Unless you follow laws and lawsuits all across the U.S. you have no idea how good the Left is at warping the law to get what it wants, or block what it opposes.

Short answer: "the law" today is whatever the left and its corrupt judges say it is, regardless of actual words written.

Example 3,856,945:

Two years ago Montana legislators passed a law barring sex-change surgery for minor kids.  Before that law passed, a school counselor could convince a ten-year-old that he or she was really the opposite sex, and parents couldn't block any procedures attached to what the Left cunningly calls "gender-*affirming* care."

(Of course it's really gender-*denying* surgery, eh?)

The ban is consistent with the idea that society doesn't permit kids under 18 do some things (drinking alcohol comes to mind) that are allowed once that person reaches 18.

Within days the ACLU and others sued the state, claiming "Duh state haz no right to doo dis!"  But of course the right of the state to prohibit some acts by minors has been extensively litigated, and upheld.

The ACLU attorneys realized that arguing a state wasn't permitted to ban minors from doing X was unlikely to prevail, so they looked for a new avenue of attack.  

Finally someone suggested using a provision in the state's constitution declaring a "right to privacy."

Some were skeptical: What was the putative link between this ban and violating the right to privacy?  "Ah, well, see...medical records are just, y'know, *super-private,* right?  And dis wuz a "medical procedure." So it's obvious, right?"

Of course that was NOT obvious, but all it had to be was *just superficially plausible enough* to enable a liberal judge to sign off on it.

So they sued, claiming banning sex-change operations (or as the Dems and the ACLU always put it, "gender-affirming care") somehow *violated a kid's right of privacy*--even if doctors were barred from offering the kid the "care" before age 18.

And mere days before the law was scheduled to take effect, a state judge from Missoula--Jason Marks--agreed, overturning the law.

Now, as noted above, it's hard to see how banning sex-change surgery for minors violates privacy, any more than not giving kids a license to drive at 15 would.  If you're familiar with the case and have insight, I'd love to hear it.

Here's the kind of "logic" the moronic lower court judge--Jason Marks--used:
>>“The legislature has no interest … to justify its interference with an individual’s fundamental privacy right to obtain a particular lawful medical procedure from a healthcare provider.”>>

Let's try to unpack this: First, the fact that the legislature passed the law shows they have an "interest" in the issue.  I think Marks is trying to say the legislature has no *authority* to regulate this, but he gives no legal precedent.  And again, no connection with privacy.  
Finally, "to obtain a...lawful medical procedure..."  The point of the law was to make it illegal to perform sex-change surgery on minors, so saying it's a "lawful procedure" uses his ruling as the reasoning.  It's horseshit.

Now consider: Missoula is a cesspool of leftists in a conservative state--they voted for Cackles by a huge margin.  

The decision to allow gender-affirming treatment to continue for the time being was greeted with delight by the young plaintiffs and advocacy groups. Zooey Zephyr, a Democrat who is the first out trans member of the state legislature, said on social media: “Montana has a constitutional right to privacy, including in our healthcare decisions. Today our constitution continues to protect individuals from government overreach.”

Zephyr was propelled into the national limelight in the spring of 2023 when she spoke passionately against the ban in the Montana house. She was banished from the chamber by the Republican leadership prompting large protests.

Montana is among at least 26 states that have introduced bans on gender-affirming medical care for minors. By contrast, 15 states have enacted protections for under-18s seeking treatment.

Last December the state supreme court agreed with the ACLU, overturning the law and allowing sex-change surgery on minor children to continue.

You might think that supreme court justices--even in Montana--could see that a ban on tranny surgery for minors doesn't violate privacy.  But...here we are.

Source.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/11/montana-blocks-ban-gender-affirming-care-trans-minors