The Following Content Has Been Provided by:Bob Unruh

It’s only days old, but the Supreme Court ruling that Tennessee is allowed to ban body-mutilating chemical treatments and surgeries on children already is having an impact.

On at least four other states with similar prohibitions.

Just last week, the high court affirmed a state law that bans the infliction of transgender procedures on minors. The 6-3 ruling revealed a pointedly leftist trio on the court demanding the agenda of chemically and surgically altering children to accommodate what almost always is a temporary gender dysphoria.

The majority opinion, supported by the conservative members of the court, was written by Chief Justice John Roberts. The ruling found the Tennessee law does not violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

It was in orders issued on Monday that the court wiped out other lower court rulings that essentially promoted the transgender ideologies, the scientific impossibility that men can become women or vice versa, as being male or female is embedded down to the DNA level and does not change.

The Washington Examiner explained the cases now are being sent back down to lower courts for reconsideration in light of the ruling in U.S. v. Skrmetti.

The orders on Monday involved rulings that previously blocked similar state-level bans on transgender treatments in North Carolina, West Virginia, Idaho and Oklahoma.

“The move means each case must now be reheard under the legal standard articulated in the Skrmetti ruling, which found no violation of the Constitution’s equal protection clause in a ban on medical treatments for minors who identify as transgender,” the report explained.

Further, the justices declined to take up a separate case from Kentucky where families were trying to challenge a similar state law.

The appeals courts now assigned the responsibility of changing the outcomes on those cases include the 4th Circuit, 9th Circuit and 10th Circuit.

“Monday’s actions come as the justices continue to weigh whether to take up additional cases, including challenges to school sports participation rules in Arizona, Idaho, and West Virginia that restrict biological boys from competing on girls sports teams,” the report said.

WND reported on the Tennessee case that there are up to 20 other states with similar disputes developing.

The case revolved around the fact, according to the court, the “growing number of states restricting sex transition treatments for minors by enacting the Prohibition on Medical Procedures Performed on Minors Related to Sexual Identity.”

In Tennessee, SB1 “prohibits healthcare providers from prescribing, administering, or dispensing puberty blockers or hormones to any minor for the purpose of (1) enabling the minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s biological sex, or (2) treating purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s biological sex and asserted identity.”

“At the same time, SB1 permits a healthcare provider to administer puberty blockers or hormones to treat a minor’s congenital defect, precocious puberty, disease, or physical injury,” the court noted.

Three “transgender minors,” their parents, and a doctor challenged the law under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

A trial judge halted the law but the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed it to take effect, as the law “did not trigger heightened scrutiny and satisfied rational basis review.”

The ruling said SB1 “is not subject to heightened scrutiny because it does not classify on any bases that warrant heightened review.”

The law’s classifications are based on age and medical condition.

“Classifications based on age or medical use are subject to only rational basis review,” the court explained.

The court said, “Tennessee determined that administering puberty blockers or hormones to minors to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, or gender incongruence carries risks, including irreversible sterility, increased risk of disease and illness, and adverse psychological consequences. The legislature found that minors lack the maturity to fully understand these consequences, that many individuals have expressed regret for undergoing such treatments as minors, and that the full effects of such treatments may not yet be known. At the same time, the State noted evidence that discordance between sex and gender can be resolved through less invasive approaches. SB1’s age- and diagnosis-based classifications are rationally related to these findings and the State’s objective of protecting minors’ health and welfare.”

“In today’s historic Supreme Court win, the common sense of Tennessee voters prevailed over judicial activism,” said Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti. “A bipartisan supermajority of Tennessee’s elected representatives carefully considered the evidence and voted to protect kids from irreversible decisions they cannot yet fully understand. I commend the Tennessee legislature and Governor Lee for their courage in passing this legislation and supporting our litigation despite withering opposition from the Biden administration, LGBT special interest groups, social justice activists, the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, and even Hollywood.”