Restraining the protectors

By Deacon Mike Manno

The problem of sexually grooming kids is becoming widespread, and we spent the column of several weeks ago discussing the issue. Included in the column were comments by Heritage expert Dr. Jay Richards that he made on my radio program about the issue, how it started with adults, sometimes teachers or social workers suggesting to impressionable children that they might be transgender, then behind the backs of the parents they would continue to groom the child until a full transition to the opposite sex could be started.

Well, the state of Alabama decided to do something about it, although probably not as a result of this column. Anyway, the state passed a new law, SB184, which sought to correct many of the problems we discussed here just a few short weeks ago.
The bill made some specific findings about gender dysphoria, including:

“The cause of the individual’s impression of discordance between sex and identity is unknown, and the diagnosis is based exclusively on the individual’s self-report of feelings and beliefs. This internal sense of discordance is not permanent or fixed, but to the contrary, numerous studies have shown that a substantial majority of children who experience discordance between their sex and identity will outgrow the discordance once they go through puberty and will eventually have an identity that aligns with their sex. As a result, taking a wait-and-see approach to children who reveal signs of gender nonconformity results in a large majority of those children resolving to an identity congruent with their sex by late adolescence.”

Thus, the legislature outlawed certain practices on minors; among them was a ban on the use of certain drugs, such as puberty blockers, testosterones, and estrogen therapies as part of a gender transition.

There were a couple of other provisions of note that the bill contained, including banning the use of certain surgical procedures on minors when used as part of a gender transition. It, however, contained several exemptions including for the correction of birth defects on newborn infants

Several important provisions were also included which dealt with those grooming tactics used on children which were outlined in the column, “Grooming Your Kids,” published May 12. They included bans on “nurse, counselor, teacher, principal, or other administrative official at a public or private school attended by a minor shall do either of the following:

“Encourage or coerce a minor to withhold from the minor’s parent or legal guardian the fact that the minor’s perception of his or her gender or sex is inconsistent with the minor’s sex. Withhold from a minor’s parent or legal guardian information related to a minor’s perception that his or her gender or sex is inconsistent with his or her sex.”
Of course the bill was controversial and set the stage for a legal showdown, which is far from being over.

Alabama Governor Kay Ivey defied U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland’s warning, on behalf of the Biden administration, to stay away from regulating in this area. She signed the bill.

But before it could take effect a group of residents, including minors who felt the call to transition, their parents, several doctors, as well as Merrick Garland himself, sued to block the bill.

The case is pending now before the district court in Alabama, where the judge, a Trump appointee named Liles C. Burke, has issued a temporary injunction against the enforcement of three provisions of the bill until such time as the case is tried. The three provisions that have been assigned to legal purgatory for the duration of the court battle are those banning the use of the puberty blockers, testosterones, and estrogens.

The remainder of the law was not affected and remains in effect, including the surgery bans, the prohibition of “grooming” activities, and that of keeping parents in the dark about what is going on with their own children.

Now remember that this is only a temporary injunction against those three provisions. There still must be a full-blown trial to determine if it will be made permanent, but what must be kept in mind is that one of the legal predicates for the issuance of a temporary injunction is that the party seeking same must show a likelihood that he will prevail on the merits of the case. Thus that party does move toward the full trial with a leg up.
However, that does not mean the opposition will be an automatic loser. The case still must be tried and, to my mind, the state still has room to bolster its case for the next round.

For example, while I was not in the courtroom to see each side present their respective cases, pro and con injunction, I did glean from the judge’s written order that the state did not present a very strong case. The challengers presented testimonies by a variety of witnesses speaking to several relevant issues: parents of a transgender student, a transgender student, and two experts who actually worked with patients suffering from gender dysphoria.

The state, on the other hand, presented two witnesses. One was a young 22 year-old woman who basically testified that she had taken trans medications for about a year when she was 19 and she now believes that it was a mistake and that she no longer thinks that gender dysphoria is a legitimate medical condition.

The second, the state’s expert, was a physician from Toronto who testified from medical literature without having any professional contact with patients suffering from gender dysphoria, nor had he done any clinical studies on the issue.

In reply the judge noted: “Accordingly, the court gave his testimony regarding the treatment of gender dysphoria in minors very little weight.”

Obviously I don’t know if the state’s defense of the law can be salvaged or not, but there certainly are a few things the state will need to expand upon.

+ + + I’m writing this column as the terrible news of the school shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas is shocking the conscience of America and leading us to question why. There are many thoughts that went through my mind today, but one that kept coming back to me over and over.
It is this: In 1962 the case of Engel v. Vitale threw God out of schools. In 2020 politicians across the nation threw police officers out of schools. Suppose there might be a connection there?

However, this is not the time for recrimination. It is a time for reflection. May God comfort all of those affected by this tragedy!

(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every Thursday morning at 9:30 CT on Faith On Trial on IowaCatholicRadio.com.)