Ala. AG uses Dobbs decision in transgender youth treatment argument

Published: Jul. 4, 2022 at 7:21 PM CDT
Email This Link
Share on Pinterest
Share on LinkedIn

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (WSFA) - Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall is among the first in the country to use the Supreme Court’s arguments for overturning Roe v. Wade in a different court case. Marshall filed an appeal asking a court to lift the injunction that blocks the state’s ban on transgender youth medical treatment from going into effect.

It has been months since a judge blocked a ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth, and the confidence of success hasn’t worn off.

“We are relieved to see our youth continue to enjoy the standard of health that they now can with this medication and this health care,” said Morissa Ladinsky, a material witness in the case.

“We had an adverse decision out of the district court in the Northern District of Alabama,” said Marshall.

Last Monday, Marshall filed an appeal to the 11th Circuit Court in Atlanta, which cited the Supreme Court decision on abortion 13 times as an argument for why the state should ban transgender youth medical treatment.

“We cited that decision, really for a long-standing fundamental proposition. That is that a party can’t claim a fundamental right if in fact, that right is not well established within our history and tradition,” he said.

The first argument is the appeal is for the needed judgment from the Legislature to determine social significance and moral substance issues.

Another example reads, “the Supreme Court recently rejected the claim that a fundamental right to abortion could be derived from a broadly defined right to ‘privacy,’ which, in turn, could be derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of ‘liberty.’”

When WSFA 12 News spoke with Marshall about the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision on other rights under the 14th Amendment he said, “The rest will be seen. The court did not address other ancillary issues today.”

The appeal also questions the constitutionality of this medical treatment. It reads, in part, “The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting” these treatments. Dobbs, slip op. 79.”

“While we fully expected it to be challenged, we feel that Judge Burke’s opinion was crystal clear,” said Ladinsky.

Ladinsky says she’s confident other judges will agree with Burke’s argument.

“He felt very strongly that there is a fundamental right for parents to direct the medical care of their children,” she said.

As the court cases continue, both sides remain confident they will have their own desired outcomes.

Copyright 2022 WSFA 12 News. All rights reserved.