Biology, the Supreme Court, and truth

Two days ago the United States Supreme Court granted a stay of yet another “universal injunction.” But what caught the country’s attention, was the subject of that injunction: Idaho’s new Vulnerable Child Protection Act. That act seeks to outlaw the surgical mutilation and hormonal poisoning of children, in the name of “critical transgender theory.” This drama of course illustrates that many judges have abandoned basic biology and truth in their judgments. Worse, it shows that a liberal faction has arisen in the federal courts, with a foothold in the Supreme Court. We know this because an opinion, dissenting from the grant of stay, is worse than specious. In lamenting the outcome, the latest Liberal Bloc member has outdone herself in proposing a “remedy” so outlandish that two of her fellow Justices effectively asked Whiskey Tango Foxtrot! As well they might.

Where biology goes to court: the case of Poe v. Labrador

Raul Labrador is the Attorney General of Idaho. A minor individual who now goes by the name of Pam Poe is a “trans girl,” according to court papers. The Vulnerable Child Protection Act says that a doctor may not prescribe puberty blockers (the hormonal poison of choice) to, or remove healthy body parts (especially the testes or ovaries) from, a child under the age of eighteen. The doctor who does, could go to prison for as long as ten years.

‘Transitioning,” even of children, has, sadly become fashionable in your editor’s former profession. This fashion reminds one of H. G. Wells’ most controversial novel, The Island of Doctor Moreau. So controversial was it that no motion-picture studio dared dramatize it until 1977. (And again in 1996, as a vehicle for that most over-rated of actors, Marlon Brando.) That’s significant, because the motion-picture industry eagerly dramatized Wells’ other works, including The Invisible Man,The First Men in the Moon, The War of the Worlds, and The Time Machine.

Wells’ Doctor Moreau mutilated wild animals to transform them into likenesses of human beings (complete with the power of speech!). These modern Doctors Moreau surgically mutilate and hormonally poison adults – and children, when they can get away with it – to transform them into likenesses of the opposite sex. Instead of determining why anyone would even express a desire for such treatment, these Doctors Moreau – for ideological or simply venal motives – have embarked on an experimental program to set basic human biology at naught.

Idaho takes a stand

The legislature of Idaho decided they wouldn’t stand for that. So they forbade the practice. Now enter the Poes – two misguided parents who evidently had begun puberty blocking treatments for their son – er – “trans daughter.” They sued the State in federal court, seeking to continue to transform their son into a daughter.

Judge Lynn Winmill, of the U.S. District Court for the Idaho District, favored the Poes with a preliminary injunction. But she did not limit her injunction merely to say, “Pam Poe may continue her treatments.” Oh, no – she must needs rule that the State may not threaten to throw any of its Doctors Moreau into prison for “treating” a minor. Indeed the Poes aren’t even at the surgical stage yet. (Whether they intend to get there, the court record does not make clear.) No matter. Judge Winmill ordered that any Doctor Moreau may begin a full transform, medical and surgical, at will. Or at least as soon as said Doctor Moreau finds a willing subject.

Attorney General Labrador appealed. Sadly his appeal came to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. During his presidency, Donald Trump was able to reform half of that court. Mr. Labrador drew three old-line liberals, who all voted against staying the injunction. Mr. Labrador then went to the Supreme Court. (Application 23A763, Labrador v. Poe.)

The Supreme Court rules

The Supreme Court voted 6-3 to grant a stay of the injunction, as it might apply to any party other than the “Pam Poe” and “John Doe” now seeking the “Doctor Moreau” treatment. Normally, the Supreme Court doesn’t comment on a stay application. But this time, three Justices wrote a total of thirty-four pages of opinions.

Judge Neil Gorsuch, writing for the Originalist Bloc (himself and Justices Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito) summed the case up. He found that the injunction went too far in saying no part of the Vulnerable Child Protection Act is enforceable. Thus Mr. Labrador is likely to prevail on appeal of the preliminary injunction. Gorsuch also found “irreparable harm” to other Idahoans from not enforcing the law, no harm to “Poe” and “Doe” as long as they can get their treatments, and a sound public policy interest in letting a duly enacted law go into force and effect.

Similarly, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for himself and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, lamented that the Court had to act. Nevertheless, he expressed a willingness to act, and joined Justice Gorsuch in thumping District Courts generally for flooding the Supreme Court with so many universal injunctions.

Now enter Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing for the Liberal Bloc. She actually said the Supreme Court should defer to the lower courts when said lower courts do not disagree. Throwing up clouds of terminology, she basically denied that Idaho needed “immediate relief.”

The biology challenged Justice

Recall that this same Justice, when sitting before the Senate Judiciary Committee, professed ignorance of biology. A Senator asked her what a woman was, and she declined to answer.

Biology lies at the heart of this case. Yet she speaks of a Court not being so quick to stay an injunction. But, her colleagues shot back, what about a District Court being so quick to enjoin an entire new law? Or an appeals court being equally quick to affirm a universal injunction? Sauce for the goose.

Indeed more than biology might challenge Justice Jackson. The outrage of her colleagues at her totally outlandish and specious suggestion was palpable. “Abject deference,” Justice Gorsuch said she was demanding. One can sum up his reaction in two words: since and when. Justice Kavanaugh, for his part, said in effect, “You know, this Court could always ‘grant cert’ before judgment.” In other words, Jackson’s appeal to the “weight” of the “issues” was equally specious, and Kavanaugh was not impressed.

The learned Justices are very clever at steering clear of saying the quiet part out loud. Accordingly, Justice Jackson did not dare predict how many minors would commit suicide if they couldn’t see their Doctors Moreau. But read between the lines. She willfully distorts Mr. Labrador’s stay application to say he conceded the point about the particular plaintiffs. Then she said that only a broadly sweeping injunction could protect the plaintiffs’ interests! News flash! Poe and Doe are not class-action proxies for every gender-dysphoric child!

A disingenuous opinion

This opinion lends itself to one interpretation only. Justice Jackson clearly does not want the Vulnerable Child Protection Act ever to go into force or effect. Nor would she permit any other State to pass such a law. Because she will see no child un-transformed. Or at least, she will see no boy un-transformed into a girl. If H. G. Wells’ original character had engaged a barrister, it would have been Ketanji Brown Jackson. (At least, if Doctor Moreau were a modern character, which he almost certainly would have to be.)

All those Poes and Does and Doctors Moreau could move out of Idaho if they wanted to. Let them move to California, Oregon, or Washington State. The Great Sortation is one-way, but it need not be. A time must come, someday, when Congress must reclaim biology and stop these Doctors Moreau from doing any further injury. But until that time comes, the Great Sortation can be two-way. Of course, the defiance of biology will correct itself – because these Doctors Moreau will never produce fertile subjects.

The Alphabet Soup lobby knows this. The World Economic Forum knows this. And Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson knows this. Hence the lawsuit, and Jackson’s desperate attempt to stop a State from protecting its children from a repugnant confidence trick.

What should happen?

Thankfully, this case goes back to the District Court, and the law goes into full force and effect. Now everything depends on the way Mr. Labrador manages his case. He should never concede that any of these Doctors Moreau have any indication to induct children into their experimental program. That this is even arguable in any court, puts him at a disadvantage he should never accept.

God surely reserves enough child counselors who have not sullied their smocks. (Revelation 3:4.) They must step forward to testify against these Doctors Moreau, and defend good medicine against the twisted version that prevails today.

Idaho has passed, and now may enforce, a model law for all the States. This is, to paraphrase Justice Gorsuch’ opinion, “a welcome development.” A rock-solid defense of that law is now necessary to keep it that way.