One
of
the
best
things
about
being
an
adult
is
that
you’re
finally
able
to
make
decisions
for
yourself
about
what
you’d
like
to
do
with
your
life
and
your
body.
Unless,
of
course,
you’re
an
adult
living
in
West
Virginia
and
have
a
BLÅHAJ
somewhere
in
your
room.
The
Supreme
Court’s
decision
in
Skrmetti
held
that
children
could
be
denied
puberty
blockers
and
hormone
therapy
without
violating
the
Equal
Protection
Clause.
The
rationale
for
the
decision
was
heavy
with
the
law’s
majestic
equality
—
cisgender
children
would
still
have
those
treatment
options
available
even
if
trans
children
didn’t.
The
silver
lining
appeared
to
be
that
trans
kids
denied
care
could
just
wait
until
they
were
adults
to
get
the
treatment
they
needed.
Unfortunately,
Sotomayor’s
prediction
that
the
decision
“do[es]
irrevocable
damage
to
the
Equal
Protection
Clause
and
invite[s]
legislatures
to
engage
in
discrimination
by
hiding
blatant
sex
classifications
in
plain
sight”
was
spot
on.
Reuters
has
coverage:
A
U.S.
appeals
court
on
Tuesday
upheld
West
Virginia’s
ban
on
Medicaid
coverage
for
gender-affirming
surgeries,
the
latest
victory
for
Republican-led
states
seeking
to
curb
the
procedures
amid
an
ongoing
national
battle
over
transgender
rights.In
a
unanimous
ruling,
a
three-judge
panel
of
the
4th
U.S.
Circuit
Court
of
Appeals
in
Richmond,
Virginia,
overturned
a
judge’s
decision
that
the
2004
statute
violated
anti-discrimination
protections
under
two
federal
laws
as
well
as
the
U.S.
Constitution’s
promise
of
equal
protection
under
the
law.
Following
the
same
hate
the
sinner
not
the
sin
specific
procedures
rather
than
specific
individuals
rationale,
the
decision
extends
coverage
denial
to
adults.
The
strangest
thing
about
the
decision
is
that
it,
as
Erin
in
the
Morning
points
out,
turns
the
state’s
desire
to
“encourag[e]
citizens
to
appreciate
their
sex”
and
“not
become
disdainful
of
it”
into
a
proper
and
constitutional
aim.
Anyone
who
actually
gives
a
damn
about
personal
liberty
knows
to
be
on
high
alert
whenever
a
state
tries
to
get
away
with
with
compelled
“enjoyment”
or
“appreciation.”
The
practical
question
becomes
what
to
do
with
the
citizens
who
refuse
“encouragement.”
Erin
runs
through
some
of
the
practicalities:
If
it
is
not
unconstitutional
to
“encourage
citizens
to
appreciate
their
sex,”
the
implications
extend
to
virtually
every
area
of
transgender
life.
Are
gender
marker
bans
on
IDs
legal
because
carrying
correct
documents
could
“discourage”
transgender
people
from
“appreciating
their
sex?”
Are
drag
bans
and
bans
on
cross-gender
clothing
legal
because
the
state
has
an
interest
in
encouraging
the
appreciation
of
sex?
Could
a
state
compel
transgender
people
into
conversion
therapy,
reasoning
that
it
is
not
discriminatory
because
it
targets
a
medical
diagnosis
rather
than
transgender
status—and
that
the
goal
is
simply
to
“encourage
them
to
appreciate
their
sex?”
The
ruling
stands
as
proof
of
concept
that
autonomy
and
self-determination
rights
can
be
stripped
away
from
adults.
Right
now
it
is
West
Virginia.
How
long
will
it
take
for
Florida
or
Texas
to
adopt
the
“sex
appreciation”
rationale?
Or
until
the
rationale
gets
applied
to
other
protected
groups?
Rough
time
for
liberty.
West
Virginia
Can
Ban
Medicaid
Coverage
For
Gender-Affirming
Surgery,
US
Court
Rules
[Reuters]
4th
Circuit
Rules
That
States
Can
Compel
Trans
Adults
To
“Appreciate
Their
Sex”
Via
Care
Bans
[Erin
In
The
Morning]
Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s
.
He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boat
builder
who
is
learning
to
swim
and
is
interested
in
rhetoric,
Spinozists
and
humor.
Getting
back
in
to
cycling
wouldn’t
hurt
either.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected]
and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.