Yesterday, the US Supreme Court heard arguments about Tennessee's ban on gender affirming care for young people.

That case has ties to a suit filed by Kentucky's American Civil Liberties Union and will decide the legitimacy of Kentucky's own ban.

The national ACLU argued these laws are discriminatory, not protections for children.

One justice was completely silent, and that is the justice who actually wrote the case on which we all heavily rely, which was the case called Bostock.

That was decided in 2020 that agreed that that is in the context of employment discrimination.

If you discriminate against a person who is transgender, that is a form of discriminatory discrimination on the basis of sex, and that therefore it is it is that form of discrimination that the Civil Rights Act prohibits.

And our argument is that it's the same language, it's the same sort of grammatical analysis of how you classify and a form of discrimination.

It's just now it's applied to the equal protection clause, and it's not a statutory interpretation.

There's no choice but to be optimistic for the parents and the families of kids who have to leave the state to get the health care that they and their doctors believe is necessary.

And so in order to stay optimistic, you have to just hope that there are five justices who agree that this heightened level of scrutiny should apply.

Last year, Kentucky's General Assembly banned hormones and surgeries for minors seeking transition to a different gender.

That prompted a lawsuit against the law by the ACLU of Kentucky on behalf of seven Kentucky families seeking that gender affirming care.

That case was consolidated with the Tennessee suit at the appellate level.

A Christian conservative group in Kentucky welcomes judges and politicians to weigh in on matters of gender identity.

You know, from our side, it's very clear to anyone with any ounce of reason what a man is and what a woman is.

And those sorts of questions, your answer to what is a man and what is a woman, What determines someone being a man and what determines someone being a woman really plays into everything else that you think about The function of government, the structure of society, everything like that.

So those foundational questions, yes, are very important.

And we think those are certainly at play in this case.

But as far as what the justices were concerned with, that's not really a line that they went into all that much.

And I think they probably did that on purpose.

They probably wanted to stay out of the larger cultural issues, but we certainly wouldn't see an make the claim that if you're born a man, you're a man.

If you're born a woman, you're a woman.

The Family Foundation of Kentucky says banning hormones or surgeries for transgender adults is not on its policy agenda.