This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Two years ago, lawmakers in Tennessee adopted a legislative plan that prevents physicians from facilitating a minor's gender transition.
It does that by stopping them from "prescribing, administering, or dispensing any puberty blocker or hormone" or carrying out gender transition surgery.
At the time, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall simply said the processes are "child abuse."
"This was simply a way to impose a radical gender ideology across the country under the guise of treatment for kids," he said.
The fight was in the courts almost immediately and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals approved the law, and the Joe Biden administration jumped into the fight, through the U.S. Department of Justice, to condemn the state and promote his transgender ideologies, which he pushed throughout his administration.
When President Donald Trump moved into the White House, he could have dropped the government's participation. He didn't. In fact, he reversed the government's position, and it now is arguing that the law is fine.
The Washington Stand explains the DOJ, now in the U.S. v. Skrmetti case, states, "The department has now determined that SB1 does not deny equal protection on account of sex or any other characteristic."
Curtis Ganon, a deputy solicitor general, told the Supreme Court the previously stated opinions were wrong.
The reversal came just two days after Pam Bondi, Trump's nominee for U.S. attorney general, was sworn in.
The report noted, "Also under normal circumstances, the DOJ reversing its position on the case would render it moot, removing it from the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, which extends only to live 'cases' and 'controversies' under Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. However, the DOJ's letter argued that this was a special case. Since the U.S. government is not the only challenger, the case before the court is not moot. The court's decision will affect many cases in lower courts (at least four appellate courts have ruled on the merits of the question, coming to conflicting conclusions). And, since the court has already been fully briefed on this case, it would be a waste of the court's time to dismiss this case, only for it to hear a similar case later. In the DOJ's words," the report noted.
Sarah Parshall Perry of the Heritage Foundation said it was the best position the DOJ could have adopted.
"The court has heard all it needs to hear on the constitutionality of state bans on gender affirming care for minors. … Though the official position of the U.S. is now different than it was under Biden, the issue remains salient, and the Court should still resolve it. Failing to do so means trans-identified children will continue to suffer gender butchery in the states while litigation proceeds."
