The United States Supreme Court today lifted an injunction against Idaho’s ban on so-called “gender-affirming care” for minors, which includes cross-sex hormones and sex-change surgeries. The removal of the injunction allows Idaho to begin enforcing the law immediately. Only one of the major corporate networks even pretended to cover the story on their evening newscast.
I say “pretend” because CBS gave us a whole 13 seconds on the ruling itself. Here it is, in its entirety as aired on CBS Evening News:
NORAH O’DONNELL: Now to some breaking news from the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court is allowing Idaho to largely enforce its ban on gender-affirming care for transgender children under 18, while lawsuits over the law go forward. Justice Clarence Thomas was not in court today, and did not participate remotely in arguments. There was no explanation given for his absence.
This tiniest of briefs, about 21 seconds total, was the entirety of coverage across the corporate network dial. And 8 of those seconds were dedicated to baseless speculation over the health of Justice Clarence Thomas. The report makes no effort to clue the viewer in on what these treatments might entail for children, or any of the rationale behind why the duly elected legislature of the state of Idaho banned these irreversible “treatments” in the first place. In the absence of any meaningful information, it is as if the report were little more than a narrative device for anchor Norah O’Donnell to utter “gender-affirming care” and “transgender minors”. Even so, this milquetoast brief is 21 seconds more than ABC or NBC were able to muster for the ruling.
Taxpayer-funded PBS NewsHour, not to be outdone by CBS, packed as many pro-trans agenda talking points into its 22 seconds:
GEOFF BENNETT: In a separate ruling, the justices decided to allow Idaho to enforce a ban on gender-affirming care for trans youth. The order lets the state put in place a 2023 law that means doctors could face up to 10 years in prison if they provide hormones, puberty blockers or such services to minors. Opponents have warned that the law could increase suicide rates among teens.
To be crystal clear, the “such” in “such services” is “surgical”, per the statute. In fairness, Bennett isn’t alone in trying to paper over the surgical components of “gender-affirming care”. Per the American Pravda’s writeup of the ruling:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is allowing Idaho to enforce its ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth while lawsuits over the law proceed, reversing lower courts.
The justices’ order Monday allows the state to put in a place a 2023 law that subjects physicians to up to 10 years in prison if they provide hormones, puberty blockers or other gender-affirming care to people under age 18.
One thing is clear: the media prefer to talk about these irreversible therapies in such opaque terms as “gender-affirming care”, and will do anything to avoid talking about kids’ body parts being chopped off or about irreversible changes brought about by hormonal treatments. But they can’t omit this part of the equation forever, especially as these treatments continue to be exposed for what they really are: child mutilation.
