MSNBC’s Jonathan Capehart and Eugene Daniels welcomed Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern to Saturday’s installment of The Weekend to react to the Supreme Court upholding Tennessee’s law that bans so-called “gender-affirming care” for minors earlier in the week. As Stern would tell it, the Court refuses to block “bigoted” laws that are necessary for people to live.
Fumbling over his words, Daniels, who is still the president of the White House Correspondents Association, began with more of a declaration than a question, “Mark, the impact of this ruling on transgender youth, whether these kind of trigger laws are going to go into effect or they're feeling more as targets of this country, is what's happening here. That's the impact of what we're seeing.”
Stern began his series of lamentations by reminding people it isn’t just Tennessee, “Absolutely. And nearly half the states, as you said. There will now be laws in effect that prohibit minors from accessing gender-affirming care. And beyond that, a number of states, including big ones like Florida, are trying to extend this further to adults. To prohibit adults from accessing treatments that are considered necessary and sometimes lifesaving for transgender people.”
As for the Tennessee case, Stern continued, “The Supreme Court only upheld these bans for youth. But in my view, the Court's reasoning really opens the door for states to extend it to adults. And I think this is a sign by the Court that the six conservative justices are just not going to stand in the way of these, I think, quite bigoted and openly transphobic laws that are designed to prevent trans people from living and flourishing in this country.”
Ah, yes. If you agree with the left-wing British government that minors should not receive gender-altering drugs, you’re a bigot.
Daniels then further mourned, “And this is even if the parents of the kids say, ‘Yes, my child can take this hormone therapy or these blockers.’”
Again, Stern was interested in the idea that promoting gender confusion in children is actually the compassionate thing to do:
Absolutely right. And that was one of the arguments that the plaintiffs raised in the case, that parents have a constitutional right to direct their children's upbringing and their medical care, and in this case, the parents of the trans teenager wanted their child to access this care. They said that it was night and day before and after they started receiving hormones, that it was a wonderful way for her to truly live as her authentic self. The parents wanted this, the doctor wanted this, but the state legislature decided to override all of their judgments and impose a blanket ban, which will now be in effect, and this family may have to flee to a different state in order to continue that care.
It is odd that whenever this topic is discussed, media people love to cite doctors that say the drugs are necessary, but they rarely, if ever, discuss how international opinion says the opposite, even in countries that are not exactly run by religious right types. Perhaps that should be a hint for the media to examine whether the science behind Stern’s claims is as solid as he claims.
Here is a transcript for the June 21 show:
MSNBC The Weekend
6/21/2025
8:51 AM ET
EUGENE DANIELS: Mark, the impact of this ruling on transgender youth, whether these kind of trigger laws are going to go into effect or they're feeling more as targets of this country, is what's happening here. That's the impact of what we're seeing.
MARK JOSEPH STERN: Absolutely. And nearly half the states, as you said. There will now be laws in effect that prohibit minors from accessing gender-affirming care. And beyond that, a number of states, including big ones like Florida, are trying to extend this further to adults. To prohibit adults from accessing treatments that are considered necessary and sometimes lifesaving for transgender people.
So, the Supreme Court only upheld these bans for youth. But in my view, the Court's reasoning really opens the door for states to extend it to adults. And I think this is a sign by the Court that the six conservative justices are just not going to stand in the way of these, I think, quite bigoted and openly transphobic laws that are designed to prevent trans people from living and flourishing in this country.
DANIELS: And this is even if the parents of the kids say, “Yes, my child can take this hormone therapy or these blockers.”
STERN: Absolutely right. And that was one of the arguments that the plaintiffs raised in the case, that parents have a constitutional right to direct their children's upbringing and their medical care, and in this case, the parents of the trans teenager wanted their child to access this care. They said that it was night and day before and after they started receiving hormones, that it was a wonderful way for her to truly live as her authentic self. The parents wanted this, the doctor wanted this, but the state legislature decided to override all of their judgments and impose a blanket ban, which will now be in effect, and this family may have to flee to a different state in order to continue that care.
