On Feb. 12, 1974 Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was arrested. This was already after he experienced eight years in the Gulag and exile for criticizing Stalin.
Russian author, 1970 Nobel Prize winner, and Soviet dissident, he raised awareness of political oppression in the Soviet Union, in particular the Gulag prison system.
The forced labor camps under Stalin’s rule are difficult for generations concerned about pronouns to comprehend. But they should pay close attention. Solzhenitsyn released the text of “Live Not by Lies” on the day he was arrested.
In it, Solzhenitsyn said, “We are approaching the brink; already a universal spiritual demise is upon us; a physical one is about to flare up and engulf us and our children, while we continue to smile sheepishly and babble.”
The Supreme Court of the United States heard oral argument in United States v. Skrmetti, a case to decide whether Tennessee’s ban on transgender transitions for minors violatesthe Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Tennessee’s law stated a “compelling interest” to protect minors from physical and emotional harm through a ban on hormones and surgery to attempt a modification of a child’s sex.
Katie Lennon, a citizen of Tennessee, previously spoke in support of this law. She described how she identified herself as transgender for years.
The people in her life supported her. The constant affirmations solidified her. But when that wasn’t enough, she took hormones. Then cut off her breasts. Then had a total hysterectomy.
“Fleeting moments of euphoria…I thought that in the end I could become a man, but all I became was a mutilated and abused version of my old self,” she testified to Tennessee lawmakers.
As I listened to the SCOTUS arguments this week, I realized Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s attempt to paint this issue as comparable to race discrimination is fundamentally out of touch with reality and logic.
She opined on a theory which I can only describe as the Imaginary Equal Protection Clause.
The Equal Protection Clause guarantees that people are treated equally under the law, and that any differences be connected to a valid reason with a compelling state interest.
An example of a “compelling state interest,” under law, is to protect public health and safety. Justice Jackson’s Imaginary Equal Protection Clause theory reimagines that the law must protect you as a special category, even if your category is outside of reality. If this logic holds, next up are classifications for astrological sign, furry identification and favorite sandwich.
Katie deserved to be protected until she was an adult who could make a choice to lose her body’s natural form forever. We know that these procedures are harmful, and that by their very nature, they are life-altering.
According to the attorney arguing against Tennessee’s law, “Drawing sex based lines” to make minors “appreciate their sex” is an illegal classification.
Or is it just reality? The Wyoming Attorney General’s brief to SCOTUS noted, “In our federalist system, the States determine how to ensure that medical procedures performed within their borders are safe and beneficial, especially when there is medical uncertainty and especially when it comes to our children.”
We know that this is not safe. Katie’s experience is one of many who share similar stories.
If the law is to say that this is discrimination, I’m quite certain that next our tax dollars would be “medically necessary” to pay for transgender treatments for people on Medicaid and in the prison systems.
No matter your role in society or the political system, you must be willing to live not by lies, even in the face of great adversity, criticism and discomfort.
Solzhenitsyn said, “And therein we find, neglected by us, the simplest, the most accessible key to our liberation: a personal nonparticipation in lies! Even if all is covered by lies, even if all is under their rule, let us resist in the smallest way: Let their rule hold not through me!”
Cassie may be reached at: ccraven.law@gmail.com
