It's Thursday, June 8, 2023.

I'm Albert Moller, and this is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from

a Christian world view.

Our attention is drawn towards courtrooms, and the reason is simple to understand.

That's why there are so many courtroom novels, so many courtroom dramas, movies based in

courtrooms.

It is because in courtrooms, the basic human drama of good and evil, right and wrong,

true and false are often played out.

There's a huge question, however, when we ask ourselves whether it is the issue of medicine

that should be decided, or medical treatment that should be decided in a court room, in

a court room of law.

That issue comes to mind with a recent decision by a US District Court judge in Florida.

In this case, US District Judge Robert Hinkle, who just a go handed down what's known

as a preliminary injunction against Florida's law, that places a ban on transgender affirming

care for children and teenagers, defined here as the transgender affirming care for minors.

As the judge handed down his decision, he also rendered a verdict.

He rendered a medical verdict.

He rendered a moral verdict, at least insofar as the judge's decision or order stands.

We are looking at a face down over the huge issue of whether or not minors, or the parents

of minors for that matter, should be able to choose hormone and eventually even surgical

therapy or care or surgical treatment in what's defined as gender affirming.

So much to unpack here, but this judge made the unpacking incredibly important by some

...