'My ears are bleeding': Why SC Justice Ketanji Jackson comparing gender surgery for minors to interracial marriage is sparking fury

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson compared bans on gender-affirming care to interracial marriage prohibitions during a Supreme Court hearing, sparking debate. Critics argue her analogy conflates distinct legal issues, as Loving v. Virginia addressed racial discrimination under strict scrutiny, while gender-affirming care involves medical and ethical complexities, subject to differing standards of review. The comparison also highlights disparities in public acceptance; interracial marriage is widely supported, while gender-affirming care remains contentious. Some view Jackson's remarks as judicial activism, framing the issue as a civil rights imperative. The debate underscores tensions between state authority, evolving public opinion, and courts' role in safeguarding equality.