As we told you earlier, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that upholds the right of states to ban what the Left and much of the media calls "gender-affirming care." 

Our previous story contained the conclusion of the majority opinion, but if you missed that here it is: 

'This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound. The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best. Our role is not “to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic” of the law before us, Beach Communications, 508 U. S., at 313, but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.

The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is affirmed. 

It is so ordered.'

The public sentiment over so much of what's going on these days -- whether it's enforcing immigration laws or about the mutilation of minors -- are called "80-20 issues" for very good reason: 

However, the media continue to report these things as if it's a major source of contention within the U.S.

The Washington Post called the SCOTUS ruling a "polarizing national issue":

It is in no way a "polarizing national issue":

Also you'll notice the Trump administration has "seized" again, and the "pouncing" can't be far behind. 

Then there's the "divided" court. Yeah, about that:

It depends on what your definition of "divided" is.