This blog originally appeared at ABC News.
A federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction against an Idaho law that would have banned gender-affirming healthcare treatments for transgender individuals under 18 years old. The law, which was scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2024, aimed to make it a felony to provide gender-affirming care for transgender youth.
On Wednesday, District Court Judge Lynn Winmill ruled that the restrictions imposed by the law violate the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Winmill stated in his decision, “Transgender children should receive equal treatment under the law. Parents should have the right to make the most fundamental decisions about how to care for their children.”
Continuing, he emphasized, “Time and again, these cases illustrate that the Fourteenth Amendment’s primary role is to protect disfavored minorities and preserve our fundamental rights from legislative overreach… and it is no less true for transgender children and their parents in the 21st Century.”
HB 71, signed into law by Governor Brad Little in April, prohibits puberty blockers, which enable children to explore their gender identity and temporarily halt the development of permanent sex characteristics. The law also bans hormone therapies and surgeries. Physicians, as reported by ABC News, have emphasized that surgeries on adolescents are infrequent and are only considered after careful evaluation on a case-by-case basis.
The law includes an exception for children with a “medically verifiable genetic disorder of sex development,” commonly referred to as intersex.
The law stipulates that any medical professional found guilty of providing gender-affirming care to transgender individuals under 18 could face a felony conviction and imprisonment in a state prison for a maximum of 10 years.
In the United States, approximately 20 states have enacted limitations on the accessibility of gender-affirming care, and several of these measures have encountered legal opposition. Arkansas, the initial state to pass such legislation, also had its law declared unconstitutional by a federal judge.
Proponents of these restrictions contend that they safeguard children from “medically unnecessary interventions that result in irreparable infertility, chronic health problems, and mutilated reproductive organs,” as expressed in a press release by the conservative Christian lobbying group Idaho Family Policy Center after the bill was signed into law.
The adolescent plaintiffs central to this legal action, directly affected by the legislation, emphasize that gender-affirming care has been crucial for their mental well-being. This sentiment aligns with findings from various studies.
The CDC reports that transgender youth frequently face anxiety, depressive moods, and thoughts or attempts of suicide, often stemming from gender-related discrimination and dysphoria. A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine affirms that gender-affirming hormone therapy is effective in enhancing the mental well-being of transgender adolescents and teenagers.
One of the plaintiffs emphasized the swift and positive impact of puberty blockers on her well-being. The decision by Judge Winmill notes that by temporarily halting the physical changes contributing to her depression and anxiety, her mental health significantly improved.
The second plaintiff initiated puberty blockers following extensive therapy, additional consultations with her doctor, and laboratory assessments. After a few months, she commenced low-dose hormone therapy, as outlined in the legal filing.
The filing, which uses a pseudonym for the plaintiff, stated, “Since receiving gender-affirming medical care, Jane’s mental health has significantly improved, but the debate over HB 71 and other anti-transgender bills has affected her mental health and her grades.” It further mentions that when the bill passed, Jane wept in the school hallway, requiring her parents to take her home. The passage of the bill has prompted the Doe family to contemplate leaving Idaho so that Jane can maintain access to the medical care that has proven significantly beneficial to her.
Prominent national medical associations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and more than 20 others, concur that gender-affirming care is both safe and medically necessary, offering effective and beneficial outcomes.
fleeredstates.blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.