While many Americans spend the week of Christmas resting and relaxing, LGBTQ politics in America continues to change. A brief summary of this week’s federal updates highlights two major blows to the Trump-Vance administration’s efforts to restrict gender-affirming care for minors.
19 states sue RFK Jr. to overturn gender-affirming care bans
New York State Attorney General Letitia James announced Tuesday that the NYAG office and 18 other states (and the District of Columbia): filed a lawsuit The move is to prevent HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. from restricting gender-affirming care for minors.
in press releaseAttorney General James emphasized that the Trump-Vance administration’s push for the transgender community, particularly transgender youth, is a “clear overreach by the federal government” and relies on conservative, medically untested practices that “punish providers who adhere to established, evidence-based care” that supports gender-affirming care.
“At the heart of this so-called declaration are real people: young people in need of care, parents trying to support their children, and doctors simply following the best available medical evidence,” said Attorney General James. “Secretary Kennedy cannot unilaterally change medical standards by posting documents online, and no one should lose access to necessary medical care because the federal government attempts to interfere in decisions that belong to a doctor’s office. My office will always defend New Yorkers’ health, dignity, and right to make medical decisions free from intimidation.”
The lawsuit is a direct response to HHS’s Dec. 18 announcement that it would pursue regulatory changes that would make access to gender-affirming health care for transgender children more difficult, if not impossible. It would also limit federal funding for hospitals that do not comply with the directive. KFF is an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. It turns out that it will be in 2023 Federal funds covered nearly 45% of total spending on hospital care in the United States
HHS’s directive stems directly from President Donald Trump’s Jan. 28 executive order. Protecting children from chemical and surgical mutilation, It formally establishes the United States’ opposition to gender-affirming treatments and commits to ending federal funding for such treatments.
The American Medical Association, the largest and most influential physician organization in the United States, Measures repeatedly opposed Similar to those promoted by President Trump’s administration, which restricts access to trans health care.
“The AMA supports public and private health insurance coverage for the treatment of gender dysphoria and opposes the denial of health insurance based on sexual orientation or gender identity,” a statement on the AMA’s website reads. “Improving access to gender-affirming care is an important means of improving health outcomes for transgender people.”
The lawsuit also names Oregon, Washington, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin as joining New York in opposing restrictions on gender-affirming care.
At an HHS press conference last Thursday, Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill asserted, “Men are men. Men can never be women. Women are women. Women can never be men.”
Justice Department stops obtaining health care records of transgender youth
U.S. District Judge Kathy Bissoon Attempt blocked The Department of Justice (DOJ) has asked to obtain “personally identifiable information about minor transgender patients” from the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), saying its efforts “go against the face of the Supreme Court.”
Journalist Chris Guidener first reported the news on December 25 emphasized that the Western District of Pennsylvania’s decision is a major blow to the Trump-Vance administration’s policies to curtail transgender rights.
“[T]”His court, like other courts, found that the government’s request for highly private and personal patient information contained more than malice, as evidenced by its rhetoric,” Bissoon wrote in his decision.
Bissoon cited the Justice Department’s “inflammatory characterization” of the care of transgender youth. Department of Justice website As evidence, the practice is more politically motivated than medically sound, and aims to “mutilate children for the sake of a distorted ideology.” This is true even though the majority of gender-affirming care has nothing to do with surgery.
In United States v. Scumetti, the Supreme Court ruled along party lines that a state, namely Tennessee, has the right to pass a law that could prohibit certain medical procedures for transgender minors, and that the law does not include racial, national origin, alien, religious, or Because it does not include such questionable categories, it is not subject to scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, and said the government would need to show that the law serves a compelling interest and is narrow in scope. Return decision-making power to the states.
“The government cannot choose which aspects of Mr. Scumetti it respects and which aspects it ignores,” Judge Bissoon added.
The government unsuccessfully argued that the children’s parents “lack standing” because the subpoena was directed at UPMC and that the records would have been released to the Justice Department because they did not respond in a timely manner. Bissoune specifically rejected arguments about timeliness as “disingenuous.”
Geidner said Bissoon, who was appointed to the bench by then-President Obama, is at least the fourth judge to reject the Justice Department’s efforts to infiltrate the health care of transgender youth.
Source: Washington Blade: LGBTQ News, Politics, LGBTQ Rights, Gay News – www.washingtonblade.com
