FLORIDA MEDICAID COVERAGE OF GENDER AFFIRMING CARE
Judge Hinkle has struck down the Florida Medicaid ban on covering gender affirming care as UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
He writes in the order:
Gender identity is real. Those whose gender identity does not match their
Dekker vs. Weida
natal sex often suffer gender dysphoria. The widely accepted standard of care calls
for evaluation and treatment by a multidisciplinary team. Proper treatment begins
with mental-health therapy and is followed in appropriate cases by GnRH agonists
and cross-sex hormones. Florida has adopted a rule and statute that prohibit
Medicaid payment for these treatments even when medically appropriate. The rule
and statute violate the federal Medicaid statute, the Equal Protection Clause, and
the Affordable Care Act’s prohibition of sex discrimination.
Judge Hinkle is also the presiding judge in Doe vs. Ladapo, which challenges the restrictions to youth gender affirming care in Florida.
ARKANSAS BAN ON YOUTH GENDER AFFIRMING CARE STRUCK DOWN AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
We’ll send you to LawDork for an in-depth write up, but the short story is that this is the first final order in a court case challenging a state ban on gender affirming care.
Judge James Moody Jr. ruled that the Arkansas ban that became law in 2021, is unconstitutional.
Arkansas is expected to appeal, but might not get very far:
- the appeal goes to the Eighth Circuit Court, which already upheld a preliminary injunction to this law
- as LawDork explains, “a clear error” in Judge Moody’s findings would need to be found to support an appeal.
And the findings? They’re EPIC. (And they’re what we’ve been saying all along.)
Erin Reed’s Erin In The Morning Substack details out Judge Moody’s findings. Here are some highlights:
- Denying care causes harm.
- Detransition and regret are rare.
- The State’s expert witnesses (many of whom travel state-to-state to testify) are not to be trusted.
- Requiring “high quality” evidence from research before providing gender affirming care is discriminatory (and unethical.)
- Adverse events in gender affirming care are rare.
INDIANA’s BAN ON GENDER AFFIRMING CARE FOR YOUTH IS ENJOINED
June 16th: U.S. District Judge James Patrick Hanlon -a Trump appointee- blocked Indiana from enforcing its ban on youth care and its criminalization of medical providers being able to refer patients to others for gender affirming care.
This case is important not just because it is ANOTHER judge declaring that bans on gender affirming care is likely unconstitutional, but because the Judge was a TRUMP appointee, and thus presumed to be more conservative than not. It’s also important that the injunction clearly states that medical provider rights to free speech were harmed by this ban and are thus likely unconstitutional.
From LawDork:
The constitutional provisions that Hanlon found the law likely violates are equal protection guarantees — as to the gender-affirming care ban — and the First Amendment — as to the aiding and abetting ban.
LawDork
Bans on gender affirming care for minors have been blocked by the courts in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, and Indiana. Here’s info about ongoing lawsuits in the states we serve.
Stay Checked In with QueerDoc
