Texas and Missouri judges have issued conflicting rulings on transgender treatments for minors.
Judges Issue Contrasting Rulings on Gender Transition Procedures for Minors
Judges in Texas and Missouri have recently made separate rulings regarding whether individuals under 18 can receive certain gender transition procedures in their respective states.
In Texas, a judge has ruled against the state’s ban on gender transition procedures for minors, temporarily stopping it from taking effect next week as she continues to review the ongoing legal challenge.
Meanwhile, in Missouri, a different judge has declined to block a ban on gender transition procedures that is set to take effect on August 28.
The two decisions were issued just hours apart.
Texas Freezes Judge’s Decision
The office of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, has swiftly filed an appeal to the Texas Supreme Court in response to the ruling from state District Judge Maria Cantu Hexsel. The appeal aims to have the ban on gender transition, also known as Senate Bill 14, back on track to take effect on September 1.
In Texas, an appeal instantly freezes the decision, meaning Judge Cantu Hexsel’s ruling has been put on hold pending a decision by the Texas Supreme Court.
In a statement on Friday, Mr. Paxton’s office expressed its commitment to enforcing the laws enacted by the Texas Legislature and protecting children from potentially harmful gender transition interventions.
Judge Cantu Hexsel, who ran as a Democrat, had ruled in favor of a group of doctors and families of children with gender dysphoria. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Texas and Lambda Legal had sued on their behalf to challenge the law, which was signed by Governor Greg Abbott in June. The plaintiffs argued that the law violated parents’ rights and would have devastating consequences for gender dysphoric minors.
The judge stated that the law’s prohibition on evidence-based treatment for adolescents with gender dysphoria contradicted parents’ fundamental right to make decisions about their children’s care. She also determined that the ban would discriminate against gender dysphoric minors and force doctors to compromise their patients’ health under threat of losing their medical licenses.
“The court decision is a critical victory for transgender youth and their families, supporters, and health providers against this blatantly unconstitutional law,” said Brian Klosterboer of the ACLU of Texas, a lawyer for the families, in a statement prior to the decision being stayed due to the appeal.
Mr. Paxton’s office emphasized that Senate Bill 14 aims to prohibit hospitals from administering experimental hormones or conducting gender transition surgeries on minors. The office argued that these medical interventions lack evidence of benefit and may have harmful effects on children’s mental and physical well-being.
Missouri’s Ban on Gender Transition for Minors
In Missouri, a ruling by St. Louis Circuit Judge Steven Ohmer means that health care providers will be barred from performing transgender surgeries on minors starting August 28.
Minors who are already on puberty blockers or hormones prior to August 28 can continue their regimen, but new access for others will be restricted according to Senate Bill 49, signed on June 7 by Governor Mike Parson.
The law also halts Medicaid funding for these procedures for adults and prohibits the state from offering these surgeries to prisoners and inmates.
Doctors who violate the law risk losing their licenses and facing lawsuits from patients. The legislation streamlines the process for former patients to file lawsuits, offering them a 15-year window and ensuring a minimum of $500,000 in damages if they win.
Judge Ohmer rejected a request to temporarily block Missouri’s legislation as the court challenge against it plays out. He stated in his order that the petitioners had not clearly shown a sufficient threat of irreparable injury without injunctive relief.
The legal challenge was filed in July by ACLU of Missouri, Lambda Legal, and Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner on behalf of doctors, LGBT organizations, and three families of minors with gender dysphoria. They argued that Missouri’s law is discriminatory and would cause severe and irreparable harm to gender dysphoric minors.
“Withholding or restricting gender-affirming medical care from individuals with gender dysphoria when it is medically indicated puts them at risk of severe, irreversible harm to their health and well-being,” the groups wrote in the lawsuit.
Judge Ohmer wrote in his ruling that the science and medical evidence is conflicting and unclear, and the plaintiffs’ arguments were unpersuasive and unlikely to succeed. The next hearing in the case is scheduled for September 22.
‘Gender-Affirming Care’
At least 20 U.S. states have passed laws that protect minors from transgender surgeries and related procedures. Proponents of these procedures refer to them as “gender-affirming care,” while opponents view gender dysphoria as a psychological issue that requires psychological solutions.
In recent years, the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) have issued statements supporting “gender-affirming care.” They argue that gender transition procedures can improve the mental health of gender dysphoric individuals and reduce rates of suicide. They also claim that forgoing such care puts patients at a higher risk of anxiety, stress, substance abuse, and suicide.
B
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
