Update: Judge Blocks Parts Of Indiana Ban On Gender-Affirming Care For Trans Youth

More information has come in for the temporary injunction. First, amazingly it was a Trump appointed judge that made the ruling!

KEYT reported that,

A Trump-appointed judge in Indiana has blocked parts of a state law banning gender-affirming care for transgender youth from going into effect next month.

The law, known as SEA 480, which Indiana’s Republican-controlled legislature passed earlier this year, prohibits physicians from providing minors with treatments such as puberty blocking medication, hormone therapy and surgery intended to help transition genders.

But US District Court Judge James Patrick Hanlon, who was appointed to the bench by President Donald Trump in 2018, issued a preliminary injunction Friday that blocks the ban on most of those treatments. His order does, however, allow the prohibition on gender reassignment surgeries for minors to take effect on July 1, as planned.

“Because Plaintiffs have some likelihood of success on the merits of constitutional claims, a preliminary injunction is in the public interest,” Hanlon said in a 34-page opinion. “While the State has a strong interest in enforcing democratically enacted laws, that interest decreases as Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claims increases.”

I bet the Republicans are having a hissy fit over this!

NPR said in an article that…

The ACLU filed the lawsuit within hours after Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb signed the bill April 5. The challenge, on behalf of four youths undergoing transgender treatments and an Indiana doctor who provides such care, argued the ban would violate the U.S. Constitution's equal protection guarantees and trampled upon the rights of parents to decide medical treatment for their children.

[...]

Hanlon, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump, wrote that he was blocking the law from taking effect because its opponents had demonstrated potential irreparable harm to those undergoing treatment and shown "some likelihood of success" in arguments that it was unconstitutional.

The ACLU had provided "evidence of risks to minors' health and wellbeing from gender dysphoria if those treatments can no longer be provided to minors — prolonging of their dysphoria, and causing additional distress and health risks, such as depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and suicidality," Hanlon said. "While the State has identified legitimate reasons for regulation in this area, the designated evidence does not demonstrate, at least at this stage, that the extent of its regulation was closely tailored to uphold those interests."

We all knew this would happen, it didn’t take a legal scholar to see that these laws used faulty data to attack us. The judge also wrote,

The provisions of the law banning gender-affirming surgeries for minors in Indiana will have no immediate impact. Hanlon wrote in his ruling that no medical providers in the state perform those procedures on people younger than 18.

According to Erin in the Morning that the judge said in his ruling…

In essence, the discriminatory nature of the law is evident as it only forbids treatments designed to support transgender youth in their transition to a sex different from their assigned birth sex. Conversely, it permits the same treatments when used to maintain alignment with their birth sex. To put it plainly, if a cisgender boy experiences gynecomastia (enlarged breasts), he can access treatment for reduction; however, this option is denied to transgender boys. Similarly, a cisgender girl can get medical assistance to suppress excessive testosterone, but transgender girls are prohibited from the same treatment. These biased regulations are wholly founded on sex, leading the judge to unequivocally rule that “sex-based classifications are not just present in S.E.A. 480’s prohibitions, they’re determinative.”

Because the bill is based on sex, the bill must be narrowly tailored and have an “exceedingly persuasive justification.” Simply being “controversial and unsettled,” as the state erroneously describes gender affirming care, does not meet that standard. Hanlon analyzed the evidence around puberty blockers and hormone therapy, nevertheless, to determine if those justifications existed.

The state attempted to defend its position by wrongly asserting that puberty blockers pose a significant harm to transgender youth, thus warranting the broad ban. The state supported its argument with supposed side effect profiles of hormone therapy and puberty blockers, and relied on supposed “similar bans” on care in several European countries. In contrast, the plaintiffs correctly countered that the state has misrepresented the benefits of gender-affirming care. They contended that these medical interventions are life-saving, as they have been shown to alleviate suicide risk, anxiety, and depression in transgender youth. The plaintiffs emphasized that denying access to these treatments would further endanger the wellbeing of trans youth.

The judge knew BS when he saw it!

And the New York Times said this about other court rulings,

Federal judges have also blocked or mostly blocked enforcement of transition-care bans passed in prior years in Alabama and Arkansas. In Oklahoma, the state attorney general’s office agreed not to enforce a newly passed ban on transition care until a judge could rule on an injunction request. And in Florida, a judge said this month that the state could not prevent a handful of children whose families sued from continuing their transition treatments.

Okay, here is my prediction.

We are going to see these draconian laws drop like flies. I even predict that the Supreme Court will rule in our favor. These laws were written on junk science and that these laws were vindictive and  politically motivate.

---

I like to ask Google's Bard questions... How has Judge Hanlon ruling on transgender healthcare affect other states.

Judge Hanlon's ruling on transgender healthcare has had a mixed impact on other states. Some states have taken steps to follow Indiana's lead and ban gender-affirming care for minors, while others have vowed to protect transgender youth's access to healthcare.

In Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott signed a bill into law in February that would have banned all gender-affirming care for minors, including puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapy. However, a federal judge blocked the law from taking effect just days before it was set to go into effect. The judge ruled that the law was likely unconstitutional and that it would cause irreparable harm to transgender youth.

In Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill into law in March that would have banned transgender students from competing in sports that align with their gender identity. However, a federal judge blocked the law from taking effect just days before it was set to go into effect. The judge ruled that the law was likely unconstitutional and that it would cause irreparable harm to transgender students.

These are just two examples of how states have responded to Judge Hanlon's ruling. It is likely that other states will continue to debate this issue in the coming months and years.

It is important to note that there is a growing body of scientific evidence that supports the use of gender-affirming care for transgender youth. Studies have shown that these treatments can help transgender youth to feel more comfortable in their own bodies and to reduce their risk of depression and suicide.

Despite the scientific evidence, some people continue to oppose gender-affirming care for transgender youth. They argue that these treatments are experimental and that they could have negative long-term consequences. However, the vast majority of medical experts agree that gender-affirming care is safe and effective.

The debate over transgender healthcare is likely to continue for some time. However, Judge Hanlon's ruling has sent a clear message that transgender youth have the right to access the healthcare they need.