Judge blocks Texas ban on transition-related care for minors

Post Reply New Topic

A Texas judge blocked the state’s upcoming ban on transition-related medical care for minors Friday as a judge in Missouri ruled that a similar ban in that state could take effect Monday, the latest in a legal fight over efforts by conservatives to restrict such care around the country.

In Texas, a group of families and doctors sued to block the state law, arguing it would violate parents’ rights and have devastating consequences for transgender children and teens who would be denied treatment recommended by their physicians and parents.

The ruling landed just ahead of the Sept. 1 start date for the ban. The Texas Attorney General’s office was expected to quickly file an appeal to let the law take effect.

The Missouri ruling by St. Louis Circuit Judge Steven Ohmer means that beginning next week, health care providers are prohibited from providing transition-related surgeries to minors. Trans youth who began puberty blockers or hormones before Monday will be allowed to continue on those medications, but other minors won’t have access to those drugs.

Some adults will also lose access to gender-affirming care. Medicaid no longer will cover treatments for adults, and the state will not provide those surgeries to people who are incarcerated.

Physicians who violate the law face having their licenses revoked and being sued by patients. The law makes it easier for former patients to sue, giving them 15 years to go to court and promising at least $500,000 in damages if they succeed.

The ACLU of Missouri, Lambda Legal, and Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner last month sued to overturn the Missouri law on behalf of doctors, LGBTQ+ organizations, and three families of transgender minors, arguing that it is discriminatory. They asked that the law be temporarily blocked as the court challenge against it plays out. The next hearing in the case is scheduled for Sept. 22.

But Ohmer wrote that the plaintiffs’ arguments were “unpersuasive and not likely to succeed.”

“The science and medical evidence is conflicting and unclear. Accordingly, the evidence raises more questions than answers,” Ohmer wrote in his ruling. “As a result, it has not clearly been shown with sufficient possibility of success on the merits to justify the grant of a preliminary injunction.”

One plaintiff, a 10-year-old transgender boy, has not yet started puberty and consequently has not yet started taking puberty blockers. His family is worried he will begin puberty after the law takes effect, meaning he will not be grandfathered in and will not have access to puberty blockers for the next four years until the law sunsets.