The Michigan Supreme Court broke new ground Monday in a dispute over parental rights, saying a woman can seek custody of her partner’s child who was born before their same-sex relationship ended.
Carrie Pueblo has no biological ties to a boy who was born to Rachel Haas in 2008 but had helped raise him. Pueblo insists they would have been married at that time if same-sex marriage had been legal in Michigan, a status that could have given her a formal role in the child’s life even if the marriage had ended.
“While the decision in this case likely affects few, it is, nonetheless, important for what it represents,” Justice Megan Cavanagh said in a 5-2 opinion.
“Justice does not depend on family composition; all who petition for recognition of their parental rights are entitled to equal treatment under the law,” Cavanagh wrote.
Pueblo and Haas had raised the boy together after their relationship ended. But by 2017, Pueblo said Haas demanded that she stop having contact with the child.
Pueblo now can return to a Kalamazoo County court and attempt to show that she and Haas would have been married, if possible, when the boy was born through in vitro fertilization.
If a judge agrees, Pueblo then can be evaluated for “custody and parenting time,” the Supreme Court said.
Haas’ attorney had urged the Supreme Court in April to stay on the sidelines and let the Legislature change the law if lawmakers believe it would be appropriate. Justice Brian Zahra agreed with that position in his dissent.
“I am uncomfortable with retroactively recognizing a marriage-equivalent relationship. … Courts will be required to dive into all public and private aspects of a now-defunct relationship to hypothesize whether the couple would have chosen to marry,” said Zahra, who was joined by Justice David Viviano.
Two patients sued Monday in Nashville Chancery Court, saying they were among more than 100 people whose records were sent by Vanderbilt to Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti. His office has said it is examining medical billing in a “run of the mill” fraud investigation that isn’t directed at patients or their families. Vanderbilt has said it was required by law to comply.
The patients say Vanderbilt was aware that Tennessee authorities are hostile toward the rights of transgender people, and should have removed their personally identifying information before turning over the records.
Tennessee has stood out among conservative-led states pushing myriad laws targeting transgender people, enacting some of the nation’s most anti-LGBTQ restrictions, even as families and advocates have voiced objections that such policies are harmful. The lawsuit seeks class-action status on behalf of everyone at the clinic whose private medical records were released to Skrmetti.
“Against that backdrop, its failure to safeguard the privacy of its patients is particularly egregious,” the lawsuit says.
The attorney general’s office has said the hospital has been providing records of its gender-related treatment billing since December 2022, and that the records have been kept confidential. Elizabeth Lane Johnson, an attorney general’s office spokesperson, noted Tuesday that the office isn’t a party to the lawsuit, and directed questions to Vanderbilt.
VUMC spokesperson John Howser said Tuesday that it’s common for health systems to get such requests in billing probes and audits, and “the decision to release patient records for any purpose is never taken lightly, even in situations such as this where VUMC was legally compelled to produce the patient records.”
Many of the patients involved are state workers, or their adult children or spouses; others are on TennCare, the state’s Medicaid plan; and some were not even patients at the transgender clinic, according to the lawsuit. It says that records for more than 100 current and former patients were sent without redacting their identities.
The lawsuit says that since the patients learned that their information was shared, they’ve been “terrified for their physical safety, have had significant anxiety and distress that has impacted their ability to work, has caused them to increase home security measures, and drop out of activities in which they normally would participate.”
The lawsuit accuses Vanderbilt of negligence that inflicted emotional damage and violated patient privacy protection and consumer protection laws. It seeks monetary damages, improved security procedures, an injunction blocking further release of their records without notice, an acknowledgement by Vanderbilt that it violated its own privacy policy, and an admission that the policy inadequately informs patients of their rights regarding disclosures.
The hospital waited months before telling patients their medical information was shared, acting only after the existence of the requests emerged as evidence in another court case. Howser said that at that point, hospital officials thought patients should hear it from them instead of media reports or other ways.
The attorney general also requested a slew of additional information, including the names of everyone referred to the transgender clinic who made at least one office visit, as well as people who volunteer for the hospital’s Trans Buddy initiative, which aims to increase access to care and improve outcomes by providing emotional support for the clinic’s patients.
Howser said Vanderbilt’s lawyers are in discussion with the attorney general’s office “about what information is relevant to their investigation and will be provided by VUMC.”
The attorney general’s office made the requests several months after conservative commentator Matt Walsh surfaced videos last September that include a medical center doctor saying gender-affirming procedures are “huge money makers” for hospitals. Vanderbilt paused all gender-affirming surgeries for minors the next month under pressure from Republican lawmakers and Gov. Bill Lee, who demanded an investigation.
Vanderbilt said it had provided about five gender-affirming surgeries to minors each year since its clinic opened in 2018, all to people over 16 who had parental consent. None received genital procedures.
The largest LGBTQ+ rights organization in the U.S. joined other civil rights organizations Tuesday in issuing a travel advisory for Florida, warning that newly passed laws and policies may pose risks to minorities, immigrants and gay travelers.
The Human Rights Campaign joined the NAACP, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Florida Immigrant Coalition and Equality Florida in issuing travel or relocation warnings for the Sunshine State, one of the most popular states for tourists to visit in the U.S.
“Those who visit must join us in their vocal opposition to these dangerous policies,” Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement. “Those who pick another place to work, to go to school or to spend their vacation should make clear why they’re not heading to Florida.”
Last weekend, the NAACP, the nation’s oldest civil rights organization, issued its advisory warning that recent laws and policies championed by Gov. Ron DeSantis and Florida lawmakers are “openly hostile toward African Americans, people of color and LGBTQ+ individuals.”
After the NAACP made its announcement, DeSantis’ spokesman, Jeremy Redfern, called the travel advisory “nothing more than a stunt.”
“As Governor DeSantis announced last week, Florida is seeing record-breaking tourism,” Redfern said in a statement.
More than 137.5 million tourists visited Florida last year, surpassing pre-pandemic levels, according to Visit Florida, the state’s tourism promotion agency. Tourism supports 1.6 million full-time and part-time jobs, and visitors spent $98.8 billion in Florida in 2019, according to last year’s figures.
Officials in Missouri’s largest city approved a resolution Thursday to declare it a sanctuary for people seeking or providing gender-affirming care, defying state lawmakers who voted a day earlier to ban such care for minors and restrict it for some adults.
Democratic Mayor Quinton Lucas praised the 12 to 1 vote, saying the city is committed to being a “welcoming, inclusive, and safe place for everyone, including our transgender and LGBTQ+ community.”
Kansas City’s new, sanctuary status sets it apart as a Democratic-leaning city in a state with a Republican governor and GOP-controlled Legislature. Similar actions have been taken in cities that oppose state actions to restrict rights for transgender people, as in Austin, Texas.
GOP Gov. Mike Parson is expected to sign into law the ban on gender-affirming care, joining at least 16 other states that have enacted similar laws restricting or banning such care for minors.
The resolution also comes as a judge considers a proposed emergency rule from Republican state Attorney General Andrew Bailey that would require adults and children to undergo more than a year of therapy — and fulfill other requirements before they could receive gender-affirming treatment.
A committee signed off Wednesday on the resolution, which says the city will not prosecute or fine any person or organization that seeks, provides, receives or helps someone to receive gender-affirming care such as as puberty blockers, hormones or surgery.
It also says that if the state passes a law or resolution that imposes criminal or civil punishments, fines, or professional sanctions in such cases, personnel in Missouri’s largest city will make enforcing those requirements “their lowest priority.”
Republican state lawmakers across the U.S. who’ve attacked gender-affirming care as part of a larger effort to roll back LGBTQ rights have argued that they’re protecting children from decisions they may later regret. But gender-affirming care for minors has been available in the U.S. for more than a decade and is endorsed by major medical associations.
“This is an important first step in Kansas City’s commitment to trans and nonbinary people,” Merrique Jenson, founder of Transformations KC, said in a written statement after the vote. “I look forward to trans leaders and Kansas City working together to address the health disparities in our communities and ways we can have sustainable funding & programming reaching all trans people.”
Two transgender children, their parents and two health care providers filed a lawsuit Tuesday arguing that a Montana law that would ban gender-affirming care for transgender youth is unconstitutional.
The ban on puberty blockers, hormone treatment and surgical procedures applies only to transgender youth being treated for gender dysphoria, but that same care can be provided to cisgender adolescents for any other purpose, according to the complaint filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Montana and Lambda Legal.
The ban serves no purpose other than to “intentionally burden a transgender person’s ability to seek necessary care to align their body with their gender identity,” the complaint states. It asks a state judge to block enforcement of the law, which is to take effect on Oct. 1.
“The new law provides commonsense protections for Montana children — who can’t even enter into contracts or buy cigarettes or alcohol — from harmful, life-altering medications and surgeries,” said Emily Flower, spokesperson for Attorney General Austin Knudsen.
Opposition to the bill by Democratic Rep. Zooey Zephyr — the first openly transgender female lawmaker to serve in the Montana Legislature — triggered a series of events that eventually led to her being banned from the House floor for the final days of the 2023 session.
The Republican-controlled Montana Legislature passed the bill and Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte signed it late last month. Montana is one of at least 16 states with laws to ban such care, despite protests from the families of transgender youth that the care is essential.
“It is mentally and physically painful to feel like you are trapped in the wrong body,” Jessica van Garderen, the mother of a 16-year-old transgender daughter, said in a statement. “Going through puberty for the wrong sex is like having your body betray you on a daily basis. The only treatment we have found to be effective and give our daughter hope again is hormone therapy.
“Taking away this crucial medical care is inhumane and a violation of our rights,” van Garderen said.
The complaint argues that the new law interferes with parental rights and is unconstitutional because it violates the plaintiffs’ right to privacy, their right to seek health care and the right to human dignity.
Supporters of the ban, including bill sponsor Republican Sen. John Fuller, said minors should not be allowed to undergo irreversible, life-changing procedures before they are adults and are old enough to understand the consequences and give legal permission.
“Just living as a trans teenager is difficult enough, the last thing me and my peers need is to have our rights taken away,” plaintiff Phoebe Cross, a 15-year-old transgender boy, said in a statement. “The blatant disrespect for my humanity and existence is deeply unsettling.”
Under the new law, health care providers who provide such care could lose their medical licenses for at least a year and be subject to lawsuits for up to 25 years after any treatment was provided.
The bill also prohibits public money, such as Medicaid, from being used to pay for such care.
Federal judges in Alabama and Arkansas have blocked laws that sought to ban gender-affirming care. The Department of Justice joined a federal lawsuit filed on behalf of transgender parents and their children against a similar ban in Tennessee.
Montana became the latest state to ban or restrict gender-affirming medical care for transgender kids Friday when its Republican governor signed legislation that exiled transgender lawmaker Zooey Zephyr told fellow lawmakers would leave “blood” on their hands.
Montana is one of at least 15 states with laws to ban such care despite protests from the families of transgender youth that the care is essential.
Debate over Montana’s bill drew national attention after Republicans punished Zephyr for her remarks, saying her words were personally offensive. House Speaker Matt Regier refused to let Zephyr speak on the House floor until she apologized. She has not.
Zephyr decried the bill’s signing, saying “it is unconscionable to deprive Montanans of the care that we need.”
“I know that this is an unconstitutional bill. It is as cruel as it is unconstitutional. And it will go down in the courts,” Zephyr said. To trans youth she added: “There’s an understandable inclination towards despair in these moments, but know that we are going to win and until then, lean on community, because we will have one another’s backs.”
On Monday, Zephyr had stood defiantly on the House floor with her microphone raised as protesters shouted “Let her speak,” disrupting House proceedings for at least 30 minutes. Zephyr was then banned from the House and its gallery and voted on bills from a bench in the hallway outside the House on Thursday and Friday.
Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Montana have said they would file a court challenge against the ban, which is set to take effect on Oct. 1, starting a five-month clock in which Montana youth can try to find a way to work around the ban or to transition off of hormone treatment.
“This bill is an overly broad blanket ban that takes decisions that should be made by families and physicians and puts them in the hands of politicians,” the Montana Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics has said.
Gov. Greg Gianforte signaled his willingness to sign the bill on April 17 when he offered some amendments to make it clear that public funds could not be used to pay for hormone blockers, cross-sex hormones or surgical procedures.
The bill “protects Montana children from permanent, life-altering medical procedures until they are adults, mature enough to make such serious decisions,” Gianforte wrote in his letter accompanying the amendments.
Debate over the amendments led Zephyr to admonish supporters the following day. House Majority Leader Sue Vinton said Zephyr’s language was “entirely inappropriate, disrespectful and uncalled for.”
The Montana Freedom Caucus deliberately misgendered Zephyr, using male pronouns in a letter saying she should be censured. After Monday’s protest, the caucus said she should be further disciplined.
Under the new law, health professionals who provide care banned by the measure could have their medical licenses suspended for at least a year. They could also be sued in the 25 years following a banned procedure if a patient suffers physical, psychological, emotional or physiological harm. Physicians could not hold malpractice insurance against such lawsuits. The law also prohibits public property and employees from being involved in gender-affirming treatment.
During hours of emotional committee hearings, opponents testified that hormone treatments, and in some cases, surgery, are evidence-based care, supported by numerous medical associations and can be life-saving for someone with gender dysphoria — the clinically significant distress or impairment caused by feeling that one’s gender identity does not match one’s biological sex.
Parents of transgender children testified that the bill infringed on their parental rights to seek medical care for their children.
Opponents also noted that treatments such as puberty-blockers and breast-reduction surgery would still be legal for minors who are not suffering from gender dysphoria, a difference they argue is unconstitutional.
In the letter to legislative leaders accompanying his proposed amendments, Gianforte said he met with transgender residents, understands that their struggles are real and said Montanans who struggle with gender identity deserve love, compassion and respect.
“That’s not what trans Montanans need from you,” Zephyr said as the House considered his amendments. “We need access to the medical care that saves our lives.”
This was the second legislative session in which Sen. John Fuller brought the bill to ban gender-affirming care for transgender children. In 2021, when he was a member of the House, he brought a bill to ban surgical and hormone treatments for transgender children, which was voted down. He brought a second bill to ban surgical treatments which was also rejected. He was successful in 2021 in passing a bill to ban transgender females from participating in girls and women’s sports. The part of the bill that applied to colleges was ruled unconstitutional.
The federal government is seeking to invalidate the statute because “no person should be denied access to necessary medical care just because of their transgender status,” Assistant U.S. Attorney General Kristen Clarke said in a statement. The DOJ said the law violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause by discriminating on the basis of both sex and transgender status.
“The right to consider your health and medically-approved treatment options with your family and doctors is a right that everyone should have, including transgender children, who are especially vulnerable to serious risks of depression, anxiety and suicide,” Clarke added.
The federal lawsuit comes after Clarke sent a letter to all state attorneys general last month warning them that federal law protects transgender youth against discrimination. The Justice Department also intervened last year in a lawsuit challenging a similar ban on transgender medical care for young people. That lawsuit is ongoing.
Republican Gov. Bill Lee signed off on prohibiting gender-affirming care for minors earlier this year. The bill was the first proposal filed in this year’s legislative session. Republican leaders did so in response to video surfacing on social media last year of a Nashville doctor touting that gender-affirming procedures are “huge money makers” for hospitals. That hospital has since paused its transgender services for young people.
Republican lawmakers also advanced legislation designed to severely limit where drag shows can take place, making Tennessee the first state to do so. A federal judge has temporarily blocked the statute from being implemented.
Nationally, Republican lawmakers have proposed hundreds of laws aimed at transgender people, with at least 14 states restricting or banning gender-affirming care for minors.
Under Tennessee’s law — set to take effect July 1 — doctors will be prohibited from prescribing puberty blockers or hormones, or providing other gender-affirming care to anyone under 18. The law spells out a handful exceptions, including allowing doctors to perform such medical services if the patient’s care begins before the law goes into effect. In those cases, care must end by March 31, 2024.
Health care providers who violate the ban would be subject to regulatory discipline and could be sued by the state attorney general or private parties. Violations carry a $25,000 penalty.
A spokesperson for the Tennessee Attorney General’s office did not immediately respond for comment.
The Justice Department’s lawsuit is the second complaint challenging the new Tennessee law. Last week, three transgender children and their parents sued the state, claiming the law violates the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause because it excludes treatment for gender dysphoria while allowing the same treatments to be used for other conditions.
North Dakota’s Republican Gov. Doug Burgum signed a bill into law that restricts transgender health care in the state, immediately making it a crime to give gender-affirming care to people younger than 18.
Gender-affirming care for minors has been available in the U.S. for more than a decade and is endorsed by major medical associations, but it has increasingly come under attack in many conservative legislatures, including North Dakota’s, where lawmakers have passed at least three bills targeting trans people this year.
The measure that Burgum signed Wednesday received veto-proof support from GOP lawmakers — though some Republicans did vote against it, alongside all Democrats.
In a statement released Thursday morning, Burgum said the law is “aimed at protecting children from the life-altering ramifications of gender reassignment surgeries” but he added that medical professionals have testified these surgeries have not been and are not being performed on minors in North Dakota.
He said the law still allows medication treatment for early onset puberty and other rare circumstances with parental consent, and minors currently receiving gender-affirming care will still be able to receive treatment.
“Going forward, thoughtful debate around these complex medical policies should demonstrate compassion and understanding for all North Dakota youth and their families,” he said.
The new law takes immediate effect and allows prosecutors to charge a health care provider with a felony — up to 10 years in prison and $20,000 in fines — for performing sex reassignment surgery on a minor.
It also enables prosecutors to charge a provider with a misdemeanor — up to 360 days in prison and $3,000 in fines — for giving gender-affirming medication, like puberty blockers or hormone therapy, to a trans child.
The American Civil Liberties Union of North Dakota denounced the new law as “a vast government overreach that undermines the fundamental rights of parents” and that violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process by singling out gender-affirming care for prohibition.
“By signing this bill into law, Gov. Burgum has put the government in charge of making vital decisions traditionally reserved for parents in North Dakota,” Cody Schuler, the group’s advocacy manager, said in a statement. “This ban won’t stop North Dakotans from being trans, but it will deny them critical support that helps struggling transgender youth grow up to become thriving transgender adults.”
Earlier this month, Burgum also signed a transgender athlete ban into law after it similarly passed the House and Senate with veto-proof majorities. In 2021, Burgum vetoed a bill that would have imposed a transgender athlete ban at that time, but House and Senate lawmakers did not have enough votes back then to override his veto.
North Dakota joins at least 13 other states that have enacted laws restricting or banning gender-affirming care for minors.
Republican lawmakers across the country have advanced hundreds of measures aimed at nearly every facet of trans existence this year.
That includes bans on gender-affirming medical care for minors, restrictions on the types of restrooms transgender people can use, measures restricting classroom instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity, and bills that would out transgender students who want teachers to address them by the pronouns they use.
The Food and Drug Administration approved puberty blockers 30 years ago to treat children with precocious puberty — a condition that causes sexual development to begin much earlier than usual. Sex hormones — synthetic forms of estrogen and testosterone — were approved decades ago to treat hormone disorders or as birth control pills.
The FDA has not approved the medications specifically to treat gender-questioning youth, but they have been used for many years for that purpose “off label,” a common and accepted practice for many medical conditions. Doctors who treat transgender patients say those decades of use are proof the treatments are not experimental.
Research has shown that transgender youths and adults can be prone to suicidal behavior when forced to live as the sex they were assigned at birth. And critics of legislation to restrict gender-affirming care for children say it’s an attempt by conservatives to motivate their voting base.
Proponents of the measure have raised concerns about children changing their minds. Yet the evidence suggests detransitioning is not as common as opponents of transgender medical treatment for youth contend, though few studies exist and they have their weaknesses.
Twitter has quietly removed a policy against the “targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals,” raising concerns that the Elon Musk-owned platform is becoming less safe for marginalized groups.
Twitter enacted the policy against deadnaming, or using a transgender person’s name before they transitioned, as well as purposefully using the wrong gender for someone as a form of harassment, in 2018.
On Monday, Twitter also said it will only put warning labels on some tweets that are “potentially” in violation of its rules against hateful conduct. Previously, the tweets were removed.
It was in this policy update that Twitter appears to have deleted the line against deadnaming from its rules.
“Twitter’s decision to covertly roll back its longtime policy is the latest example of just how unsafe the company is for users and advertisers alike,” said Sarah Kate Ellis, the president and CEO of the advocacy group GLAAD. “This decision to roll back LGBTQ safety pulls Twitter even more out of step with TikTok, Pinterest, and Meta, which all maintain similar policies to protect their transgender users at a time when anti-transgender rhetoric online is leading to real world discrimination and violence.”
Twitter did not immediately respond to a message for comment Tuesday.
Missouri’s attorney general announced new restrictions Thursday on gender-affirming care for adults in addition to minors in a move that is believed to be a first nationally and has advocacy groups threatening to sue.
Attorney General Andrew Bailey announced plans to restrict health care for transgender people weeks ago, when protesters rallied at the Capitol to urge lawmakers to pass a law banning puberty blockers, hormones and surgeries for children. But the discussion was focused on minors, not adults.
Missouri Attorney General spokeswoman Madeline Sieren clarified in a statement later in the day that adults also would be covered.
“We have serious concerns about how children are being treated throughout the state, but we believe everyone is entitled to evidence-based medicine and adequate mental health care,” Sieren said.
The rule, which incudes a required 18 months of therapy before receiving gender-affirming health care, is set to take effect April 27 and expire next February.
The ACLU and Lambda Legal said in a joint statement that they would “take any necessary legal action” and urged those affected to call.
“The Attorney General’s so-called emergency rule is based on distorted, misleading, and debunked claims and ignores the overwhelming body of scientific and medical evidence supporting this care,” the statement said.
Robert Fischer, the spokesman for the LGBTQ rights groups PROMO, said he was not aware of similar restrictions elsewhere.
“He’s essentially attacking the entire trans community at this point,” Fischer said of Bailey. “It’s no longer just about children.”
The National Center for Transgender Equality called the order “deeply wrong” in a tweet, adding that “trans people of all ages across the state of Missouri deserve access to health care.”
The restrictions are in response to a former employee’s allegations of mistreatment at a transgender youth clinic in St. Louis run by Washington University. Bailey is investigating the center.
“My office is stepping up to protect children throughout the state while we investigate the allegations and how they are harming children,” Bailey said in a statement.
University spokespeople didn’t immediately respond to phone or email messages from The Associated Press seeking comment.
Moving forward, doctors who provide gender-affirming health care must first provide them a lengthy list of potential negative side effects and information warning against those treatments, according to a copy of the rule released Thursday.
Health care providers will need to ensure “any psychiatric symptoms from existing mental health comorbidities of the patient have been treated and resolved” before providing gender-affirming treatments under the new rule. Physicians also must screen patients for social media addiction, autism and signs of “social contagion with respect to the patient’s gender identity.”
The FDA approved puberty blockers 30 years ago to treat children with precocious puberty — a condition that causes sexual development to begin much earlier than usual. Sex hormones — synthetic forms of estrogen and testosterone — were approved decades ago to treat hormone disorders or as birth control pills.
The FDA has not approved the medications specifically to treat gender-questioning youth, but they have been used for many years for that purpose “off label,” a common and accepted practice for many medical conditions. Doctors who treat transgender patients say those decades of use are proof the treatments are not experimental.
Critics have raise concerns about children changing their minds. Yet the evidence suggests detransitioning is not as common as opponents of transgender medical treatment for youth contend, though few studies exist and they have their weaknesses.
Bailey’s rule was released the same day Missouri’s Republican-led House voted to ban access to transgender-related health care for minors.
The House voted 103-52 along mostly party lines in favor of the ban, although the bill’s passage seems uncertain in the Senate.
The House proposal is stricter than what was passed by the GOP-led Senate, where Democrats have more influence through the use of stall tactics.
Senators compromised to exempt care for minors whose treatment is already underway. The Senate bill also would expire after four years.
The House version includes no exceptions for current treatments and would remain in effect indefinitely.
Republican Senate leaders said it’s unlikely that the House version will make it through the Senate.
“We’ve already passed legislation on this issue out of the Senate,” Senate President Pro Tem Caleb Rowden said. “We would expect the House to appreciate how hard and difficult it was and to take up our bill and pass it.”
Both the House and Senate proposals would ban inmates and prisoners from accessing gender-affirming surgeries and would end coverage of any gender-affirming treatments for Missouri patients on Medicaid, the federal health insurance program.
The Human Rights Campaign condemned the legislation in a statement, describing gender-affirming care as medically necessary.
At least 13 states have now enacted laws restricting or banning gender-affirming care for minors: Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, Utah, South Dakota and West Virginia. Bills are awaiting action from governors in Kansas, Montana and North Dakota. Federal judges have blocked enforcement of laws in Alabama and Arkansas, and nearly two dozen states are considering bills this year to restrict or ban care.
House debate on the bill became emotional as some Democrats argued the ban on health care will hurt transgender children.
“You are erasing my grandchild,” said St. Louis Democratic Rep. Barbara Phifer, whose grandson is transgender.
Republican sponsor Rep. Brad Hudson, of Cape Fair, criticized Democrats for threatening to end political partnerships and friendships with Republicans over the bill.
Hudson said his bill “seeks to protect kids” and that it’s unfair that Democrats are describing it as hateful towards transgender children.
“A yes vote is a vote to protect kids from sex-change drugs and surgeries,” Hudson said.