Who Decides? State Bans on Gender-Affirming Care for Minors in Tension with Parental Rights and Equal Protection Under the Law
Cheryl L. Anderson
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01947648.2024.2349673
2024-06-05
Journal of Legal Medicine
Abstract:No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). 1 See generally Elana Redfield et al ., Prohibiting Gender - Affirming Medical Care for Youth ( Williams Inst ., Mar. 2023) (identifying which states have either enacted bans on gender-affirming care or are considering proposed legislation that would do so); see also 2023 Anti-Trans Legislation , Track Trans Legis ., https://www.tracktranslegislation.com/(last visited Feb. 1, 2024) (up-to-date tracking of states proposing and enacting these laws and the text of the various laws). 2 See Redfield, supra note 1. 3 Tess Vrbin, Arkansas Ban on Gender-Affirming Care for Transgender Youth Awaits Court Ruling , The Ark . Advoc . (Dec. 1, 2022, 3:46 P.M.), https://arkansasadvocate.com/2022/12/01/arkansas-ban-on-gender-affirming-care-for-transgender-youth-awaits-court-ruling/. 4 Brandt ex rel. Brandt v. Rutledge, 47 F.4th 661, 672 (8th Cir. 2022). 5 See Ecknes-Turner v. Marshall, 603 F. Supp. 3d 1131, 1151 (M.D. Ala. 2022) (issuing preliminary injunction regarding Alabama's statutory gender-affirming care ban). 6 Id . at 1143; see also Section II infra . 7 See Section II infra . 8 A recent example of the role that even the potential of a pretrial injunction can play in influencing federal regulation is the dispute over the "Protecting Statutory Conscience Rights in Health Care; Delegations of Authority" rule proposed by the Trump administration. 84 Fed . Reg . 23, 170 (May 21, 2019) (codified at 45 C.F.R. pt. 88). That rule would have allowed individuals or entities, under 30 different statutory provisions, a right to refuse to participate in medical procedures, programs, services, or research activities on account of their religious or moral objection. See id. Under the threat of a preliminary injunctions, the Department of Health and Human Services postponed the effective date of the rule. Ultimately, a federal court struck down the rule in its entirety before the new effective date. Planned Parenthood of Am. v. Azar, No. 1:19-cv-04676 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 2019). 9 See Section III infra . 10 The federal district court in Ecknes-Turner found that "the uncontradicted record evidence is that at least twenty-two major medical associations in the United States endorse transitioning medications as well-established, evidence-based treatments for gender dysphoria in minors." See Ecknes-Turner , 603 F. Supp. 3d at 1145. 11 The name of the hypothetical act evokes the "Save Adolescents from Experimentation" Act, which was first enacted in Arkansas. H.B. 1570, 93d Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Ark. 2021). The same title has since been used in proposed legislation in other states. See, e.g. , H.B. 68, 135th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Ohio 2023). 12 Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); see also Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009) (reasoning that showing a "better than negligible" chance of success is insufficient). 13 Winter , 555 U.S. at 22. 14 Id. 15 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(2) (2005). 16 Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009). 17 Id. 18 Id. at 434-35 (internal quotations omitted). 19 See Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent Am. Holdings, Inc., 696 F.3d 206, 215 (2d Cir. 2012); S. Glazer's Distribs. of Ohio, LLC v. Great Lakes Brewing Co., 860 F.3d 844, 849 (6th Cir. 2017) (cautioning that the four elements to consider in a preliminary injunction are "factors to be balanced, not prerequisites to be met"); Mays v. Dart, 974 F.3d 810, 818 (7th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 69 (2021) (setting out that "the more likely the plaintiff is to win on the merits, the less the balance of harms needs to weigh in his favor, and vice versa") (internal citation omitted); All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2011) (affirming that after Winter , the court continues to find the plaintiff's showing sufficient if "serious questions going to the merits were raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff's favor"); see also Revel AC, Inc. v. IDEA Boardwalk LLC, 802 F.3d 558, 569-71 (3d Cir. 2015) (applying a sliding scale test for a stay pending appeal subsequent to Winter ). Under the sliding scale approach, it is sufficient for a plaintiff to show there are sufficiently serious questions regarding the merits as to make "a fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships -Abstract Truncated-
social sciences, biomedical,law