A federal appeals court on Tuesday allowed Indiana’s ban on gender-affirming care to go into effect, removing a temporary injunction a judge issued last year.
The ruling was handed down by a panel of justices on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. It marked the latest decision in a legal challenge the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed against the ban, enacted last spring amid a national push by GOP-led legislatures to curb LGBTQ+ rights.
I’m in Indiana. One of my daughter’s closest friends is a 13-year-old boy who is trans. His parents support him, let him wear chest binders, but I don’t think he’s taking hormones and now it sounds like he won’t be able to.
So thanks, 7th Circuit and fuck you.
Good. A 13 year old should not be allowed to take cross sex hormones. A 13 year old is not mentally fit to be able to make life changing decisions like this - especially one that clearly has mental health issues - hence why they’re not allowed to get tattoos, drink, vote, etc.
Do whatever you want when you’re an adult, chop your bits off - but leave kids out of it. Almost all of them will grow out of it.
Thank the lawmakers, the court probably didn’t have a choice
That’s an odd take. Courts interpret laws. What law or constitutional measures forces them to ban healthcare?
Yes, they interpret what the lawmakers have written. If lawmakers made a law saying minors shouldn’t receive healthcare, that’s what the court should say.
Not taking sides btw, if I was I’d just get mad at the state of US politics
They can say “it’s not constitutional to ban healthcare.” They aren’t bound only by the text of the law.
The lawsuit, first filed in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Indiana, alleges that Senate Bill 480 violates the U.S. Constitution on multiple fronts, including the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In addition, the lawsuit claims that the law violates the federal requirements of the Medicaid Act and the Affordable Care Act, because it prohibits essential medical services that would otherwise be authorized and reimbursed by Medicaid
Via ACLU
Does the constitution say that though?
I’m quite sure a constitutional scholar could come up with a well worded reply to make that argument in detail. I’ll just say that I think part of individual liberty is accessing healthcare.
You’re making massive leaps
Removed by mod
Right to healthcare or the right of privacy in healthcare?
Why wouldn’t they have a choice?
Because laws tell them what to decide. The courts are there to make sure the laws don’t infringe on constitutional rights, on federal laws etc., but they don’t create rules.
but they don’t create rules.
I see you’re unfamiliar with our court system and only know the idealized version.
If a court decides to interpret a law some way or another, it’s because the law’s wording allowed for some leeway.
That’s on the lawmakers.
Got it. Judicial decisions are always correct.
The Cruelty is the point
Excuse my ignorance, and not trying to offend just asking a question.
Why is it a bad thing to wait till kids are 18 before allowing them this care? Kids make rash decisions all the time, and something that seems difficult to reverse should be a decision when they are at a more mature age.
and something that seems difficult to reverse should be a decision when they are at a more mature age.
-
Gender affirming care covers a broad range of care, not just medical injections and surgery.
-
Puberty blockers are very reversible, its extremely uncommon to have long term affects once someone stops taking them
-
Going through puberty as their assigned gender is difficult to reverse and should be a decision that they make when they’re more mature too right?
-
Detransioners are actually very rare, so its rarely a “rash decision” and to prevent that we should give doctors better training to give these kids better information so they can make good decisions, rather than preventing all of these kids from getting healthcare they need.
Not to mention cis kids can be given hormone blockers for things like precocious puberty. This law WILL hurt them as well.
This is a very comprehensive and accurate answer. Thank you!
Thank you, I appreciate your answer!
-
Because gender affirming care isn’t just surgeries. It includes things like hormone replacement therapy and especially puberty blockers. By waiting until after 18, they’ve already gone through most of puberty and its damaging effects to their body. If they still want to transition, then that’s tens of thousands of dollars for surgery that might not have been needed if they were allowed to start on puberty blockers at least.
There’s also the fact that banning gender affirming care is banning life saving healthcare. That is years that a person needs to go without receiving proper treatment. It’s wrong for the same reasons that banning any other medication for anyone under 18 would be wrong.
Why should someone have to suffer in a body that isn’t theirs when they and their caretakers agree that they would be healthier and happier after a transition?
idk why you’re being down voted as if one can’t get plastic surgery till they are 18 this should be the same personally imo because you’re right kids can and do make very rash decisions
That’s because you don’t understand what you’re talking about. These kids are not having plastic surgery. They’re getting care that affirms their gender, and possibly puberty blockers, which are easily reversible.
And also kids absolutely can have plastic surgery
Four things: 1) cis teenagers can and do have cosmetic surgery 2) they’re very different, cosmetic surgery rarely requires psychological oversight or anything of the sort unlike trans surgeries and cosmetic surgeries don’t treat an underlying condition unlike trans surgeries 3) this isn’t just banning surgery but also hormone treatments 4) this is going against expert opinion and the wishes of the affected to prohibit medical treatments
