New legislation that would ban transgender procedures for minors was temporarily blocked by a federal judge in Idaho on Dec. 26, just days before it is set to go into effect.
Senior U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill granted the preliminary injunction after finding that the new measure likely violates the U.S. Constitution.
Under the bill, a number of surgeries and medications that “sterilize or mutilate” are banned among those younger than 18 with gender dysphoria.
This includes gender transitions, puberty blockers, and other hormone treatments such as a mastectomy (the removal of breasts) as well as phalloplasty and vaginoplasty, the surgical construction of flesh structures resembling male and female genitalia, respectively.
Additionally, healthcare professionals risk being charged with a felony and punished with up to 10 years in prison if they knowingly perform such surgeries or provide medications to a child in order to help the minor “affirm the child’s perception of the child’s sex if that perception is inconsistent with the child’s biological sex.”
The bill does include an exception for children born with a medically verifiable genetic disorder of sex development, such as in cases where the child does not have the normal sex chromosome structure or sex steroid hormone production or is born with both ovarian and testicular tissue.
Lawsuit Filed Against Measure
The ban was set to take effect Jan. 1, 2024.While Republican lawmakers have argued the measure was needed to protect children from making potentially life-altering decisions that cause irreversible damage, opponents argued it would lead to an increase in suicides among minors who believe they are transgender.
In May, the American Civil Liberties Union and other organizations filed a lawsuit on behalf of two Idaho families seeking an injunction against the ban, arguing the measure violates the rights of transgender youth and their parents under the U.S. Constitution.
The lawsuit names Attorney General Raúl Labrador, Ada County Prosecutor Jan Bennetts, and members of the Idaho Code Commission as defendants.
It also violates the Equal Protection Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by discriminating against transgender minors because of their sex and transgender status, the judge stated.
“The key point of disagreement in this litigation is whether medical interventions allowed under the [World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH)] and Endocrine Society guidelines are safe, effective, and medically necessary for some adolescents suffering from gender dysphoria,” the judge wrote.
“After carefully considering the voluminous evidence on this point, the Court finds that the treatment for gender dysphoria — when provided in accordance with the guidelines published by WPATH and the Endocrine Society, and which may include medical interventions such as puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgeries — is safe, effective, and medically necessary for some adolescents,” he continued.
“The weight of the evidence before the Court strongly supports this finding,” Judge Winmill said, noting the guidelines are accepted by “every major medical organization in the United States”.
The judge also said that the plaintiffs in the lawsuit had “shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their claims.”
Elsewhere, Judge Winmill argued that so-called “gender-affirming” treatments and surgeries “improve the wellbeing of some adolescents with gender dysphoria, and delaying or withholding such care can be harmful, potentially increasing depression, anxiety, self-harm, and suicidal ideation.”
Attorney General to Appeal
Meanwhile, Idaho Attorney General Labrador has vowed to appeal the judge’s decision, with his office releasing a statement saying the ruling “forbids Idaho from banning these mutilating procedures that have been largely rejected, even in many European countries.”“What’s most telling is that the district court refused to follow precedent from two other circuit courts of appeals that have affirmed a State’s right to protect children from these experimental surgeries. It is hard to overstate the magnitude of the court’s error.”
In quotes from the statement, Mr. Labrador said: “The federal judiciary once endorsed the eugenics movement and forced sterilization of intellectually disabled people. Similarly, Judge Winmill’s ruling places children at risk of irreversible harm.
“History will not look kindly at this decision. We are taking immediate action to appeal this decision and are confident that correction will come. I will never stop fighting for and protecting our most vulnerable children.”
