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.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    86
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.

      • jeffw@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        43
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        9 months ago

        That’s an odd take. Courts interpret laws. What law or constitutional measures forces them to ban healthcare?

        • LufyCZ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          9 months ago

          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

          • jeffw@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            20
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            They can say “it’s not constitutional to ban healthcare.” They aren’t bound only by the text of the law.

            • gedaliyah@lemmy.worldM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              14
              ·
              9 months ago

              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

              • jeffw@lemmy.worldM
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                20
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                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.

        • LufyCZ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            9 months ago

            but they don’t create rules.

            I see you’re unfamiliar with our court system and only know the idealized version.

            • LufyCZ@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              9 months ago

              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.

  • Nightsoul@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.

    • gmtom@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      and something that seems difficult to reverse should be a decision when they are at a more mature age.

      1. Gender affirming care covers a broad range of care, not just medical injections and surgery.

      2. Puberty blockers are very reversible, its extremely uncommon to have long term affects once someone stops taking them

      3. 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?

      4. 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.

    • valtia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

    • stoly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      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?

    • histic@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      9 months ago

      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

      • OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        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