The Idaho ban on transgender care has families and advocates worrying about the possible impact on teen's health.
The Supreme Court's decision on Monday granted Idaho's urgent appeal to temporarily reinstate a state statute prohibiting medical interventions for gender affirmation in individuals under 18 years old.
In recent years, approximately 24 states have implemented prohibitions on gender-affirming care for minors, with many of these laws being contested in legal proceedings. Concurrently, 20 additional states are actively enforcing similar bans.
Supreme Court Decision Affects Teen's Health Negatively
A decision by the U.S. Supreme Court permitted Idaho to enforce its prohibition on certain medical care for minors, raising concerns about her continued well-being.
This law, classifying medical treatment of gender dysphoria in minors as a felony, is now enforceable, with the exception of two undisclosed individuals who were receiving treatment before the law's reinstatement and are allowed to continue.
In this legal matter, Idaho didn't directly challenge transgender rights but instead sought the Supreme Court's opinion on whether the lower court's injunction against the law was appropriately limited.
Idaho contended that the district court's authority should have restricted the law's application solely to the two plaintiffs rather than halting its enforcement statewide.
Joe Horras' teenage daughter, who is transgender, struggled with mental health issues until she began gender-affirming treatment three years ago, which her father credits with restoring her happiness.
Living in Boise, Joe's daughter, now 16, relies on hormone therapy, including estrogen patches and injections every six months. However, with Idaho's ban on gender-affirming care for minors, Joe faces the challenge of finding a new provider outside the state within two months.
This situation has left Joe feeling fearful and frustrated with the lawmakers behind the law. He describes it as "cruel," expressing concern for families who may not afford out-of-state care.
Advocates like Arya Shae Walker in Twin Falls, Idaho, worry about the accessibility of care, particularly for lower-income families who may struggle with travel costs. Walker's advocacy group has even removed information on gender-affirming care providers from their website due to legal concerns.
The broader impact of these bans on gender-affirming care may eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
Medical experts emphasize the importance of such care in reducing mental health risks for transgender individuals, including lower rates of depression and suicidal thoughts.
Read Also: Student Aid Uncertainty: Colleges Struggle with FAFSA Processing Backlog, Expected Resolution by May
Future Legal Battles for Gender-Affirming Care
The U.S. Supreme Court's recent handling of emergency applications introduced a novel legal approach, leading to divided opinions among the justices and no clear establishment of a future rule.
Chief Justice John Roberts remained silent on his stance, refraining from aligning with either camp among the conservative justices or the dissenting justices.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, along with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, dissented, while Justice Elena Kagan expressed a different view but did not join the dissent.
The varying opinions hint at potential significant impacts on constitutional challenges to state and federal laws, as the Court's decision could significantly limit such challenges' effects.
Despite the temporary nature of the Court's action, it reverses the lower courts' decisions to halt the law's enforcement pending litigation.
Consequently, Idaho's ban on gender-affirming care for minors now takes immediate effect and will remain in place during the ongoing legal proceedings regarding its constitutionality.
This development sets the stage for similar bans in other states, notably in Kentucky and Tennessee, where comparable laws are already active and facing legal scrutiny at the Supreme Court level.
