Texas Families and Medical Providers Sue Texas to Block Dangerous Transgender Youth Medical Care Ban
AUSTIN, Texas – Families and medical providers late yesterday and other state defendants to block Senate Bill 14 before it can go into effect Sept. 1. They are represented by Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, the ACLU, Transgender Law Center, and the law firms Scott Douglass & McConnico LLP and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, LLP.
This law would ban necessary and life-saving medical care for Texas’ transgender youth, cut off access to care for adolescent minors already receiving treatment, and require the state to revoke the medical licenses of physicians providing the best standard of care to their trans patients. This lawsuit is filed in Travis County District Court and is seeking a temporary injunction aiming to block S.B. 14 before it goes into effect Sept. 1.
The plaintiffs challenging this law include five Texas families, three medical professionals, and two organizations representing hundreds of families and health professionals across the state. PFLAG is the nation’s first and largest organization dedicated to supporting, educating, and advocating for LGBTQ+ people and those who love them. GLMA is the oldest and largest association of LGBTQ+ and allied health professionals, including those who treat LGBTQ+ patients.
The five Texas families challenging this law come from diverse backgrounds across the state with transgender children and teenagers who would be irreparably harmed if S.B. 14 goes into effect. The bill’s passage has resulted in families splitting up or planning to leave Texas to continue treatment for their children. The families are suing pseudonymously to protect themselves and their children, who are transgender Texans between the ages of 9 and 16.
Quotes from Texas family plaintiffs:
“Because my daughter might need puberty blockers in the next few months, I am temporarily relocating out of state with her and my other child. Her father will stay behind to continue working in Texas,” said Mary Moe (she/her), a plaintiff and the mother of Maeve Moe (she/her), a 9-year-old transgender girl. “We all intend to return and reunite in our home once it is safe for Maeve to receive this care in the state. I am heartbroken to have to take my children away from their home and their father, even temporarily. But I know that Texas is not a safe place for my daughter if this law forbids her access to this care.”
“The idea of growing up as a woman felt so indescribably and inexplicably wrong, and I couldn’t picture myself as a young teenage girl. I was constantly unhappy,” said Nathan Noe (he/him), a plaintiff in the lawsuit and a 16-year-old transgender boy. “Being on testosterone has tremendously improved all aspects of my life. I am now able to focus on all of the positives of my life and experience my teenage years to the fullest. I am able to socialize and balance schoolwork without thinking about my gender all the time. I love Texas. This is my community. This is where my family lives. This is the place I grew up and I do not want to leave it because my government has decided to attack people like me.”
“As a parent, I don’t want to see my child suffer and don’t understand why the state government would try to strip away my ability to seek the best possible health care for my child,” said Lazaro Loe (he/him), a plaintiff in the lawsuit and father of Luna Loe (she/her), a 12-year-old transgender girl. “If S.B. 14 goes into effect and Luna loses access to this health care, I am deeply concerned about the anxiety, depression, and suicidality that she will face. Her happiness, health, autonomy, and independence would be stripped away by this cruel legislation; and we likely would be forced to leave our home here in Texas.”
Quotes from litigation team:
“The attack that Texas legislators and the governor have launched against transgender youth and their families and providers is stunning in its cruelty,” said Paul D. Castillo (he/him), senior counsel, Lambda Legal. “They are actively ignoring the science, dismissing best-practice medical care, intervening in a parent’s right to care for and love their child, and explicitly exposing trans youth in Texas to rampant discrimination. This law is not just harmful and cruel, it is life-threatening.”
“Transgender Texans, like all Texans, have the right to get the medical care they need,” said Brian Klosterboer (he/him), staff attorney, ACLU of Texas. “The Texas Constitution forbids our state government from overriding the judgment of patients, their families, and their medical providers. S.B. 14 is a textbook example of discrimination, since it bans evidence-based medical care for transgender youth while allowing any other young person in Texas to get the same treatment. We urge the court to block this law before it goes into effect. Transgender Texans and their families have courageously spoken out against this cruel legislation and many have already had their lives upended by it. We must prevent politicians from doing more harm to our kids.”
“Trial courts have all found bans identical to the one signed by Gov. Abbott to be blatantly unconstitutional, openly discriminatory, and dangerous to the very youth they claim to protect,” said Harper Seldin (he/him), staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “S.B. 14 is an active threat to the well-being of thousands of families across the state who have already had their lives uprooted by the dangerous and extreme policies targeting them and their transgender youth. We won’t rest until this law is defeated and Texas is a safe place to raise every family.”
“Throughout a difficult legislative session, Texans of all races, genders, and economic backgrounds bravely showed their opposition to a slate of anti-trans legislation, including SB14,” said Lynly Egyes (she/her), legal director of Transgender Law Center. “With this filing, we join those brave advocates in rejecting a powerful, unpopular few who aim to strip away our rights and freedoms. Our demand is clear – we all deserve access to medical care and the freedom to make the right decisions for our families.”
Quotes from LGBTQ+ organizations:
“Every parent in Texas should have the freedom to get their child the health care they need when they need it, whether their child is transgender or not,” said Brian K. Bond (he/him), executive director of PFLAG National. “Yet, because of S.B. 14, PFLAG parents in Texas face a fast-approaching future that eliminates their ability to get their kids medically necessary care, threatening the lives of Texan youth. In every corner of the state, the 18 chapters and nearly 1,500 members of PFLAG rise in objection to this unjust law.”
“In joining this filing, GLMA is issuing a resounding rejection of S.B. 14, recognizing it as an affront to healthcare ethics and the medical evidence that should govern healthcare policies.” said Alex Sheldon (they/them), executive director of GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ+ Equality. “Under this law, GLMA’s health professional members are forced to make an unthinkable choice: either endanger the health and wellbeing of their transgender patients by abiding by this harmful legislation or violate the law by delivering evidence-based, life-saving care in accordance with their extensive medical training and professional ethics. Today we take a stand against S.B. 14 and all such laws that undermine the fundamental obligation that health professionals have to prioritize patient health above all else.”
Bans like S.B. 14 are opposed by the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. According to the Williams Institute of UCLA, , of whom about 29,800 are youth between the ages of 13-17.
Any person at risk of being affected by these restrictions should reach out to , , or .
Read the lawsuit here:
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
President Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender YouthPresident Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender Youth
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate today passed a version of the National Defense Authorization Act that would ban coverage for gender-affirming care for transgender youth whose parents are active-duty military personnel. The American Civil Liberties Union is opposing final passage of the defense bill over the inclusion of this health care ban and calling on President Joe Biden to veto the bill. Section 708 of the NDAA would prohibit insurance coverage for “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria” such as hormone therapy and puberty-suppressant medications, which Speaker Mike Johnson says would “permanently ban transgender medical treatment for minors.” The same treatments would be covered by TRICARE for any medical purpose other than treating gender dysphoria, the clinical diagnosis for the psychological distress experienced by transgender people related to their gender identity. “By passing this bill, the House and Senate are forcing thousands of active-duty service members to choose between their careers in the military and the future of their transgender children,” said Mike Zamore, national director of policy & government affairs at the ACLU. “This unconscionable and unjustifiable attack on those families stands in direct contrast to President Joe Biden’s legacy of defending the civil rights of transgender Americans — including when few in his own party showed the courage to do so. President Biden should cement his legacy by vetoing this bill and sending it back to Congress to pass without Speaker Johnson’s last minute health care ban for servicemembers’ kids.” If signed by President Biden, this health care ban would be the first new anti-LGBTQ provision enacted by Congress and signed into law by the president since the enactment of the military’s since-repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for LGBTQ servicemembers and the since-repealed federal law barring recognition of same-sex marriages known as the Defense of Marriage Act. It is unknown how many transgender youth are currently enrolled in TRICARE or how many of those enrolled are currently receiving coverage for gender-affirming care. In one 2022 analysis, 2,500 minor patients sought care for gender dysphoria through TRICARE Prime insurance at military or civilian treatment facilities in 2017, and 900 received puberty suppressants or gender-affirming hormones. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a landmark case brought by the ACLU, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump on behalf of three families and a medical provider challenging a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming hormonal therapies for transgender youth on the grounds the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Montana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's LicensesMontana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's Licenses
HELENA, Mont. – A Montana court has granted a preliminary injunction preventing the state of Montana from enforcing policies that bar transgender people from obtaining accurate sex designations on their birth certificates and driver’s licenses. After a prior restriction on amendments of birth certificates was struck down by the courts, in early 2024 the state of Montana enacted a new rule that categorically bars transgender Montanans from correcting the sex designation on their birth certificates. Around the same time, the Montana Department of Justice adopted a policy similarly restricting amendment of driver’s licenses. The plaintiffs challenged these policies in state district court, arguing that they violate various constitutional provisions, including the right to equal protection of the law. In a recent Montana Supreme Court decision, two justices concluded that discrimination on the basis of transgender status – as the state is engaging in here – is a form of sex discrimination that violates the Montana Constitution’s equal protection clause. The plaintiffs, two transgender women, are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Montana, and Nixon Peabody LLP. Plaintiff Jessica Kalarchik, a veteran who served in the United States Army for 31 years, said: “After finally being able to live my life openly as the woman I know myself to be, I am frustrated that my birth state, Montana, wants me to carry around a birth certificate that incorrectly lists my sex as male. I live my life openly as a woman, I am treated as a woman in my daily life, and there is no reason I should be forced to carry a birth certificate that incorrectly identifies me as male. Fortunately, the court agrees that this ridiculous policy should not be in effect.” “Once again the State of Montana chose to adopt a draconian policy that is clearly intended to marginalize transgender Montanans, only for that discriminatory action to be blocked by the courts,” said Akilah Deernose, executive director for the ACLU of Montana. “Here in Montana we treasure our right to privacy and to live our lives free from governmental intrusion. The State of Montana clearly has not learned any lessons from the past few years, where courts have repeatedly struck down unconstitutional laws targeting transgender Montanans.” “Forcing anyone to carry documents that contradict their identity unjustly violates their rights to privacy, equal treatment, and not being compelled to convey a government message about their sex that they disagree with,” said Malita Picasso, staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “Such a policy marks transgender people for further mistreatment and discrimination, essentially requiring them to carry papers that out them as transgender any time they need to provide identity documents. Fortunately, the court has refused to allow the state of Montana to subvert the freedom of transgender Montanans to control their own identity as this case goes forward.” In granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the court held, “[i]f the challenged state actions discriminate against transgender individuals on the basis of their transgender status, they also necessarily discriminate the basis of sex.” The state has the option of appealing the district court’s ruling to the Montana Supreme Court, but the underlying case will proceed in district court. A trial has not yet been scheduled. -
FloridaDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Keohane v. DixonKeohane v. Dixon
On September 30, 2024, the Florida Department of Corrections rescinded its policy regarding treatment of gender dysphoria, which allowed for hormone therapy when deemed medically necessary, as well as access to clothing and grooming standards that accord with one’s gender identity. Under this new policy, grooming and clothing accommodations have been stripped away, and hormone therapy is not permitted unless an exception is deemed constitutionally required. The ACLU brought a class action challenging the policy. -
IdahoDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Robinson v. LabradorRobinson v. Labrador
Two incarcerated transgender women have sued the state of Idaho alleging that HB 688, a 2024 law barring state funding for gender-affirming medical care for transgender people, denies them access to the health care their doctors have prescribed for them and is a violation of their Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. They represent a class of all incarcerated folks within the state of Idaho who face the loss of hormone therapy due to HB 668.