Women Ask Court to Order New Illinois Birth Certificates Following Sex Reassignment Surgery Abroad
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
CHICAGO – Citing the need to have an accurate birth certificate for identification purposes, two women born in Illinois today asked a court to order the state to issue new birth certificates that reflect their appropriate and accurate gender following gender confirmation surgery (sometimes described as sex reassignment surgery). For more than four decades, Illinois has permitted individuals who have gender confirmation surgery to change the gender “marker” on an original birth certificate; the Department of Vital Records, however, recently started interpreting the law to provide this option only if an individual has the surgery by a United States-licensed physician. This creates an unnecessary and unfair burden for the growing number of persons who select a surgeon from Europe, South America or Asia. Both of the women in today’s lawsuit opted for their own reasons to have their gender confirmation surgery in Thailand.
“I am a woman and I have identified as a woman since early childhood,” said Victoria Kirk, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed today. “After making the difficult decision – with the advice and support of my physician and a therapist – to have surgery to conform to this identity, it was disheartening to learn that the state of Illinois would not issue a new birth certificate that recognizes me as a woman simply because I elected to have surgery overseas.”
The lawsuit filed today in Cook County Circuit Court argues that denying these women – and others who face the same discrimination – the ability to secure a new, accurate birth certificate not only creates everyday challenges that are unnecessary and dangerous, but it is antithetical to the advice of medical experts who recommend that persons who transition their gender identity ensure that all aspects of their lives reflect that gender identity.
The lawsuit notes that a birth certificate is a fundamental document for any individual, and having a birth certificate that accurately reflects one’s gender is critical. The complaint notes that “(c)hanging the name and gender on a person’s identity documents is another important aspect of sex reassignment, since those documents are crucial to that person’s ability to function successfully in the new gender.” An accurate birth certificate is important not only in those situations where an employer may require a birth certificate to start a new job, but also – especially under REAL ID proposals approved by Congress – may be necessary in the future to secure identification to drive a car, enter a federal building or board an airplane.
Illinois the only state that bars people who have gender confirmation surgery outside of the US from correcting their gender on their birth certificate.
Like Ms. Kirk, the other named plaintiff, Karissa Rothkopf, MBA, was careful in selecting a surgeon for her gender confirmation surgery. She reviewed credentials and patients’ reviews of professional surgeons in the Untied States and across the globe, and communicated with the surgeons and their staff about their techniques and recommendations for her particular surgery. Additionally, she consulted heavily with her own physician and her therapist. In the end, she decided that the Thai surgeon she selected offered the safest and best option for her.
“My surgeon was the best option – the best medical option – for me,” said Ms. Rothkopf. “My choice of surgeon should not affect my ability to get access to an accurate, current birth certificate.”
“One’s identity on a birth certificate should be accurate and complete,” said John Knight, a lawyer who works for the ACLU of Illinois and the ACLU National LGBT Project. “The new, narrow reading of the Vital Records Act does not serve any interest for the State of Illinois and does great harm to our clients and others who find themselves in the same circumstance. We hope the court will act swiftly to correct this problem.”
The plaintiffs are represented by lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois and the American Civil Liberties Union National Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Project in New York , and pro bono counsel from the Chicago office of Jenner & Block.
A short video of the plaintiffs, photos and the complaint can be found at:
/lgbt/transgender/38491res20090127.html.
LGBTQ Rights
Kirk v. Arnold
LGBTQ Rights
Kirk v. Arnold
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.