A federal district court judge has temporarily halted parts of a nondiscrimination rule that would have prevented insurers and medical professionals from denying hormone therapy, gender transition surgeries, and similar medical care for transgender individuals. U.S. District Judge Louis Guirola Jr. sided with 15 states that argued the language of the rule, based on the 1972 Title IX nondiscrimination law, encompasses biological sex but not gender identity. Guirola’s injunction applies nationwide to the Affordable Care Act rule, which was set to go into effect on Friday.
This decision marks another setback for the Biden administration’s efforts to expand anti-discrimination protections. In recent weeks, three federal judges have blocked a rule in several states that aimed to protect LGBTQ+ students by broadening the definition of sexual harassment in schools and colleges under Title IX.
Health care protections based on gender identity were initially added during the Obama administration but were later removed under former President Donald Trump. Earlier this year, the Department of Health and Human Services once again expanded the scope of the Affordable Care Act rule to include discrimination based on “sex stereotypes, sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex characteristics.”
However, Republican attorneys general from Tennessee and other states, primarily in the South and Midwest, argued that the states would face financial burdens if they adhered to the new rule under Medicaid or other federal health programs. They also contended that they would risk losing federal funding if they did not comply. The plaintiffs further argued that the rule was based on the federal agency’s “commitment to gender ideology over medical reality.”
During the testimony, Cody Smith, an attorney for the Mississippi Division of Medicaid, stated that the agency is prohibited from covering gender transition procedures for children under 18, which are rare. He also noted that the state’s Medicaid program and Children’s Health Insurance Program do not cover “operative procedures to treat a mental condition.”
Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves expressed his approval of the judge’s decision, stating that the Biden administration “attempted to undermine Title IX by dramatically reinterpreting its meaning to now apply to gender identity.” He added, “I’m thankful to see that this judge has chosen to side with Mississippi and other states who chose to stand up for women and defend Title IX as it currently exists.”
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Office for Civil Rights, and the attorneys general for Tennessee and Mississippi did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The office of Tennessee Governor Bill Lee also declined to comment on pending litigation.
This ruling is part of a broader legal and political battle over the rights of transgender individuals in the United States. The Biden administration has made it a priority to expand protections for LGBTQ+ individuals, but these efforts have faced significant opposition from conservative states and groups.
The Affordable Care Act rule in question aimed to ensure that transgender individuals could not be denied necessary medical care based on their gender identity. This includes hormone therapy and gender transition surgeries, which are considered essential by many in the transgender community and medical professionals.
Opponents of the rule argue that it imposes undue financial and administrative burdens on states and medical providers. They also claim that it conflicts with their interpretation of Title IX, which they believe should only apply to biological sex.
Supporters of the rule, however, argue that denying medical care based on gender identity is a form of discrimination that should be prohibited. They contend that transgender individuals have the right to access the same medical care as anyone else and that the rule is necessary to protect their health and well-being.
The legal battle over this issue is likely to continue, with both sides preparing for further court challenges. The outcome of these cases will have significant implications for the rights of transgender individuals and the ability of the federal government to enforce anti-discrimination protections.
As the debate continues, transgender individuals and their advocates remain hopeful that the courts will ultimately uphold their right to access necessary medical care without discrimination. They argue that health care is a fundamental human right and that no one should be denied care based on their gender identity.
The temporary halt of the Biden administration’s rule is a setback, but it is not the end of the fight for transgender health protections. Advocates are determined to continue pushing for policies that ensure equal access to medical care for all individuals, regardless of their gender identity.
Source: Associated Press
