Federal Appeals Court Deliberates on Ethical Dimensions of Transgender Youth Care Bans in Tennessee and Kentucky

A federal appeals court on Friday grappled with the ethical debate surrounding care for transgender youth in Kentucky and Tennessee. The core issue centered on which stance better embodies compassion, as arguments were heard regarding the prohibition of gender-affirming treatments for transgender minors in these states.

Proponents of allowing transgender minors access to puberty blockers and hormone therapy posited that such treatments are safe and medically endorsed by all major healthcare organizations. On the other side, those advocating for state-level restrictions asserted that these treatments are experimental and entail irreversible consequences, hence minors should not be exposed to them.

Earlier in the year, the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Cincinnati, overturned previous lower court rulings, enabling both Kentucky and Tennessee to proceed with limitations on access to gender-affirming treatments for transgender youth. Advocacy groups expressed grave concern over the decision, asserting that it jeopardizes the well-being of transgender minors presently undergoing such treatments, as well as those who may require them in the future.

Legal representatives from Kentucky and Tennessee contended that, in light of U.S. Supreme Court decisions permitting states to restrict abortion rights, states should also have the discretion to regulate gender-affirming medical procedures.

The virtual hearing on Friday occurred against a backdrop of a wave of court decisions this week related to LGBTQ+ and transgender rights. These are particularly emanating from states with Republican-led governments.

Solicitor General Matthew Kuhn, representing the Kentucky attorney general’s office, argued that states have a crucial role in regulating medical practice. Contrarily, attorneys representing transgender youth and their families contended that adolescence is the critical period when gender-affirming treatments should be made available.

Stephanie Schuster, a lawyer representing Kentucky families, presented evidence to assert that withholding such treatments until the age of 18 could be detrimental to the mental and physical health of transgender minors. U.S. District Judge Amul Thapar underscored the child’s well-being as the crux of the matter, adding that potential regret for undergoing the treatments at a young age also merits consideration.

Parallel legal developments include the Texas Supreme Court’s approval of a law banning gender-affirming care for minors, and other federal rulings impacting LGBTQ+ rights. Canada has updated its travel advisory to the U.S., cautioning the LGBTQ+ community about potential risks in states with restrictive laws.

In Florida, a federal judge declined to facilitate easier access to gender-affirming treatments for transgender individuals but left the door open for future considerations based on additional medical evidence. The Florida law, signed by Republican Governor Ron DeSantis, has garnered attention for including provisions that affect both minors and adults. It mandates in-person consent for treatment with a physician, which advocates argue presents logistical challenges due to the prevalence of telehealth consultations and nurse practitioners.

Judge Hinkle, presiding over the Florida case, has a trial slated for November 13 to assess the constitutionality of the law, expressing preliminary concerns over the statute’s potential infringement on individual medical choices.

The report was filed from Cherry Hill, New Jersey, by correspondent Mulvihill.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Transgender Youth Care Bans

More about Transgender Youth Care Bans

• Gender-Affirming Care: An Overview