“Gender-Affirming” Medical Treatment Ban Goes Into Effect After First Of Its Kind Federal Court Decision

Image Credit: ADragan/Shutterstock

The Tennessee Conservative [By Paula Gomes] –

In a first for a federal court, a three-judge panel of the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted to reverse a Nashville federal judge’s stay on a new law banning “gender-affirming” medical treatment for minors in Tennessee.

Two of the three judges, Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton and Judge Amul Thapar, voted to reinstate the law – originally meant to go into effect on July 1st – to take effect immediately after Judge Eli Richardson of the Fifth Federal Circuit issued a partial injunction of SB1.

Federal courts in Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, and Kentucky have blocked similar bans in those states. Richardson’s partial injunction allowed for hormone treatments to continue while preventing surgical procedures.

The opinion from the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court is a clear signal that the judges are not entirely convinced that the state’s ban is unconstitutional. Referring to similar debates happening in legislatures all across the United States, the judges suggested that individual states are in the best position to decide whether minors should be able to access hormone treatments or surgeries that alter and remove healthy body parts, procedures that often lead to painful and permanent complications.

The court also spoke of the limitations of its power per Article III of the U.S. Constitution, recognizing that it is adjudicating the rights of only nine people.

According to an assessment of the decision by Gary Humble of Tennessee Stands, part of the court’s reasoning in defending the new law is cause for concern.

“Part of the court’s rationale for defending Tennessee’s law in terms of its ability to regulate medical procedures is that, currently, FDA regulations do not contradict the state’s prohibitions on the use of puberty blockers and surgery for “gender-affirming” care. In other words, the state is only given the power to regulate these procedures on the basis that the FDA has not prevented it from doing so,” said Humble. “This is an incredibly slippery slope and also not a strong foundation to lean upon in terms of continuing to protect children from this national agenda as public sentiment (and especially the sentiment of the medical community) continues to shift.”

Humble said the court’s decision jeopardizes the constitutional rights of individuals, subjecting them to “the whims of an administrative three-letter regulatory agency.”

The Tennessee Attorney General’s office has argued that there was never a need for an injunction against the new law in the first place due to the “wind down” period included in the legislation. This provision within the law allows for some existing transgender patients to continue receiving services until March 2024. However, some providers such as Vanderbilt University Medical Center have threatened to cease providing any care to patients if the law is not stopped.

Organizations that oppose the law have vowed to continue to challenge it. ACLU of Tennessee, the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld law firm want to see the law permanently defeated.

Per the court’s order, the enforcement of the state’s new law is pending a hearing and appellate ruling by September 30th, 2023.

About the Author: Paula Gomes is a Tennessee resident and reporter for The Tennessee Conservative. You can reach Paula at paula@tennesseeconservativenews.com.