Florida Gets Green Light to Enforce Ban on Hormone Therapy for Minors: Appeals Court
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has given Florida the go-ahead to enforce a ban on hormone replacement therapy for children, pending legal proceedings against the ban. The decision, made on August 26, saw the three-judge panel side with Florida, overturning a district judge's order that had temporarily halted the ban while the case is under appeal. The court also greenlit expedited proceedings for the appeal.
Details of the Court's Decision
The majority of the panel, made up of Judges Britt Grant and Robert Luck, noted in their unsigned opinion that the district court itself acknowledged the existence of 'legitimate concerns' regarding some treatment effects. Other concerns included the risk of misdiagnosis, treatment risks, and potential additional medical risks.
The defendants, which include Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo and the Florida Board of Medicine, have made a strong case that they are likely to succeed on the merits, the judges concluded.
What the Law Entails
The law at the heart of the dispute, set to take effect in 2023, prohibits medical professionals from performing sex-reassignment surgeries or prescribing medication such as cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers to anyone under 18, even with parental consent. However, children already on these medications when the law was enacted can continue their treatment, but surgeries are now off-limits.
The law also imposes restrictions on adults seeking gender transition treatment. It stipulates that adult patients must receive such treatment solely from a physician and sign the consent form in person. This effectively bars them from seeking treatment via telehealth services or from nurses.
Previous Ruling and Appeal
In June, Judge Robert Hinkle of the Northern District of Florida ruled in favor of those contesting the restrictions, including the parents of a 10-year-old boy diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Hinkle stated that while Florida has the right to regulate treatments, it should not deny 'safe and effective medical treatment' to individuals identifying as transgender.
The state appealed Hinkle’s ruling and requested that it be allowed to enforce the law while awaiting the appellate hearing. The state argued that without a stay, it would be unable to ensure that treatments meet appropriate medical standards. Hinkle refuted the state's argument in his denial of a stay.
Majority and Dissenting Opinions
Judges Grant and Luck disagreed with Hinkle's ruling. They concluded that the harm the state would suffer from not being able to enforce the Legislature's will and the need to 'avoid irreversible health risks to its children' outweighed the potential harm to individual plaintiffs.
Judge Charles Wilson, however, dissented, arguing that there was sufficient evidence to support the claim that the 2023 law was based on 'invidious discrimination against transgender minors and adults.'
Reactions to the Decision
The National Center for Lesbian Rights, one of the pro-LGBT advocacy groups involved in the case, expressed deep disappointment at the decision. The group argued that reinstating these discriminatory restrictions would deny transgender adults and adolescents lifesaving care and prevent Florida parents from making the right medical decisions for their children.
The Florida Department of Health did not respond to a request for comment by the time of publication.
Bottom Line
This decision by the federal appeals court has reignited the debate around the controversial law. While some argue that it is necessary to protect children from irreversible health risks, others contend that it infringes on the rights of transgender individuals and their parents. What are your thoughts on this contentious issue? Share this article with your friends and join the conversation. Don't forget to sign up for the Daily Briefing, which is available every day at 6pm.
