By Jim Saunders ©2024 The News Service of Florida
TALLAHASSEE — Attorneys for a transgender man and parents of trans children urged a federal appeals court Monday to reject a request that would allow Florida to restrict treatments for gender dysphoria while a legal battle continues.
The state on July 17 filed a motion at the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals seeking a stay of a ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle that blocked restrictions Florida imposed last year on treatments for transgender people.
The motion, if granted, would allow the restrictions to be in effect while the appeals court considers the state’s underlying appeal of Hinkle’s decision — a process that likely will take months.
But in a 46-page response filed Monday, attorneys for plaintiffs in the case argued the Atlanta-based appeals court should reject the motion, saying state officials did “not even attempt to meet their burden of showing that the district court’s (Hinkle’s) careful, detailed, and well-supported findings are ‘clearly erroneous.’”
“Neither defendants (state officials) nor the public will suffer any harm from allowing transgender Floridians to maintain the same access to medical care that they had for many years before 2023,” the response said. “In contrast, the trial evidence demonstrated the real and serious harms that plaintiffs and class members will continue to suffer if they are unable to access treatments that have been shown to be safe and effective in relieving the symptoms of gender dysphoria.”
The plaintiffs’ attorneys also pointed to what they described as Hinkle’s “detailed and well-supported findings establishing that the legislative and rulemaking processes were infected by animus and an improper purpose to single out transgender people for adverse treatment.”
Hinkle last month prohibited state health officials from enforcing the 2023 law and regulations, which would bar the use of puberty blockers and hormone therapy to treat children for gender dysphoria and make it harder for transgender adults to access care.
In the 101-page ruling, Hinkle wrote that “gender identity is real” and likened opposition to transgender people to racism and misogyny.
“The state of Florida can regulate as needed but cannot flatly deny transgender individuals safe and effective medical treatment — treatment with medications routinely provided to others with the state’s full approval so long as the purpose is not to support the patient’s transgender identity,” he wrote.
Florida quickly appealed and, in the motion for a stay, disputed Hinkle’s conclusions about issues such as animus toward transgender people. The motion requested a stay “as soon as practicable.”
“The state suffers irreparable harm because its laws have been enjoined,” the motion said. “And the state and its citizens face the prospect of risky, possible ineffective, and certainly life-altering treatments being administered.”
Florida and other Republican-controlled states have approved numerous laws and regulations in recent years focused on transgender people. One of the highest-profile issues has been restricting use of puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors with gender dysphoria.
The federal government defines gender dysphoria clinically as “significant distress that a person may feel when sex or gender assigned at birth is not the same as their identity.”
In addition to banning puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors with gender dysphoria, the 2023 Florida law also affected transgender adults. It allowed only physicians — not nurse practitioners — to approve hormone therapy and barred the use of telehealth for new prescriptions. Opponents argued that the restrictions severely reduced access to hormone therapy for adults.
Gov. Ron DeSantis’ administration has long disputed arguments about the effectiveness of gender-dysphoria treatments, particularly for minors.
“Letting the state’s laws stand pending an appeal makes the most sense,” the motion for a stay said. “Whether the state chooses to use a hammer or a scalpel to regulate gender-dysphoria treatments is a matter for the state to decide.”
But attorneys for the plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit argued in Monday’s response that state officials “offer no evidence of anyone in Florida receiving inadequate care or suffering adverse consequences, nor do they provide any evidence suggesting that minors would be better off receiving no medical treatment at all than the same care that was available until 2023.”
“Lastly, the public does not have an interest in preventing transgender people from accessing needed medical care,” the response said. “Nor does the public have an interest in the state’s enforcement of an unconstitutional law.”
Leave a Reply
