Families ask full appellate court to reconsider Alabama transgender care ban
Alabama families with transgender children asked an appellate court Monday to review a decision that will let the state enforce a ban on treating minors with gender-affirming hormones and puberty blockers
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Alabama families with transgender children asked a full appellate court Monday to review a decision that will let the state enforce a ban on treating minors with gender-affirming hormones and puberty blockers.
The families asked all of the judges of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review a three-judge panel decision issued last month. The panel lifted a judge’s temporary injunction that had blocked Alabama from enforcing the law while a lawsuit over the ban goes forward.
The Alabama ban makes it a felony — punishable by up to 10 years in prison — for doctors to treat people under 19 with puberty blockers or hormones to help affirm a new gender identity. The court filing argues the ban violates parents’ longstanding and accepted right to make medical decisions for their children.
“Parents, not the government, are best situated to make medical decisions for their children. That understanding is deeply rooted in our common understanding and our legal foundations,” Sarah Warbelow, legal director at Human Rights Campaign, said Warbelow said.
While the 11th Circuit decision applied only to Alabama, it was a victory for Republican-led states that are attempting to put restrictions on gender-affirming care for minors. At least 20 states enacted laws restricting or banning gender-affirming care for minors.
The three-judge panel, in lifting the injunction, cited the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that returned the issue of abortion to the states. In weighing whether something is protected as a fundamental right under the due process clause, Judge Barbara Lagoa said “courts must look to whether the right is “deeply rooted in (our) history and tradition.”
“But the use of these medications in general — let alone for children — almost certainly is not ‘deeply rooted’ in our nation’s history and tradition,” Lagoa wrote.
Attorneys representing families who challenged the Alabama ban argued that was the wrong standard and could have sweeping ramifications on parents' right to pursue medical treatments to schooling choices that did not exist when the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868.
The injunction remains in place until the appellate court transfer the mandate in the case. When that happens, Alabama will be able to enforce the ban. The Alabama attorney general’s office, in a separate court filing in district court, called the hearing request a “delay tactic” to try to keep the injunction in place.
Subscribe to Independent Premium to bookmark this article
Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.