Federal court rules Indiana ban on gender-affirming care for minors can take effect

A federal appeals court on Tuesday allowed Indiana’s ban on gender-affirming care to go into effect, removing a temporary injunction a judge issued last year.

The ruling was handed down by a panel of justices on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. It marked the latest decision in a legal challenge the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed against the ban, enacted last spring amid a national push by GOP-led legislatures to curb LGBTQ+ rights.


Excuse my ignorance, and not trying to offend just asking a question.

Why is it a bad thing to wait till kids are 18 before allowing them this care? Kids make rash decisions all the time, and something that seems difficult to reverse should be a decision when they are at a more mature age.


idk why you’re being down voted as if one can’t get plastic surgery till they are 18 this should be the same personally imo because you’re right kids can and do make very rash decisions


That’s because you don’t understand what you’re talking about. These kids are not having plastic surgery. They’re getting care that affirms their gender, and possibly puberty blockers, which are easily reversible.


And also kids absolutely can have plastic surgery


Four things: 1) cis teenagers can and do have cosmetic surgery 2) they’re very different, cosmetic surgery rarely requires psychological oversight or anything of the sort unlike trans surgeries and cosmetic surgeries don’t treat an underlying condition unlike trans surgeries 3) this isn’t just banning surgery but also hormone treatments 4) this is going against expert opinion and the wishes of the affected to prohibit medical treatments


and something that seems difficult to reverse should be a decision when they are at a more mature age.

  1. Gender affirming care covers a broad range of care, not just medical injections and surgery.
  2. Puberty blockers are very reversible, its extremely uncommon to have long term affects once someone stops taking them
  3. Going through puberty as their assigned gender is difficult to reverse and should be a decision that they make when they’re more mature too right?
  4. Detransioners are actually very rare, so its rarely a “rash decision” and to prevent that we should give doctors better training to give these kids better information so they can make good decisions, rather than preventing all of these kids from getting healthcare they need.

Not to mention cis kids can be given hormone blockers for things like precocious puberty. This law WILL hurt them as well.

@inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world avatar

This is a very comprehensive and accurate answer. Thank you!


Thank you, I appreciate your answer!

stoly, (edited )

Why should someone have to suffer in a body that isn’t theirs when they and their caretakers agree that they would be healthier and happier after a transition?


Because gender affirming care isn’t just surgeries. It includes things like hormone replacement therapy and especially puberty blockers. By waiting until after 18, they’ve already gone through most of puberty and its damaging effects to their body. If they still want to transition, then that’s tens of thousands of dollars for surgery that might not have been needed if they were allowed to start on puberty blockers at least.

There’s also the fact that banning gender affirming care is banning life saving healthcare. That is years that a person needs to go without receiving proper treatment. It’s wrong for the same reasons that banning any other medication for anyone under 18 would be wrong.

@Ekybio@lemmy.world avatar

The Cruelty is the point

@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

I’m in Indiana. One of my daughter’s closest friends is a 13-year-old boy who is trans. His parents support him, let him wear chest binders, but I don’t think he’s taking hormones and now it sounds like he won’t be able to.

So thanks, 7th Circuit and fuck you.


Thank the lawmakers, the court probably didn’t have a choice


That’s an odd take. Courts interpret laws. What law or constitutional measures forces them to ban healthcare?


Yes, they interpret what the lawmakers have written. If lawmakers made a law saying minors shouldn’t receive healthcare, that’s what the court should say.

Not taking sides btw, if I was I’d just get mad at the state of US politics


They can say “it’s not constitutional to ban healthcare.” They aren’t bound only by the text of the law.


Does the constitution say that though?


SCOTUS said it did in Roe v. Wade.


Right to healthcare or the right of privacy in healthcare?


The right for the people to determine what healthcare means for their individual selves.

@Zombiepirate@lemmy.world avatar

Go on and elaborate on what you think the right to privacy means in the US.

The Supreme Court, however, beginning as early as 1923 and continuing through its recent decisions, has broadly read the “liberty” guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee a fairly broad right of privacy that has come to encompass decisions about child rearing, procreation, marriage, and termination of medical treatment.


They’re probably referring to HIIPA


I’m quite sure a constitutional scholar could come up with a well worded reply to make that argument in detail. I’ll just say that I think part of individual liberty is accessing healthcare.


You’re making massive leaps




Where they constructed a right for healthcare out of the word liberty.


Right, I’m asking how that doesn’t follow. You don’t have a right to force doctors to specialize in something you want them to, but being restricted by your government from accessing modern healthcare endorsed by the AMA and APA doesn’t seem like liberty to me.


Let’s take it from the other side.

Should I have the liberty to not pay taxes? The liberty to dump my garbage into a lake? The liberty to burn a forest down?

You’re flexing words into meanings that suit you, but if they actually were possible to be interpreted this widely, it’d be chaos.


Those each hurt third parties, which is a very good reason to restrict a liberty. This one doesn’t, so I don’t really see how it fits with the others.


But that’s an opinion, isn’t it? We all don’t have the same opinions, that’s why politics is a thing?

Maybe transcare hurts someone’s feelings, you might not agree with that, but we live in a world where their opinion matters, too, for better (or in this case) for worse.


Feelings being hurt does not meet the standard of restriction outside of abuse or harassment, which this is not. That’s not a political opinion, and anyone telling you it is is trying to distort your view of reality. Being trans, gay, or having any immutable characteristic cannot possibly have the same effect on people as targeted abuse or harassment.


“cannot possibly” is your opinion, it’s just not a fact. Look at how hard they’re trying to ban it, it clearly matters a lot to some ppl for some reason

idiomaddict, (edited )

No you’re right, I’m actually incredibly affected by people having the immutable characteristic of… what’s your eye color again? Is it simply politics to decide that you don’t get health care because your eyes are creepy and I don’t want them around my kid?

Trans people are strongly negatively affected by not being able to transition, more so than the people against trans rights are by them transition. This is very easily determined by looking at suicide rates pre and post transition for the trans and terrified of trans groups.

It’s not politics to try and get rid of a group of people for being something they didn’t choose to be.


The constitution doesn’t say we have a right to lay bricks so we should ban construction, right? Reading into the constitution and assuming they understood modern brick making would be a massive leap.

Or something like that? I don’t really get what you’re saying.


The law on the ban for youth care was challenged in court, the courts decided the law is not against the constitution, and so it can take effect.


Laws aren’t real


A court made that decision.


Not sure how that’s a gotcha, sure, a court, has the same weight either way


And another court could overturn it. Because courts aren’t bound by the text of the laws.

@gedaliyah@lemmy.world avatar

The lawsuit, first filed in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Indiana, alleges that Senate Bill 480 violates the U.S. Constitution on multiple fronts, including the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In addition, the lawsuit claims that the law violates the federal requirements of the Medicaid Act and the Affordable Care Act, because it prohibits essential medical services that would otherwise be authorized and reimbursed by Medicaid


@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Why wouldn’t they have a choice?


Because laws tell them what to decide. The courts are there to make sure the laws don’t infringe on constitutional rights, on federal laws etc., but they don’t create rules.

FfaerieOxide avatar

The courts are there to make sure the laws don’t infringe on constitutional rights

Who needs equal protection anyway?

@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

but they don’t create rules.

I see you’re unfamiliar with our court system and only know the idealized version.


If a court decides to interpret a law some way or another, it’s because the law’s wording allowed for some leeway.

That’s on the lawmakers.

@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Got it. Judicial decisions are always correct.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • news@lemmy.world
  • rosin
  • mdbf
  • ngwrru68w68
  • Backrooms
  • DreamBathrooms
  • magazineikmin
  • thenastyranch
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • InstantRegret
  • khanakhh
  • tacticalgear
  • kavyap
  • ethstaker
  • provamag3
  • osvaldo12
  • cubers
  • GTA5RPClips
  • hgfsjryuu7
  • everett
  • modclub
  • Durango
  • tester
  • cisconetworking
  • Leos
  • anitta
  • normalnudes
  • JUstTest
  • All magazines