According to Republican Governor Ron DeSantis, Florida’s limitations on gender-affirming treatment were challenged by a federal judge. In order to push through laws that would restrict access to such treatments, DeSantis consistently disseminated false information about a variety of transition-related treatments.
U.S. Judge Robert Hinkle of the Northern District of Florida made the remarks on the last day of a trial. He discovered that Florida health officials and DeSantis had first viewed the state’s law prohibiting adolescents from accessing gender-affirming therapies as an essential step to stop children from being mutilated. However, according to The Associated Press, the legislation actually forbids transgender people from receiving any medical treatment that affirms their gender identity.
“What if I make these statements when I’m evaluating the governor’s intent?” Hinkle inquired. “It appears that this isn’t just hyperbole.”
After DeSantis, Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo, and the state Department of Health approved laws to restrict the availability of physical and clinical initiatives, the limits on gender-affirming treatment were first put into effect in March.
DeSantis later signed a bill in May that codified those regulations into state rules. He is now running for the Republican nomination for president.
Medical practitioners are not allowed to treat transgender minors with gender-affirming medications like puberty blockers, hormone replacement therapy, or surgery under the SB 254 rules.
In total, 22 states have passed similar laws limiting access to gender-affirming care for minors. Only one of those rules, in Arkansas, has been deemed illegal, despite the fact that many of them have been challenged in court. Judges have prevented such legislation from being enforced in three states, including Florida, and after conservative-leaning appeals judges declined to do so, legislation have either already gone into effect or are expected to in a number of different states in 2024.
Infringing on their right as parents to choose their own children’s medical care, three Florida families with transgender children later filed a lawsuit against the state over these restrictions, claiming that the law will harm their kids by preventing them from receiving treatments that may lessen or end their feelings of gender dysphoria.
The ability of transgender adults to get gender-affirming care is also constrained by the law. Adults must undergo a protracted process that includes completing standard condition forms warning about the risks and side effects of such solutions in order to consent to receiving gender-affirming remedies under the law.
The forms require an adult transgender person to attest that their doctor informed them of the potential risks and drawbacks of pursuing gender-affirming treatment both in advance and in person. Critics have claimed that the language on the forms is essentially advertising, portraying all gender-affirming remedies as risky and experimental, in an overt attempt to deter transgender people from pursuing medical transition.
Additionally, the law mandates that transgender individuals seeking gender-affirming treatments meet in person with a single qualified physician before receiving treatment. If a doctor prescribes something new, individual in-person visits are necessary, and existing treatments must be renewed in person rather than through healthcare visits.
A third-degree felony with a maximum sentence of five years in prison may be committed by those found to have broken the law, whether they are treating transgender children or adults.
The state’s attorney, Mohammad Jazil, argued during the trial that the law is meant to protect the public in a branch of medicine that is fairly new and needs more supervision. According to the AP, he insisted that the laws was “not about targeting trans people.”
Hinkle was informed by Thomas Redburn, an attorney for the defendants in the case, that the restrictions had disastrous effects on transgender youth and their families and claimed the law was unfair.
According to West Palm Beach-based FOX affiliate WFLX, he also cited other trans and LGBTQ laws that DeSantis and Republican legislators had pushed as proof of anti-trans animus. Examples of these laws include those that limit the use of pronouns in classrooms, the “Don’t Say Gay” law, which forbids the reading of books with transgender characters and LGBTQ content in schools, laws limiting the access to public restrooms for transgendered people, and laws outlawing the participation of transgender athletes in sports that are consistent with their gender identity.
Hinkle questioned whether the plaintiffs could establish that DeSantis’ efforts to pass the law were motivated by reputable health care concerns or by animosity toward trans people.
Redburn retorted, noting the plethora of anti-trans laws passed under DeSantis’ administration over the past few years, “You’re almost never blessed with what’s actually in folks’ minds. When you combine all of that around, you have an illegal act.”
In the new year, Hinkle stated that he would determine whether the rules are biased and, if necessary, whether to prevent its enforcement “as quickly as I can.”
Hinkle previously prohibited the enforcement of the law’s restrictions on trans-identifying minors, but he permitted the restrictions to apply to older individuals on the grounds that the additional demands imposed on them weren’t overly onerous or prevented them from receiving gender-affirming care.
Adult plaintiff Lucien Hamel testified at trial that he was unable to obtain gender-affirming care due to the law, and that leaving the state is the only option for accessing some treatments because older patient restrictions are so intricate and challenging to uphold.
Following the courtroom hearing, Hamel said in a speech that “being forced to immediately stop my health care this summer has been devastating for both me and my home. I actually trusted the qualified health professional who gave me my attention. Then I learned that advanced practice registered nurses are instantly prohibited by Florida law from receiving the care I require from nurse practitioners. Anywhere in the state, I am unable to schedule a doctor’s visit. This change has no health justification; it’s only keeping transgender Floridians like me from receiving treatment.”
Hamel also objected to the notion of out-of-state relocation as a sensible expectation for transgender individuals in court.
“The only response I kept getting from the community and other people was ‘just leave Florida.’ I am unable to leave Florida. This is where I live. I’ve been residing here my entire life. Since this is my son’s house, I am unable to simply remove my relatives and relocate across the nation for a number of reasons.”
The legislation, according to Jane Doe, the surname of the mother of a trans minor named Susan, places an additional burden on the families of transgender youth.
Doe said in a statement, “Watching my child suffer because I can’t give her what she needs is my worst nightmare. Before we were able to consult with our team of doctors to understand what our daughter Susan was experiencing and make the most educated decisions about her care, we saw how she suffered. She is presently a contented and self-assured child, but I know that will end if we are unable to provide her with the medical attention that her doctors advise.
One of the most difficult experiences we’ve had as parents has been witnessing Susan’s personal fear of what will happen to her as a result of this ban,” Doe continued. “This could never be done to her by anyone with a heart.”
The plaintiffs’ attorneys expressed the hope that Hinkle may deem the law unconstitutional and unfair.
Shannon Minter, the National Center for Lesbian Rights’ legal director, stated in a statement that this dangerous and extraordinary law, which has taken the extraordinary step of restricting medically essential care also for adults and imposing criminal penalties on doctors and other health care professionals just for doing their jobs, has no medical basis, as the testimony presented in this trial largely demonstrated. “This is a significant government overreach, and it ought to be enjoined on an ongoing basis.”
Following the prosecution, Redburn stated, “We believe we presented a convincing case that demonstrates the serious harm to citizens by allowing the medical limitations in SB 254 to deal. We are hopeful that the court will rule in favor of a person’s right to make informed decisions about their own, personalized health treatments without being discriminated against by the State as we wait for their decision.”
