BISMARCK, N.D. — A North Dakota law banning gender-affirming care for children will continue to be enforced pending a court challenge, but any kids whose treatments began before the law took effect in April 2023 can keep getting the care, according to a judge’s ruling released Wednesday.
Judge Jackson Lofgren denied a preliminary injunction sought by families seeking to overturn the law, as he had previously done in November when the plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order.
The plaintiffs said a grandfather clause in the law is so vague it led providers to stop treatments in the state, but the judge made clear those minors can continue any medical care they had before the law took effect.
It isn’t clear that the plaintiffs are “substantially” likely to win their case, now scheduled for a November trial, on claims that the law violates rights to parent or to personal autonomy and self-determination, the judge said.
He also sided against claims that the grandfather clause is unconstitutionally vague, and that the plaintiffs have shown irreparable harm. With the current law in effect for more than a year now, Lofgren said “the public interest in maintaining the status quo weighs against granting a preliminary injunction.”
The law took immediate effect when Republican Gov. Doug Burgum signed it in April 2023 after overwhelming approval by the GOP-controlled legislature. It makes it a misdemeanor for a health care provider to prescribe or give hormone treatments or puberty blockers to a transgender child, and a felony to perform gender-affirming surgery on a minor.
“The longer this law is allowed to remain in effect, the more North Dakota kids and families will be harmed by the state’s unfair, unjust, and unconstitutional denial of the essential and life-saving health care they need,” Gender Justice Senior Staff Attorney Brittany Stewart, who represents the families and a doctor challenging the ban.
Republican state Rep. Bill Tveit, who brought the bill, was pleased with the ruling. He said the law protects children from irreversible procedures.
Opponents said the ban will harm transgender kids who face greater risks of depression, self-harm and suicide, and stressed that no one performs such surgeries in the state.
Despite the exception for children who were receiving treatments before the ban took effect, providers have considered the grandfather clause too vague to risk it, so the plaintiff families have had to travel out of state to get gender-affirming care for their children, Gender Justice said.
The judge disagreed, writing that such children “can receive any gender-affirming care they could have received in North Dakota prior to the Health Care Law’s enactment.”
Gender Justice agreed that the clarification “paves the way for providers to resume care for these patients in North Dakota.”
“However, significant barriers to access will remain for most or all children and families seeking care in North Dakota, as doctors who stopped providing care to transgender youth may hesitate to resume care due to concerns over the serious legal threats posed by the law,” the organization’s statement said.
Twenty-five states have adopted bans on gender-affirming care for minors in the past few years, nearly all of them challenged in court. Arkansas is appealing after a court struck down its ban entirely. Courts blocked enforcement of the law in Montana. And the ACLU has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review whether the bans should remain in effect in Kentucky and Tennessee. The high court has allowed the Idaho law to remain in effect while lawsuits proceed.
___
AP writer Geoff Mulvihill contributed to this report from Cherry Hill, New Jersey.
For more AP coverage of LGBTQ+ issues: https://apnews.com/hub/lgbtq-legislation
A recent ruling in North Dakota has sparked controversy and concern among LGBTQ+ advocates and healthcare professionals. A judge has decided not to block the state’s ban on gender-affirming care for children, which prohibits doctors from providing treatments such as puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgery to transgender youth.
The ban, which was signed into law earlier this year, has been met with backlash from critics who argue that it is discriminatory and harmful to transgender children. Supporters of the ban claim that it is necessary to protect young people from making irreversible decisions about their gender identity.
The judge’s decision not to block the ban comes after a group of healthcare providers and advocacy organizations filed a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality. They argued that the ban violates the rights of transgender youth and interferes with the doctor-patient relationship.
Despite the ruling, opponents of the ban have vowed to continue fighting for the rights of transgender children in North Dakota. They argue that gender-affirming care is essential for the mental health and well-being of transgender youth, and that denying them access to these treatments can have devastating consequences.
According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, gender-affirming care has been shown to improve the mental health and quality of life of transgender youth. Studies have also found that transgender children who are able to access these treatments have lower rates of depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation.
The decision not to block North Dakota’s ban on gender-affirming care is a setback for LGBTQ+ rights in the state, but advocates are determined to continue fighting for the rights of transgender children. They are calling on lawmakers to repeal the ban and ensure that all young people have access to the healthcare they need to live healthy and fulfilling lives.
