hl-lll

[hl-lll]

Kansas lawmakers plot threatening attack on civil rights

In their supposed eagerness to save money and do right by taxpayers, perhaps Kansas Republican leaders could try passing laws that don’t trample on the rights of their constituents.

 Two transgender teenagers and their parents are challenging a new Kansas law that bans gender-affirming care for minors.The American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas and the national ACLU filed a lawsuit Wednesday in Douglas County District Court on behalf of a 16-year-old trans boy and a 13-year-old trans girl. The lawsuit argues the new law violates state constitutional rights for equal protection, personal autonomy, and parenting.

Senate Bill 63 prohibits health care providers from using surgery, hormones or puberty blockers to treat anyone younger than 18 who identifies with a gender that is different from the sex they were assigned at birth. Health care providers who break the law may be subject to civil penalties and stripped of their license.

The ACLU is seeking an injunction to block enforcement of the law while the case is being litigated.“Every Kansan should have the freedom to make their own private medical decisions and consult with their doctors without the intrusion of Kansas politicians,” said D.C. Hiegert, a legal fellow for the ACLU of Kansas. “SB 63 is a particularly harmful example of politicians’ overreach and their efforts to target, politicize, and control the health care of already vulnerable Kansas families.”

The GOP-led Legislature passed SB 63 and overrode a veto by Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly earlier this year, ignoring overwhelming opposition from Kansas social workers, teachers, medical providers and members of the LGBTQ+ community who said gender-affirming care saves lives by acknowledging and supporting vulnerable kids for who they are.

The ACLU lawsuit points to medical guidance established by the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Endocrine Society and others surrounding gender identity, gender expression, and gender dysphoria. The guidelines require medical providers to confirm a minor has demonstrated a long-lasting and intense pattern of gender nonconformity, that the condition worsened with the onset of puberty, that coexisting psychological or social problems have been addressed, and that the patient has sufficient mental capacity to provide informed consent.

The lawsuit says both families have looked for care in other states as a result of the new law.

Harper Seldin, senior staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project, said all transgender Kansans should have the freedom to be themselves.“Bans like SB 63 have already had catastrophic effects on the families of transgender youth across the country,” Seldin said. “These bans have uprooted many families from the only homes they’ve ever known while forcing many more to watch their young people suffer knowing a politician stands between them and their family doctor’s best medical judgment.”

In addition to banning gender-affirming care, SB 63 bans the use of state funds for mental health care for transgender children, bans state employees from promoting “social transitioning,” which is defined to include the use of preferred pronouns, and outlaws liability insurance for damages related to gender-affirming care.

The model legislation, labeled the “Help Not Harm Act,” was supported by faith-based anti-LGBTQ+ groups in and outside of Kansas.

When the Legislature overrode the governor’s veto in February, Brittany Jones, director of policy and engagement for Kansas Family Voice, said lawmakers voted on the side of “common sense.”

“Every child deserves to be loved and protected — not manipulated into making life-altering decisions by individuals who profit off of those decisions,” Jones said. “We celebrate this new day in Kansas in which Kansas children are protected.”