Florida Families File Brief Against Arbitrary Ban on Healthcare for Transgender Youth

Florida Families File Brief Against Arbitrary Ban on Healthcare for Transgender Youth

"As a parent, it is heartbreaking to see my right to make healthcare decisions for my child taken away by political bullies, and the hurt and harm that has caused my child."

Yesterday, Florida families challenging the state's ban on medical care for transgender youth urged the Eleventh Circuit to strike down the ban because it was based on animosity toward transgender people and has no basis in medical science. Striking down the ban would affirm the earlier lower federal court decision, which took this action based on this reasoning.

Federal district court Judge Robert Hinkle issued an order on June 11 declaring that Florida's ban on medical care for transgender youth and its unprecedented restrictions of care for transgender adults are unconstitutional and may not be enforced. Judge Hinkle issued his order after a multi-day trial including multiple witnesses and experts. In a 105-page decision, Judge Hinkle found that the evidence, including statements made by sponsors and key supporters of the law, overwhelmingly showed that a majority of legislators who voted for these restrictions on healthcare were "motivated by anti-transgender animus."

"I love my child and want to get her the healthcare she needs," said Plaintiff Jane Doe, parent of Susan Doe. "As a parent, it is heartbreaking to see my right to make healthcare decisions for my child taken away by political bullies, and the hurt and harm that has caused my child."

Following Judge Hinkle's order, the State of Florida appealed his decision to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which will decide whether to affirm or reverse his decision. Last month, a panel of the Eleventh Circuit stayed Judge Hinkle's order pending its resolution of the appeal, which means that the challenged laws are currently in effect, depriving Florida families and transgender adults of the ability to obtain medical care.

As Judge Hinkle noted in his order, "the overwhelming weight of medical authority" supports making these treatments accessible to transgender people, and permitting Florida to enforce these arbitrary restrictions "will cause needless suffering for a substantial number of patients."

Judge Hinkle also found that the administrative process that resulted in Board of Medicine and Board of Osteopathic Medicine rules banning medical care for transgender minors was riddled with bias and radical departures from the Boards' ordinary practices, noting that "the Boards departed from their usual procedures, orchestrated public hearings, and single-mindedly pursued the predetermined outcome sought by the Governor and Surgeon General." Judge Hinkle further noted that the State of Florida had failed to identify even a single person who has been harmed by the provision of this healthcare in Florida.

The families and adults challenging Florida's restrictions are represented by GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), Human Rights Campaign Foundation (HRC), National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), Southern Legal Counsel (SLC), and Lowenstein Sandler LLP.

Further information about the case Doe v. Ladapo, including the July 11 order denying the State's request for a stay and the June 11 decision finding Florida's health care ban unlawful and blocking its enforcement are available here.