By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Private Policy and Terms of Use.
“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,” one parent of a trans youth said in a new legal brief.
Families challenging Florida’s ban on transgender health care for minors want an appellate court striking the law down. A new brief argues the law, signed by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, was based on bigotry and misinformed research.
"I love my child and want to get her the healthcare she needs,” said one parent identified in court documents as Jane 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.”
In June, U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle ruled Florida’s ban was unconstitutional, and initially said the state could not enforce its law on appeal. But the 11th Circuit in a 2-1 decision stayed that ruling while it considers an appeal by the state of Florida.
Hinkle in his ruling said Florida’s law passed despite an “overwhelming weight of medical authority” that says transgender people should have access to gender-affirming care. The latest brief says appellate judges should uphold that decision.
“The District Court scrupulously followed this Court’s directive to examine the record to determine whether the challenged statute and rules were ‘a pretext for invidious discrimination’ against transgender Floridians,” the brief reads.
“In so doing, the District Court considered each of the relevant factors and determined that the evidence strongly supported a finding that an improper discriminatory purpose was “a motivating factor” in the adoption of the statute and rules, requiring application of heightened scrutiny.”
In addition to the law signed by DeSantis, Florida’s Board of Medicine and Board of Osteopathic Medicine banned specific care for minors, and in some cases for trans adults. Hinkle had also criticized those regulatory decisions.
“The Boards departed from their usual procedures, orchestrated public hearings, and single-mindedly pursued the predetermined outcome sought by the Governor and Surgeon General,” he ruled, referencing DeSantis and Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo, a defendant in the case.
A three-judge panel has already signaled a belief the state will likely prevail in its appeal.
“The district court likely misapplied the presumption that the legislature acted in good faith when it concluded that the prohibition and regulation provisions, and the implementing rules, were based on invidious discrimination against transgender minors and adults,” a majority opinion staying Hinkle’s ruling stated.
The majority included Judges Britt C. Grant and Robert J. Luck, the latter of whom previously served on the Florida Supreme Court as a DeSantis nominee. But Judge Charles R. Wilson dissented with that opinion, saying Hinkle “identified sufficient record evidence to support concluding that the act’s passage was based on invidious discrimination against transgender adults and minors.”
The latest brief argued anti-transgender bias tainted the legislative and regulatory process in Florida from the start.
“The Board even invited several known opponents of transgender healthcare to participate on the hearing panel to respond to any commenters who opposed the rule,” the brief reads.
The LBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, Human Rights Campaign Foundation, National Center for Lesbian Rights, Southern Legal Counsel and law firm Lowenstein Sandler and representing families and individuals impacted by the Florida laws and restrictions.
