Arkansas' Ban on Gender-Affirming Treatment Overturned by Federal Judge, Citing Constitutional Violations

Arkansas Gender-Affirming Treatment ban Overturned transgender

By E.Baloyo , Parent Herald Jun 21, 08:01 am

Photo: (Photo : ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Getty Images)

A federal judge has made a landmark ruling by overturning Arkansas' ban on gender-affirming treatment for transgender youth and declaring it unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge James Moody Jr. of the Eastern District of Arkansas permanently blocked the law from taking effect, citing violations of the First Amendment as well as the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment.

This decision marks the first time a judge has overturned a law banning gender-affirming care, representing a significant victory for LGBTQ advocates.

Unconstitutional Ban on Gender-Affirming Treatment

According to NBC News, the ban, known as the "Save Adolescents from Experimentation Act," was enacted in Arkansas after the majority-Republican Legislature overrode former Governor Asa Hutchinson's veto in April 2021.

It aimed to prohibit doctors from providing gender-affirming medical care, including puberty blockers and hormone therapy, to transgender minors.

Additionally, it barred doctors from referring minors to other providers for such treatment.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit in May 2021 on behalf of four transgender minors and their parents, along with two physicians who provide gender-affirming health care.

The ACLU argued that the law violated the Constitution.

CNN reported that in an 80-page ruling, Judge Moody determined that the law violated the U.S. Constitution, specifically the First and 14th Amendments.

He emphasized that the evidence presented showed that gender-affirming medical care improved the mental health and well-being of patients, and prohibiting such care undermined the state's claimed interest in protecting children.

The now-blocked law would have had significant consequences for transgender youth in Arkansas.

It would have prevented them from accessing puberty blockers, a treatment option used to prevent the onset of puberty.

The law also banned cross-hormone therapy, which allows trans individuals to align their physical appearance with their gender identity.

The legislation included limited exceptions for certain intersex individuals and those with difficulties resulting from previous gender-affirming treatments.

A Nationwide Legal Battle

While this ruling only applies to Arkansas, it represents a crucial victory for LGBTQ advocates who have been challenging similar laws enacted in GOP-led states.

It was the first time a federal judge had the opportunity to receive extensive evidence and briefing in a case against a ban on gender-affirming care.

According to Politico, similar lawsuits have been filed in other states, such as Alabama and Indiana.

Arkansas intends to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. However, in August last year, a three-judge panel on the appeals court allowed Judge Moody's preliminary injunction to stand, indicating potential challenges ahead for the state's appeal.

Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin expressed disappointment with the decision, asserting that the state aimed to protect children from what they deemed dangerous medical experimentation.

Concerns for Transgender Youth

LGBTQ and medical advocates strongly opposed the ban, fearing its negative impact on transgender youth, who already face a higher risk of attempting suicide, as indicated by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Judge Moody's ruling recognized the potential risks associated with gender-affirming treatments but emphasized that for many adolescents, the benefits of such treatment outweigh the risks.

The body of medical research as a whole supports the effectiveness of gender-affirming medical treatments in improving mental health outcomes for adolescents with gender dysphoria.

With the overturning of Arkansas' ban on gender-affirming treatment, the conversation surrounding transgender youth's access to appropriate healthcare continues to evolve.

This ruling sends a message to other states considering or implementing similar bans, highlighting the vulnerability of these laws and the potential harm they can cause.