Texas Supreme Court hears challenge to transgender minor health care ban
AUSTIN (KXAN) — The Texas Supreme Court heard a challenge Tuesday morning to a new state law banning transgender children from receiving certain health care options and put doctors’ medical licenses in jeopardy for providing these treatments.
Five Texas families with transgender children as well as three doctors sued the state in July last year to block Senate Bill 14 from taking effect. Several LGBTQ+ advocacy and civil rights groups backed this effort. The law prevents minors from being able to receive puberty-blocking medication, hormone therapies or surgeries to assist in their gender transition. Texas doctors who provide this type of care could also lose their medical licenses.
PREVIOUS COVERAGE: Parents, doctors sue Texas to block transgender minor health care ban
These families argued the law violates their rights as parents to make medical decisions on behalf of their children and that it discriminates against their transgender kids on the basis of sex. The doctors claim the law defies their abilities to provide what they see as the best care to these patients.
A Travis County district court judge agreed with these claims, ruling it’s unconstitutional. She issued a temporary injunction against SB 14. However, the Texas attorney general filed a direct appeal to the Texas Supreme Court, which allowed the law to take effect last year on Sept. 1. The state’s challenge to the lower court’s ruling is now what the Supreme Court justices are going to decide.
State of Texas arguments
Natalie Thompson, who represented the state Tuesday, argued for the court to throw out the temporary injunction and let the law stand. She said the Texas legislature has the authority to regulate medicine, including when it comes to care geared toward transgender minors. She also said the Texas Constitution does not mention transgender people as a protected class from discrimination and that doctors do not have a constitutional right to offer these kinds of treatment options to children.
“The statute is narrowly tailored to protecting children from interventions that interfere with their growth and development and have irreversible physical effects, all without proven mental health benefit,” Thompson said during her opening argument.
A few justices asked Thompson to respond to concerns about whether this law infringes on parents’ rights. She responded by saying parents are still allowed to decide whether to accept or decline available care options for their child.
“What Senate Bill 14 does is take certain medical treatments off the table entirely,” Thompson said. “That’s not an interference with a parent’s right. It’s not a third party making the decision instead of the parent or the government making the decision instead of the parent.”
However, Justice Debra Lehrmann pointedly questioned Thompson over whether she thought medical professionals — and not state lawmakers — are the best decision makers when it comes to providing such care. Thompson said doctors are not entitled to regulate themselves.
“I don’t mean constitutional right,” Lehrmann interjected. “I’m talking about the parent’s right to depend on that [doctor’s opinion].”
“Parents again do not have a constitutional right to obtain procedures that are otherwise unlawful,” Thompson responded. “If an adult wouldn’t have that right to obtain a medical procedure because it’s made unlawful, then parents don’t get to veto those same laws on behalf of their children.”
Arguments from families who brought SB 14 lawsuit
Once the state concluded its opening arguments, then attorney Kennon Wooten took to the lectern in front of the justices to argue on behalf of the families and doctors suing the state over SB 14. She argued they’re seeking the case to return to the Travis County district court so that the plaintiffs can conduct a full trial. She said they’d again like protection from legislation that they said bans them from accessing critical gender-affirming care in Texas.
“In attempting to justify Senate Bill 14 in this case, the state has disregarded widely-recognized benefits of the care that Senate Bill 14 bans and the risk of doing nothing to treat gender dysphoria,” Wooten said Tuesday. “It’s a serious medical condition that’s marked by clinically significant distress and impairment in functioning, and that’s arising from a sustained incongruence between one’s birth sex and gender identity. If it’s left untreated, there are risks of depression, debilitating anxiety, self harm and in some cases suicidality.”
In his questioning of Wooten, Justice Jimmy Blacklock expressed skepticism about the court even taking up this topic.
“It’s hard for me to see how the court could ever be the appropriate arbiter of what moral and philosophical basis are we going to sort of embed into our law’s approach to this issue,” Blacklock said. “That seems like that’s probably a legislative choice unless the Constitution has taken it away, and I don’t see on the face of the Constitution that’s done that.”
Justice Evan Young asked Wooten if the Texas Constitution protects a parent’s right to refuse any transition-related health care, and she responded by saying yes.
“Our position is that this is a parent’s choice, the fundamental right to decide,” Wooten said. “In this case, what we have is the state defining the right so specifically and as something tethered to the particular treatment at issue. Of course this court has defined the right broadly, as fundamental, as natural, as God-given. If we’re going to define it with that much granularity, what we do is we risk death by a thousand cuts of a fundamental right under the Constitution that parents have to make decisions about the care for their children, including the medical care.”
A ruling on this case is not expected Tuesday by the Texas Supreme Court. It’s anticipated the timeline for the justices’ decision could come anywhere from weeks to even months.
For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to KXAN Austin.
