this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)

General Discussion

2 readers
1 users here now

Welcome to Divergent Parenting General! This is a community for general discussion where you can get your bearings in the fediverse, discuss topics & ask questions that don’t seem to fit in any other community.

For server-specific announcements & questions, please see Divergent Parenting.

Rules

  1. All instance-wide rules apply
  2. No NSFW content.
  3. Remember the human. Be thoughtful and helpful even with ‘silly’ questions. Everyone is one of the lucky 10,000 eventually.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/1626220

Summary

A group of Georgia parents of trans children filed a lawsuit Thursday night seeking to block the state's new law restricting gender-affirming care for minors - days before it's set to go into effect.

Why it matters: Nearly 20 states have passed laws restricting access to this care for minors and many have already faced trouble in the courts.

Driving the news: In a lawsuit that the families filed under pseudonyms, they argue the law "Infringes parents' fundamental right to make medical decisions in the best interests of their children" and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the constitution by singling out transgender minors.

The big picture: Federal judges in Kentucky and Tennessee temporarily blocked similar laws in those states this week.

Context: Georgia's law, which prohibits doctors from administering hormone therapy or transition-related surgery to Georgia minors, is set to go into effect Saturday.

What they're saying: In their request for a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs point out that trans minors already receiving hormone therapy before Saturday are grandfathered in.

"If these treatments are appropriate for transgender minors already receiving them, there is no justification for denying them to transgender minors who require them in the future, even under the lowest level of review, much less under the heightened scrutiny that applies here."

no comments (yet)
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
there doesn't seem to be anything here