A federal judge recently ruled against key provisions in a Florida law, deeming them unconstitutional. The law prohibited sex reassignment surgeries and experimental puberty blockers for children under 18 years old. It also required adult patients to provide informed, written consent for these types of medications or procedures, stipulating that they must be provided by an in-person physician rather than a nurse or via telemedicine. The law also created a pathway for individuals to obtain damages if injured after receiving sex reassignment procedures or medications as children.
The judge’s order, however, applies only to puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, with the judge specifying that the term “gender-affirming care” refers solely to these treatments. Judge Hinkle, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, wrote in the order that so-called gender-affirming care for minors may be “medically appropriate” and thus, the Florida statutes banning such procedures are unconstitutional. He also invalidated several other provisions, including those requiring adults to sign consent forms and obtain transgender treatments from an in-person physician.
The judge further wrote that preventing people from pursuing transgender identities is not a “legitimate state interest” and found the law was created with a “discriminatory purpose.” A spokesperson for Governor Ron DeSantis’s office vowed to appeal the decision, saying in an emailed statement that the court had overridden the wishes of Floridians who acted to protect children in their state.
These procedures do permanent, life-altering damage to children, and history will look back on this fad in horror,” the spokesperson added. Governor DeSantis will continue to fight to ensure children are not chemically or physically mutilated in the name of radical, new age ‘gender ideology.
On the other hand, Lucien Hamel, one of the plaintiffs, expressed relief upon hearing about the ruling. I’m relieved that I can once again get the healthcare that I need here in Florida,” he said in a statement. Simone Chriss, director of the Transgender Rights Initiative at Southern Legal Counsel—one of the groups that brought the lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiffs—said in a statement that the federal court saw the transgender procedure ban for minors and restrictions for adults “for what they are—discriminatory measures that cannot survive constitutional review.
In his June 11 decision, Judge Hinkle sided with the plaintiffs, also invalidating restrictions related to adult transgender procedures. The judge cited “the overwhelming weight of medical authority” supporting the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in “appropriate circumstances.” However, a spokesperson for Governor DeSantis’s office disputed this claim, stating that there is no quality evidence supporting the chemical and physical mutilation of children.
The judge clarified his decision by noting that the plaintiffs did not challenge the transgender minor surgery prohibitions and the adult plaintiff that joined the lawsuit lacked standing to challenge the surgery restrictions for adults. It remains unclear whether these provisions will be the subject of future legal challenges.