Updated May 4th with new delays
A judge’s order suspending restrictions on transgender health care by Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has been extended for another two months.
The parties agreed on Thursday to postpone their next court appearance until July 20. The attorney general’s office said the new date was best for the judge and both parties.
Original story for May 1st:
On Monday, a St. Louis County judge announced a statewide emergency rule suspending medical care for transgender Missourians for at least two more weeks.
Circuit Judge Ellen Rivaldo has asked the Missouri chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal, and its The plaintiff’s request was granted.
If the rule is allowed to take effect, health care providers and patients who have sued the state will have “immediate and irreversible consequences if the Attorney General is authorized to enforce the emergency rule and its broad sweeping provisions.” You will suffer irreparable loss, damage or injury without further investigation or evidence.” the judge wrote. “At the very least, in the absence of further lawsuits, plaintiffs (current patients) are at higher risk of medical interruption.”
A judge has set another hearing for May 11.
A temporary stay-at-home order is not the final decision as to whether the emergency rules will come into effect. Instead, it maintains the status quo while the court considers the merits of the lawsuit. A judge can grant a temporary injunction if the plaintiff proves that he or she will suffer irreparable harm unless an order is issued.
Bailey’s Emergency Rules, which apply to minors and adults, require, among other requirements, that new patients have resolved mental health problems, have been screened for autism, and have access to medical care. Requires the donor to certify that he or she had previously demonstrated 3 years of medically documented gender dysphoria.Expires in February.
Bailey has argued that emergency rules on transgender treatment can be issued because transgender treatment is experimental, a claim transgender patients and medical professionals have disputed. Bailey cited the Merchandising Practices Act, which protects consumers from illegal business practices, as justification for the emergency rule.
Lambda Legal, the ACLU, and Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner filed a lawsuit late last month on behalf of some transgender patients, their families, and health care providers to block enforcement of the emergency rules.
“Today’s ruling marks a victory over the Attorney General’s unprecedented attempt to unilaterally enact and violate the rights of transgender Missourians to self-expression, physical autonomy, and access to critical care. It shows,” said Gillian Wilcox. His ACLU in Missouri. “As was clear from the outset, the Attorney General’s allegations of emergency have proven to be untruthful and dangerous attempts to involve individuals and families in medical decisions, and the Attorney General has served and attack those who should be protected.”
A representative from Bailey’s office said he remains confident the rule will eventually take effect.
“The court even acknowledged that it deferred consideration of the science until a later date, so we are confident in our position.” Our six-page endnotes speak for themselves. The procedure is experimental, and we will continue to fight for good medical care for all patients.”
Age-appropriate gender-identifying care is supported by several medical organizations, including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Another provision of the regulation requires providers to obtain “informed consent” from both new and existing patients by providing 23 references to studies and statements regarding the risks of undergoing surgery, hormones and pubertal blockers. is needed.
If allowed to go into effect, the rule could hurt transgender people already receiving hormones and other gender-affirming medical care, Rivaldo wrote in her decision. Aside from information obtained directly from the Attorney General’s Office, she wrote, “I could not find any citations or specific sources for any of the 23 listed items” that the Emergency Regulations require.
Health care providers and their patients are at risk of medical negligence when obtaining informed consent from patients, the judge wrote, because it is unclear whether the disclosures are medically substantiated.
Ribaudo also writes that plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits. could unacceptably infringe on the functionality reserved for it,” she wrote.
Copyright 2023 St. Louis Public Radio. For more information, visit St. Louis Public Radio.