A federal appeals court on Tuesday allowed Indiana’s ban on gender-affirming care to go into effect, removing a temporary injunction a judge issued last year.

The ruling was handed down by a panel of justices on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. It marked the latest decision in a legal challenge the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed against the ban, enacted last spring amid a national push by GOP-led legislatures to curb LGBTQ+ rights.

  • jeffw@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    They can say “it’s not constitutional to ban healthcare.” They aren’t bound only by the text of the law.

    • gedaliyah@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      The lawsuit, first filed in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Indiana, alleges that Senate Bill 480 violates the U.S. Constitution on multiple fronts, including the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In addition, the lawsuit claims that the law violates the federal requirements of the Medicaid Act and the Affordable Care Act, because it prohibits essential medical services that would otherwise be authorized and reimbursed by Medicaid

      Via ACLU

      • jeffw@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m quite sure a constitutional scholar could come up with a well worded reply to make that argument in detail. I’ll just say that I think part of individual liberty is accessing healthcare.

          • jeffw@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            The constitution doesn’t say we have a right to lay bricks so we should ban construction, right? Reading into the constitution and assuming they understood modern brick making would be a massive leap.

            Or something like that? I don’t really get what you’re saying.

            • LufyCZ@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              1 year ago

              The law on the ban for youth care was challenged in court, the courts decided the law is not against the constitution, and so it can take effect.