The judge Robert Hinkle of the Northern District of Florida issued an interim injunction against the state’s ban on gender transition treatment for minors.
States that are enacting restrictions on procedures like procedures has increased over the last few times, and with some states such as Nebraska as well as Texas adopting safeguards. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a ban into law earlier this month regarding hormones and puberty blockers to transgender children.
Hinkle whom President Bill Clinton, asserted in the Doe Hinkle v. Lapado opinion that “gender identity is real.” In his opinion, “the overwhelming weight of medical authority supports treatment of transgender patients with GnRH agonists and cross-sex hormones in appropriate circumstances.”
The DeSantis administration and Republicans from the legislature of Florida have tried to push the issue by pointing to the growing amount of evidence from medical professionals which suggests that procedures like blocking hormones for puberty as well as cross-sex treatments may cause long-term medical issues, such as decreased the density of bone, fertility issues and other types in sexual dysfunction.
In the latter part of April In late April, in late April, the Florida home’s Health and Human Services committee issued subpoenas to two medical institutions for an investigation into whether the adoption and endorsement of “gender-affirming care” as the treatment for minors who suffer from gender dysphoria is medically justifiable.
“I find, based on the record now before the court, that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that they have obtained appropriate medical care for their children to this point,” Hinkle wrote. Hinkle.
Plaintiffs of this case 7 parents with transgender kids presented arguments to the judge the argument that “banning treatment with GnRH agonists and cross-sex hormones violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.”
Hinkle spoke of a case, Brandt Hinkle pointed to a case – Brandt. Rutledge — where the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals approved a preliminary order against the enforcement of an Arkansas statute that was identical in ways to the Florida prohibition.
The judge ruled that plaintiffs were likely to prevail on the equal protection claim. They were also likely to prevail on an additional claim for parents’ rights under the Due Process clause.
The decision could be appealed. With the increase in bans across the nation and across the country, it is possible that the Supreme Court may have to determine the legality of these bans and the associated restrictions including the ban on transgender females participating in female-only sporting events.
National Review reached out to the Florida governor’s office to inquire about comments but didn’t hear from them at press time.