The executive order that the president signed in January prohibiting federal medical support for transgender kids under the age of 19 was halted by another federal judge this week, putting a stop to the fight that Donald Trump has been advocating against gender-affirming care. She provided an explanation for the move on Sunday, stating that it is “unconstitutional” and has the effect of preventing transgender children and adolescents from receiving essential medical treatments that are “completely unrelated” to their gender identity.
“For instance, a cisgender teen could obtain puberty blockers from a federally funded medical provider as a component of cancer treatment, but a transgender teen with the same cancer care plan could not,” wrote U.S. District Court Judge Lauren King in a memorandum opinion explaining her decision to issue a temporary restraining order on Friday in favor of three states and three doctors who sued the government on February 7 over the executive order. The lawsuit was filed in response to the executive order.
After a lawsuit was launched in Seattle by the state’s attorney general, Nick Brown, in the Western United States District of Washington, King, who was appointed by Joe Biden, put the gender-affirming care prohibition on hold. Brown in the Western United States District of Washington. Brown criticized the order that Trump issued, stating that it was “clearly illegal and unusually cruel.” His office issued a statement on Friday claiming that the order “directs unconstitutional criminal enforcement” against medical personnel and patients, while simultaneously praising King’s decision.
The order that was issued today, according to Brown, “reaffirms that we live by the rule of law.” It is still possible for young people to obtain gender-affirming medical care that could save their lives. Providers will not be subject to criminal prosecution for providing the highest possible level of care to their patients, and this order removes any obstacles that may prevent medical professionals from delivering the necessary care to young people. With the financing that has already been allotted by Congress, the world-renowned medical and scientific institutes that are based in the state of Washington are able to continue their work.
During her speech on Sunday, King elaborated on the reasons why she considered that President Trump’s restriction on gender-affirming practices violated the Constitution. She concurred with the assertions made in Brown’s lawsuit that it violates both the Fifth and the Tenth Amendments, stating that it is highly likely that he will be successful in proving his case.
“The Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the federal government from treating people differently based on sex or transgender status unless such differential treatment serves important governmental objectives and is substantially related to the achievement of those objectives,” said King. “Unless such differential treatment serves important governmental objectives, it is prohibited.” In violation of the 10th Amendment, it goes beyond the scope of the President’s authority and enters a territory of lawmaking that is reserved for the states.
According to King, the executive order does not restrict itself to children or to irreversible treatments, nor does it target “any similar medical interventions performed on cisgender youth,” as the judge explained. This is despite the fact that the stated purpose of the Trump administration is to protect “children” from the regret that is associated with adults “changing a child’s sex through a series of irreversible medical interventions.”
According to what King wrote, “When it comes to surgery, the Executive Order covers a much wider range of topics than its stated purpose of protecting ‘children’ from medical treatment decisions made by adults.” As an illustration, the Order prohibits the provision of federal financing to medical professionals who undertake surgical procedures that are intended to “alter or remove an individual’s sexual organs in order to minimize or destroy their natural biological functions.” Not only would this prevent a provider from performing gender-affirming surgery on a transgender individual who is 18 years old, but it would also prevent them from performing, for instance, a vasectomy on a married cisgender gentleman who is 18 years old and wants the surgery because he has Huntington’s disease and does not want to pass it on to his children.
On Friday, King issued an order that prevented a number of named federal defendants from “enforcing or implementing” two significant elements of the anti-transgender executive order that was signed by President John Trump. Under the provisions of Executive Order 14187, which is framed as an effort to protect “Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation,” the 45th and 47th presidents intend to cut off all federal funding for institutions that offer pediatric gender transition services or provide any kind of gender-affirming care for people under the age of 19. This is in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 14187.
The section of the executive order that defunds physicians was singled out in the initial petition submitted by the states of Washington, Minnesota, and Oregon, as well as by three professors at the University of Washington School of Medicine who remained anonymous. In terms of redefining federal statutes, the defendants are prohibited from engaging in the activities that are outlined in the temporary restraining order that King issued.
“The defendants are hereby fully enjoined from enforcing or implementing Section 8(a) of Executive Order 14,187 within the Plaintiff States to the extent that Section 8(a) purports to redefine ‘female genital mutilation’ under 18 U.S.C. § 116 as ‘chemical and surgical mutilation’ as defined in Section 2(c) of the Order,” the temporary restraining order (TRO) states.
According to King, the temporary restraining order is scheduled to remain in force until February 28th, unless it is extended for a longer period of time.
