Maine has joined a coalition of 19 states and the District of Columbia in a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and its secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The legal action, filed on December 18, challenges a declaration that could hinder access to gender-affirming care for young individuals experiencing gender dysphoria.
The declaration deemed treatments such as puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and gender-affirming surgeries as unsafe and ineffective for children and adolescents. It also warned healthcare providers that they could face exclusion from federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid if they continue to offer these services. This legal battle underscores the ongoing tension between an administration that advocates for limitations on transgender healthcare and advocates who argue that such care is medically essential.
Legal Claims and Implications
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court in Eugene, Oregon. It asserts that HHS’s declaration is both inaccurate and unlawful, seeking to prevent its enforcement. The coalition claims that the declaration attempts to coerce healthcare providers into discontinuing gender-affirming care while bypassing the necessary legal protocols for policy changes.
As outlined in the lawsuit, federal law mandates that the public be notified and given a chance to comment before significant health policies are altered. The plaintiffs argue that these requirements were ignored in the issuance of the declaration.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is spearheading the lawsuit, stated, “Secretary Kennedy cannot unilaterally change medical standards by posting a document online, and no one should lose access to medically necessary healthcare because their federal government tried to interfere in decisions that belong in doctors’ offices.”
Broader Context and Future Considerations
In conjunction with the declaration, HHS has proposed two federal rules aimed at further restricting access to gender-affirming care for minors. One rule seeks to cut off federal funding for hospitals providing such care, while the other would prohibit the use of federal Medicaid dollars for these procedures. Although these proposals are still in the preliminary stages and must undergo a lengthy rulemaking process, they are expected to further discourage healthcare providers from offering gender-affirming services.
The ongoing legal conflicts reflect a growing trend among states, with at least 27 states enacting laws that restrict or ban gender-affirming care for youth. A recent decision by the Supreme Court upholding Tennessee’s ban has raised concerns that similar state laws may remain intact.
The coalition of states joining New York in the lawsuit includes attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, Washington, and the District of Columbia. The Democratic governor of Pennsylvania has also joined the effort.
As the case unfolds, the implications for healthcare access and policy surrounding gender-affirming care for young people remain significant.
