Ban: Last News

Idaho’s law is similar to laws in at least eight other states that have passed laws in recent years barring transgender students from using school facilities matching their gender identity — although it does not go as far as laws in North Dakota and Florida that go beyond schools to prohibit transgender people from accessing gender-affirming restrooms in some or all government buildingsHowever, Idaho’s law does contain what critics have called a “bounty” — in which cisgender students and their parents may sue schools for up to $5,000 if they find a transgender student using facilities that do not match that student’s assigned sex at birth. As a result, the plaintiffs have claimed, the law encourages people to seek out and harass transgender students in the hope of finding them violating the law in exchange for a monetary award.Under the now-blocked law, schools would have been required to provide a “reasonable accommodation” for transgender students unwilling or unable to use restrooms matching their assigned sex at birth.

ban prohibiting transgender girls and women from competing on female-designated sports teams.As a result, the student, Becky Pepper-Jackson, will be allowed to continue competing with her friends as a member of the girls’ cross country and track teams.Lawyers for the now-13-year-old girl say she’s been welcomed by teammates and coaches, and is currently on puberty blockers to prevent her from gaining a competitive physical advantage over other runners. Whether she will be able to continue doing so, or whether she’ll be able to receive hormone therapy as she grows older, will depend on whether she complies with an exception for youth with “severe gender dysphoria” in West Virginia’s ban on gender-affirming treatments for minors.Last Friday, the Richmond-based 4th U.S.

The law, SB 49, which is scheduled to take effect on August 28, prohibits health care providers in Missouri from prescribing puberty blockers, hormones, or gender confirmation surgery — the latter of which rarely is prescribed for those under 18 — to minors suffering from gender dysphoria.The law contains an exception for those who have already begun gender-affirming care that will allow them to continue receiving it if their doctors believe that stopping treatment would do more harm.The law also prohibits Medicaid from covering the cost of any transition-related treatments or procedures, regardless of the age of the patient — meaning low-income transgender adults are effectively barred from accessing gender-affirming care, and prohibits incarcerated individuals from obtaining gender confirmation surgery.The lawsuit argues that the ban is unconstitutional, violating the rights of transgender youth by discriminating against them on the basis of both sex and gender identity, and violating parents’ fundamental right to make decisions they believe to be in the best interest of their children.The lawsuit also claims that, unless the court issues an injunction to block Missouri from enforcing the law, all the plaintiffs will be irreparably harmed. By banning the transgender youth from accessing gender-affirming care, the state is likely to exacerbate the youths’ feelings of anxiety and gender dysphoria, as well as lead to potential mental health issues.

Associated Press.The push for the amendment appears to be motivated by the idea that the conservative U.S. Supreme Court may one day reverse its own precedent and overturn its previous decisions allowing marriage equality, meaning any state bans still on the books would immediately become enforceable.While Democrats have long vilified the voter-approved ban, they could have moved sooner to repeal it at any point within the past decade.However, the Supreme Court’s recent lurch rightward on several social issues — following the confirmation of three conservative justices nominated by former President Donald Trump — appears to have led some on the political Left to take a more proactive approach by repealing the ban outright rather than relying on court decisions.“What we are doing today is joyous,” Sen.

tweeting about her feelings over the song ban before speaking with her supervisors and bringing negative attention to the school district after her tweets went viral.“Ms. Tempel deliberately brought negative attention to the school district because she disagreed with the decision as opposed to following protocol and procedure and I believe that behavior is intolerable,” said Waukesha School District Superintendent James Sebert, who previously recommended in May that the Board of Education terminate Tempel.Tempel’s tweets criticized the school district for banning her students from singing “Rainbowland” at their school concert.While there are no explicitly gay or LGBTQ-related lyrics in the song, the lyrics speak of a world where everyone is accepted for who they are.

law, which was approved by the Republican-dominated legislature and signed by Gov. Bill Lee earlier this year.A federal judge subsequently issued an injunction blocking the state from taking any adverse action against doctors who recommend non-surgical gender-affirming treatments, on the grounds that the plaintiffs in the case were likely to succeed in proving their claim that the law is unconstitutional and should be overturned.The plaintiffs have argued that the Tennessee law runs counter to federal laws prohibiting discrimination in health care and violates both the rights of trans minors and the rights of their parents to make whatever medical decisions they believe to be in their children’s best interests.But in a July 8 decision, the 6th U.S.

WABE that the attorney general will do his job, which includes defending any law passed by the General Assembly and signed by the governor, including the ban on gender-affirming care. At least 20 other states with Republican-dominated legislatures, in addition to Georgia, have passed laws restricting gender-affirming care. But several of those laws have been blocked by the courts.

Therapeutic Fraud Prevention Act, sponsored by U.S. Rep.

ESPN and the Associated Press.Among the players refusing to don Pride memorabilia were then-Philadelphia Flyers defenseman Ivan Provorov, San Jose Sharks goaltender James Reimer, and Florida Panther players Eric and Marc Staal, who cited their religious beliefs. Three Russian players — Ilya Lyubushkin of the Buffalo Sabres, Denis Gurianov of the Montreal Canadiens, and Andrei Kuzmenko of the Vancouver Canucks — cited a Russian anti-gay “propaganda” law that prosecutes individuals for having engaged in activities or made statements perceived to “promote” LGBTQ rights or treating homosexuality as a normal occurrence.Additionally, the Chicago Blackhawks team did not wear their Pride-themed warmup sweaters in March because of security concerns over that same Russian law. Meanwhile, the Minnesota Wild and New York Rangers also reversed course on wearing Pride-themed warmup gear.Bettman noted that teams will continue to host specialty nights such as Pride Night, Black History Night, Military Appreciation Night, and Hockey Fights Cancer Nights.

rule prohibiting Medicaid from covering the cost of gender-affirming medical treatments that assist a transgender-identifying person in transitioning.The rule, approved last August by the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, applies to treatments sought out by both minors and adults, declaring that transition-related treatments do not “meet the definition of medical necessity” to qualify for coverage under Medicaid.The rule was passed as Florida officials have sought to crack down on all forms of LGBTQ visibility, including passing a law blocking transgender youth from accessing gender-affirming treatments.Under the administration of Republican Gov.

sued to block the law, arguing that it violated transgender people’s right to equal protection, parents’ rights to make appropriate medical decisions for their children and doctors’ free speech rights. They also asked for an injunction to block Arkansas officials from attempting to enforce the ban on transition-related care.In an 80-page ruling, U.S.

signed a similar law into effect last month.The ban on transgender athletes builds upon an existing ban for athletes in grades K-12 that requires school-aged children to compete in sports based on their assigned sex at birth.The collegiate bill, dubbed the “Save Women’s Sports Act,” imposes similar restrictions, requiring athletes to compete based on their “biological sex,” defined as the gender listed on the college student’s original birth certificate. It also allows cisgender athletes who believe they’ve been disadvantaged by competing against transgender individuals to sue for damages . Under the bill, which takes effect in September, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, which oversees post-secondary education in the state, will draft and adopt rules for athlete eligibility to ensure the law is enforced while also ensuring that state and federal laws regarding the confidentiality of student health and medical information are not violated.Sitting in front of a sign reading “A Win for Women Athletes during a bill-signing ceremony, Abbott hailed the bill’s passage as a victory for female athletes while repeatedly misgendering transgender females as “men,” according to The Hill.“The Save Women’s Sports Act protects young women at Texas colleges and universities by prohibiting men from competing on a team or as an individual against them in college sports,” Abbott said.

only state in the Deep South that does not expressly prohibit doctors from recommending gender-affirming treatments for transgender youth.Louisiana’s bill failed in a vote in the state Senate Health and Welfare Committee when Sen. Fred Mills (R-New Iberia), the committee chairman and a pharmacist by trade, voted to defer the bill rather than pass it out of committee.Mills said his decision was heavily influenced by a 2022 Louisiana Health Department study on gender-affirming health care, which found that no gender-affirming surgical procedures had been performed on any minors enrolled in Medicaid in the state between 2017 and 2021.Instances in which medications, such as hormones or puberty blockers, were prescribed to transgender minors were also exceedingly rare, according to the report.Mills said he trusts physicians more than legislators to make medical decisions in a patient’s best interests.“I always in my heart of hearts have believed that a [medical] decision should be made by a patient and a physician,” he said, according to The Hill.Had it passed, the bill would have barred healthcare professionals from prescribing gender-affirming treatments to minors, or referring minor patients to places where they could obtain such treatments.

a lawsuit brought by three families of transgender minors.In the complaint, the Justice Department argues that the law prohibiting access to gender-affirming care discriminates against transgender individuals under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.As such, the complaint asks the court to issue an order blocking the law from going into effect on July 1.Under the bill, SB 1, which easily passed on a largely party-line vote in the Republican-dominated state legislature, healthcare providers are prohibited from providing puberty blockers, hormone therapy, or surgical interventions to minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria.Those who do, as well as the parents of any minors who allow their children to receive such treatments, can be sued for up to 30 years afterwards if the patient later experiences “regret,” and medical providers can potentially lose their license to practice.In its complaint, the Justice Department argues that the law’s blanket ban on all types of medical interventions to treat gender dysphoria prohibits patients from receiving the most up-to-date, scientifically accurate, and best-recommended treatments, and forces doctors to decide between keeping their licenses or providing the best available care to their patients.The complaint also notes that the blanket ban discriminates against transgender people on the basis of both sex and transgender identity, denying them certain types of treatments, such as hormone therapy, that would otherwise be offered to cisgender individuals experiencing various ailments or conditions where hormonal interventions might be a recommended course of treatment.“SB 1 violates the constitutional rights of some of Tennessee’s most vulnerable citizens,” U.S.

signed into law in 2021.However, Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, saying they would have granted Morrisey’s request.A federal judge previously blocked the law from taking effect while a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the ban proceeds.The plaintiff in the case, 12-year-old Becky Pepper-Jackson, is a transgender girl who tried to join her middle school girls’ cross-country team, but was informed that she would be barred from the team due to the law prohibiting transgender athletes from competing in female-designated sports.Pepper-Jackson sued state officials, her local school board, the West Virginia Board of Education, and the West Virginia Secondary School Activities Commission, arguing that the law is unconstitutional and discriminatory.In July 2021, U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Goodwin, of the Southern District of West Virginia, issued an injunction blocking the law from taking effect on the grounds that Pepper-Jackson was likely to prevail in her claim that the law is discriminatory.Six months later, Goodwin rejected Pepper-Jackson’s claim that the law violates Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex-based discrimination, finding the ban constitutional and asserting that the state had a legitimate interest in ensuring cisgender female athletes are not disadvantaged by having to compete against athletes assigned male at birth.

ban on transgender service members instituted by the Trump administration, in which some individuals who had transitioned prior to the ban were “grandfathered” in, meaning they could continue serving without incident, while those wishing to transition in the future or currently in the process of transitioning could not.Under the Rubio-Banks bill, the Department of Defense would be forced to adopt regulations prohibiting people who identify as transgender or have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria from serving, except in rare circumstances.Those exempt from the ban are people who may identify as transgender but have remained stable in their assigned sex at birth for 36 months prior to joining the military, and members who are diagnosed after entering the military but who do not attempt to medically transition.Under the bill, those who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria may only serve in their assigned sex at birth.

challenging a similar law in Utah.Under the bill, doctors are prohibited from providing various forms of gender-affirming care, including puberty blockers, hormones, and surgical treatments, to minors. Supporters claim such restrictions are needed to protect children from pursuing irreversible transition-related treatments that they may later grow to regret.“We need to stand in the gap for vulnerable children and guide them towards true health and healing,” Sen.

Nick Harrison of the D.C. Army National Guard, sued after he had his request for a medical waiver rejected after he tried to commission as a Judge Advocate General’s Corps (JAG) officer.Two airmen, using the pseudonyms Richard Roe and Victor Voe to protect their identities and private medical information, sued after the Air Force tried to forcibly discharge them on the grounds that their HIV status made them “unfit for military service” — despite testimonials to the contrary from their commanding officers and personal care providers.Both the Harrison and Roe cases were combined for purposes of discovery and argument, with the plaintiffs challenging the military’s longstanding ban on active-duty service members with HIV.

Euronews that organizers had also collected 150,000 signatures on a petition calling for a ban on what they call LGBTQ “propaganda” — which, outside of the United States, typically refers to any depiction or portrayal of LGBTQ individuals or same-sex couples in a positive light or from a neutral viewpoint — in social media, sports, arts and Netflix.An advertisement for the demonstration was shown on state-run television after being approved by the country’s broadcasting council, which deemed it as being in the “public interest.”The demonstration was criticized by human rights organizations.“We are calling on all political parties to condemn the march, and on Turkish authorities to ensure full protection for the LGBTI+ community,” the LGBTQ rights organization ILGA Europe tweeted. “The Turkish state needs to uphold its constitutional obligation to protect all its citizens against hate and violence.”Turkey’s Amnesty International office said the public service announcement advertising the march violated the country’s nondiscrimination principles.LGBTQ rights supporters criticized the demonstration on social media, using the hashtag “#NefretYürüyüşüneHayır,” or “#NotoHateMarch.”“This shameless gathering against LGBTQI+ was supported by Radio and Television Supreme Council of Turkey,” tweeted one user.

NBC New York.A mother in Brunswick, Maryland, recently performed a similar stunt, checking out all the books from an LGBTQ library display in order to preserve children’s “innocence.”The move prompted outrage from members of the LGBTQ community. “I was horrified by the display of ignorance at last night’s Board meeting,” Brianna Baker-Stines, the president of the library board, said after the vote last Tuesday.

WBFF.However, individual students will still be allowed to express their free speech rights by displaying so-called “political materials” or messages — including Pride flags — on their clothing.  The ban on flag displays was imposed in response to an April donation from a parent, Stephanie Brown, who distributed a small collection of rainbow flags to every public school in the county.