Texas judge halts federal transgender health protections
Rights advocates criticize ruling
AUSTIN, Texas — A federal judge in Texas on Saturday ordered a halt to another Obama administration effort to strengthen transgender rights, this time over health rules that social conservatives say could force doctors to violate their religious beliefs.
The latest injunction signed by U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor comes four months after he blocked a higher profile new set of transgender protections — a federal directive that required public schools to let transgender students use bathrooms consistent with their gender identity. Several of the Republican-controlled states that brought that lawsuit, including Texas, also sued over the health regulations finalized in May.
Civil rights groups had hailed the new rules as groundbreaking anti-discrimination protections. The Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund said the new regulations advised that certain forms of transgender discrimination by doctors, hospitals and insurers violated the Affordable Care Act.
But a coalition of religious medical organizations said the rules could force doctors to help with gender transition contrary to their religious beliefs or medical judgment. O’Connor agreed in his 46-page ruling, saying the rules place “substantial pressure on Plaintiffs to perform and cover transition and abortion procedures.”
The rules were set to take effect Sunday.
“Plaintiffs will be forced to either violate their religious beliefs or maintain their current policies which seem to be in direct conflict with the Rule and risk the severe consequences of enforcement,” O’Connor wrote.
Transgender rights advocates have called that a far-fetched hypothetical, saying a person would not approach a doctor who lacked suitable experience and expertise.
The TLDEF criticized the injunction and said it expects the ruling to be overturned on appeal.
“Judge O’Connor’s conclusion that transgender people and persons who have had abortions are somehow excepted from protection is deeply troubling, legally specious, and morally repugnant,” said Ezra Young, the organization’s director of impact litigation.