How this headline may connect to industries in Kansas. Technical scores are below — click any ? for what a metric means.
State district court judge Carl Folsom on May 15 temporarily blocked enforcement of a Kansas law banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender people under 18, finding the law likely violates the Kansas state constitution.The law prohibits medical providers in the state of Kansas from providing gender-affirming medical treatments, such as hormone therapies and pubertal suppressants, to transgender youth diagnosed with gender dysphoria.The law allows these same treatments to be provided to cisgender youth for any other reason.SB 63 was passed by the Kansas state legislature in January of 2025, then vetoed by Governor Laura Kelly, who said in her veto statement, “it is not the job of politicians to stand between a parent and a child who needs medical care of any kind.” The legislature overrode her veto, and SB 63 took effect on February 20, 2025.“This is an enormous relief to our clients and families across the state of Kansas,” saids Harper Seldin, Senior Staff Attorney for the ACLU’s LGBT & HIV Rights Project.“The medical care unjustly banned by this law serves as the foundation of young transgender people’s entire lives and helps give them the future all young people deserve.Any decision about this medical care should be between families and their doctors, and today’s order from the court restores that fundamental principle.We will continue to challenge this law until Kansas is a safe place to raise every family.” During testimony the plaintiffs produced multiple experts on gender affirming care for youth diagnosed with gender dysphoria within the state of Kansas.Many of those experts have published peer reviewed papers on youth gender affirming health care.The defendants, the state of Kansas, listed one, Dr.Levine who previously testified that it would be “shocking” and “devastating” to require youth who are currently receiving estrogen or testosterone to stop.Levine did not testify in person.The remaining people who were listed by the defendants were either doctors from out of state or were “detransitioners” without medical degrees.Some of the key findings by Judge Carl Folsom in issuing the temporary injunction: - There is medical consensus that gender identity is innate and that efforts to change a person’s gender identity are unethical and harmful to a person’s health and well-being.9 at ¶ 34 (Corathers).Once a transgender youth begins puberty, it is rare for them to later identify as cisgender.- The threat of injury to Plaintiffs includes irreparable harm flowing from likely constitutional injuries and loss of access to medical care.- Defendant will face little, if any, injury from issuance of an injunction, which will impose no affirmative obligations and will preserve the status quo.- It is also in the public interest to temporarily enjoin Sections 3(a)(2), 3(a)(3), 3(b)(2), and 3(b)(3) of S.B.63 because of the harm to the medical profession.Physicians, including those like Dr.Angela Turpin and at the GPS Clinic, are harmed from being required to abandon their patients and stop providing medically necessary care with no evidence-based alternative treatment to offer, both of which violate medical ethics and may cause moral injury H/T to Erin in the morning who graciously shared the court documents.