A Missouri circuit court judge recently upheld a law banning certain gender-affirming medical care for minors, declaring it constitutional. This ruling, coming from Judge Robert Craig Carter of the 44th Judicial Circuit Court, aligns Missouri with several other states attempting to restrict access to transgender healthcare.
On the bench, Judge Carter discussed the Save Adolescents From Experimentation Act, which outlawed medical professionals from administering hormone treatments and puberty blockers to anyone under 18. The law, signed by Governor Mike Parson, also prohibits gender transition surgeries for minors, which are extremely rare, and blocks prisons from providing gender-affirming procedures. Even Missouri Medicaid is restricted from supporting such treatments for adults.
During the ruling, Judge Carter contested the expertise of medical professionals who testified against the law. He pointed to what he characterized as a “total lack of consensus” on the ethics surrounding gender dysphoria treatment. He expressed concern over the slippery slope this could create, positing, “Any person — including a minor — would be able to obtain anything from meth to ecstasy to abortion as long as a single medical professional were willing to recommend it.” His statements hint at apprehension about regulating medical practices and the potential overreach of medical professionals.
For advocates of trans rights, this ruling was disheartening. Organizations such as Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri cautioned against discrimination stemming from the new law, arguing it violates the Missouri Constitution. After the judgment, these organizations released statements expressing their disappointment and commitment to appeal the ruling. They emphasized, “The court’s findings signal a troubling acceptance of discrimination, deny transgender adolescents access to often life-saving medical care, and ignore the extensive trial record and the voices of transgender Missourians and those who care for them.”
Meanwhile, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey celebrated the ruling as progress, viewing it as validation for what he labels the protection of minors from “child mutilation.” Bailey stated, “We are the first state in the nation to successfully defend such a law at the trial court level,” showcasing his stance on maintaining stringent regulations around gender-affirming procedures for minors.
This ruling arrives just days before the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to review another case concerning the constitutionality of similar bans, known as U.S. v. Skrmetti. A ruling from this case could have far-reaching effects on the status of gender-affirming care for minors across the nation.
The Missouri law, enacted earlier this year, is one of many such efforts across the United States. Reports indicate 26 states have enacted laws or policies limiting or entirely banning trans surgeries and treatments for minors. Conversely, 24 states, along with the District of Columbia, have either permitted or protected access to these medical procedures.
Proponents of the Missouri law have suggested these measures are necessary to safeguard children from what they deem irreversible and harmful procedures. Critics, on the other hand, argue these restrictions could lead to significant mental health challenges for transgender youth, as they navigate the repercussions of being denied necessary medical care.
Despite the ruling, the debate around gender-affirming healthcare continues to ignite passions on both sides. Dad and lawyer, Michael Haluf, shared his family's personal challenges following their own state's measures against gender care, remarking, “This ruling sends a chilling message. For many families, compassion and access to effective care seem to be out of reach.”
This legislative action reflects broader national trends with increasing calls for and opposition to gender-affirming care for youth. The conflict between what advocates say is necessary healthcare and opponents who advocate for stricter regulations has created significant legal and social ramifications.
