A federal judge in Oklahoma has permitted a ban on gender-affirming care for minors to take effect. According to the opinion issued by Judge John Heil, III, the plaintiffs requesting injunctive relief failed to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the substance of their multiple constitutional appeals.
The law in question is SB 613, which was contested on various constitutional bases by the plaintiffs. They asserted that the law’s exclusive prohibition of gender-affirming care for minors amounted to age discrimination and was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. However, Judge Heil dismissed this claim, referencing a number of instances in which “American law” has legally restricted the rights of minors in various areas such as contractual capacity, criminal liability, and access to certain products.
The plaintiffs also alleged that the ban constituted a sex-based classification. In response, Judge Heil stated that the law’s terms like “sex” and “gender” were reflective of the nature of the procedure being regulated, not an intention to discriminate between individuals of different sexes.
Relying on the rational basis review, which requires authorities to establish any actions as relating to legitimate government interests, Judge Heil ruled that the law targeted medical procedures rather than individuals.
This ruling underscores the increasing divide in the federal court system on gender-affirming care restrictions. Bans have been accepted in Tennessee and Kentucky, while courts in Montana, Georgia, Indiana, Arkansas, Texas, and Florida have declared bans as unconstitutional or have issued injunctions against them. This case provides just another example of the legal complexities surrounding the topic of gender-affirming care.
For further reference, the full details of this case can be found at JURIST – News.