West Virginia Bills Target Transgender Individuals: Classifying as Obscene Matter and Restricting Access to Care

West Virginia State Senator Mike Azinger introduced several bills on Wednesday targeting transgender individuals. These bills include one which aims to classify transgender people as “obscene matter” and another that would prohibit gender-affirming care for individuals under the age of 21. The Senate Bill 195 proposes amendments to the state’s indecent exposure law with the intent to penalize engagement in “obscene matter.”

The term “obscene matter” is defined by the bill as something that the “average person” would find sexually explicit, offensive, or void of literary, artistic or scientific merit. The law specifically includes “any transvestite and/or transgender exposure, performances, or display to any minor” in this definition. Coupled with the proposed Senate Bill 197, which seeks to prohibit “obscene matter” within 2,500 feet of any school, this would criminalize being openly transgender in the vicinity of minors or near educational institutions.

While Senate Bills 195 and 197 do not explicitly comment on the implications for West Virginia’s transgender youth, Azinger introduced another related bill that does. Senate Bill 194 amends the state’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors to cover individuals below the age of 21. The bill also puts a restriction on treatment for gender dysphoria unless it aims towards a “cure,” a measure seen by LGBTQ+ advocates as a form of enforced conversion therapy, a practice outlawed in 22 U.S. states.

The proposed amendments build upon recent actions of West Virginia targeting the transgender community, such as banning gender-affirming care for individuals under 18, and banning transgender athletes from competition. The state’s Medicaid Program has also denied coverage for gender-affirming surgery. West Virginia has faced legal challenges for these actions, with the US Supreme Court declining to revive the ban on transgender athletes and appeals courts hearing arguments against refusal to cover surgery costs.

This article was originally published on JURIST – News.