Washington (CNN) A ruling in the state of Missouri temporarily blocked the state’s limits on gender-affirming care for minors and adults in the state on Wednesday, putting them on hold just hours before they could take effect.
In a brief order from St. Louis County Circuit Judge Ellen Ribaudo, the court essentially bought itself more time to consider whether it should issue emergency relief in a lawsuit seeking to lift the restrictions.
Ribaudo said he will issue a decision on the plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order next Monday, saying he wants more time to review briefs to be submitted by Republican Attorney General Andrew Bailey, who issued the new restrictions.
“The Attorney General has not yet filed their opposition brief, which the court wants to review,” the order reads.
Several GOP-led states in recent years have enacted bans on such care for minors, but Missouri’s rules represent the first time a state has attempted to impose the such restrictions on trans adults.
The restrictions were set to go into effect on Thursday, but Ribaudo’s order means that, so far, some of the country’s broadest limits on gender-affirming care will be put on hold for at least a few days.
“We’re glad the court took it seriously and we hope the rule will be enforced after he considers all the evidence before him,” said Gillian Wilcox, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, which is representing the victims. plaintiff in the case.
Gender-affirming care is medically necessary, evidence-based care that uses a multidisciplinary approach to help a person transition from their assigned gender — the one assigned of the person at birth — to their affirmed gender, the gender one wishes to identify with.
The “emergency rule” issued earlier this month by Bailey said that people often use “life-changing interventions,” such as pubertal suppression or gender reassignment surgery, “without any speech therapy,” and that the emergency action “is necessary because of a compelling governmental interest and a need to protect the health, safety, and public welfare” of Missourians .
Among other stipulations, the rule says it is “unlawful” for individuals or health care providers to provide gender-affirming care without confirming that a patient has “at least for the 3 most recent consecutive years … exhibiting a medically documented, long-term, persistent and severe pattern of gender dysphoria.”
If allowed to go into effect, the rule would expire on February 6, 2024, according to a release from Bailey’s office.
“This order only stays the implementation of our rule so that the Court can review the briefing. We will continue to fight for all patients to have access to adequate health care,” said Madeline Sieren, a spokeswoman. in Bailey’s office, in a statement.
The lawsuit was brought Monday by a transgender adult in the state, two trans youth there, a center in St. Louis who provides treatment for gender dysphoria and a city social worker who “provides individual therapy and assistance with gender care needs,” according to court documents.
The plaintiffs’ attorneys argued in their complaint that Bailey, who relied on a state consumer protection law to issue his emergency rule, exceeded his authority in doing so and did not properly follow due process. to make a state rule.
“The Emergency Rule is an improper, extra-legislative overreach by an unelected political appointee, intended to distort and undermine the MMPA, an act intended to ensure that vehicles are sold with titles and that hardware stores will enforce a warranty in a vacuum, to dictate what medical care is available to adult Missourians,” they wrote in court papers.
“A temporary restraining order that preserves the status quo and remains in effect the Emergency Rule — and prohibits the Attorney General from enforcing it — is necessary to protect Missourians, including some of the Plaintiffs, from irreversible damages along with limitations on and denials of clinically appropriate and medically necessary health care, and to preserve their rights and interests under the laws of the State of Missouri,” they said in court.
The attorney general’s office said earlier Monday that the regulation “is based on numerous scientific studies and reports, which are cited in the endnotes.”
In pushing for measures for minors, lawmakers have long argued that young people should wait until adulthood to make decisions about such care. But LGBTQ advocates stress that the long-term goal for conservatives is to ban caregiving for everyone, regardless of age, and several bills seeking to restrict caregiving for adults have been introduced in statehouses across the country earlier this year, underscoring the point. .
In some rare cases, Republicans have split their party on the issue, including in Missouri, where the state’s GOP secretary of state said he disagreed with Bailey’s decision to expand the limits to adults. but supports restrictions for minors.
“In our country, adults have the right to make their own decisions about what they do with their own money. It’s a good thing to be different,” John Ashcroft told CNN’s Bianna Golodryga on Tuesday in ” The Lead.”
“But when you have someone who’s an adult … they can make their own decision about what they want to do – I support that,” he added.