Page locked

This page is currently locked for editing by another user. You have to wait until this user finishes editing or the lock expires.

Currently locked by: fe80:0630:c358:ced2:8c1a:fb97:e090:8df0
Lock expires at: 2026/05/27 22:51 (10 min)

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.

August 12, 2025 - banning gender affirming care for trans youth in Arkansas upheld by 8th circuit appeals court https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/eighth-circuit-upholds-arkansass-ban-on-gender-affirming-care-for-transgender-youth



==== 119th Congress House Bill 1 ====
src: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1/text

This bill prevents federal funding for gender affirming care for medicaid funding. It specifies American Care Act (ACA/Obama Care) do not consider gender affirming care as essential, thus does not need to be covered.

The bill is quite broad, removing federal funding from non-profits who provide abortion under many scenarios. It also prevents funds from being used to enforce injunctions.  


While this portion of the bill removed by the senate before passing, it's now trying to be re-introduced by the house by greene

https://rules.house.gov/bill/119/hr-1-sa
430	Version 1 
https://amendments-rules.house.gov/amendments/Greene_medicaid250701145047267.pdf


Attorney General preventing federal funds to be used for places that allows trans people to enter bathrooms/sports/etc steams aligned with their gender identity, based on person's assigned sex at birth instead.

https://www.justice.gov/ag/media/1409486/dl?inline=&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery




==== UNITED STATES v. SKRMETT (Tennessee Case on Gender Affirming Care for Youth) ====

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-477_2cp3.pdf


> (Pg 3) The Court concluded that, even though only biological women can become pregnant, not every legislative classification concerning pregnancy is a sex-based classification 

Intersex people exists, and can become pregnant.


> The Court declines to address whether Bostock’s reasoning reaches beyond the Title VII context—unlike the employment discrimination at issue in Bostock, changing a minor’s sex or transgender status does not alter the application of SB1. If a transgender boy seeks testosterone to treat gender dysphoria, SB1 prevents a healthcare provider from administering it to him. If his biological sex were changed from female to male, SB1 would still not permit him the hormones he seeks because he would lack a qualifying diagnosis. The transgender boy could receive testosterone only if he had a permissible diagnosis (like a congenital defect). And, if he had such a diagnosis, he could obtain the testosterone regardless of his sex or transgender status. Under the reasoning of Bostock, neither his sex nor his transgender status is the but-for cause of his inability to obtain testosterone. Pp. 18–21.