The ruling marks the latest decision in a legal challenge the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed against the ban, enacted last spring amid a national push by GOP-led legislatures to curb LGBTQ+ rights.

A federal appeals court on Tuesday allowed Indiana’s ban on gender-affirming care to go into effect, removing a temporary injunction a judge issued last year.

The ruling was handed down by a panel of justices on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. It marked the latest decision in a legal challenge the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed against the ban, enacted last spring amid a national push by GOP-led legislatures to curb LGBTQ+ rights.

  • jeffw@lemmy.worldM
    202·
    9 months ago

    They can say “it’s not constitutional to ban healthcare.” They aren’t bound only by the text of the law.

    • gedaliyah@lemmy.worldM
      14·
      8 months ago

      The lawsuit, first filed in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Indiana, alleges that Senate Bill 480 violates the U.S. Constitution on multiple fronts, including the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In addition, the lawsuit claims that the law violates the federal requirements of the Medicaid Act and the Affordable Care Act, because it prohibits essential medical services that would otherwise be authorized and reimbursed by Medicaid

      Via ACLU

      • jeffw@lemmy.worldM
        211·
        9 months ago

        I’m quite sure a constitutional scholar could come up with a well worded reply to make that argument in detail. I’ll just say that I think part of individual liberty is accessing healthcare.

          • jeffw@lemmy.worldM
            112·
            8 months ago

            The constitution doesn’t say we have a right to lay bricks so we should ban construction, right? Reading into the constitution and assuming they understood modern brick making would be a massive leap.

            Or something like that? I don’t really get what you’re saying.

              • idiomaddict@feddit.de
                9·
                8 months ago

                Right, I’m asking how that doesn’t follow. You don’t have a right to force doctors to specialize in something you want them to, but being restricted by your government from accessing modern healthcare endorsed by the AMA and APA doesn’t seem like liberty to me.

                • LufyCZ@lemmy.world
                  29·
                  8 months ago

                  Let’s take it from the other side.

                  Should I have the liberty to not pay taxes? The liberty to dump my garbage into a lake? The liberty to burn a forest down?

                  You’re flexing words into meanings that suit you, but if they actually were possible to be interpreted this widely, it’d be chaos.

                  • idiomaddict@feddit.de
                    61·
                    8 months ago

                    Those each hurt third parties, which is a very good reason to restrict a liberty. This one doesn’t, so I don’t really see how it fits with the others.

          • Zombiepirate@lemmy.worldEnglish
            3·
            8 months ago

            Go on and elaborate on what you think the right to privacy means in the US.

            The Supreme Court, however, beginning as early as 1923 and continuing through its recent decisions, has broadly read the “liberty” guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee a fairly broad right of privacy that has come to encompass decisions about child rearing, procreation, marriage, and termination of medical treatment.