Three U.S. appeals court judges hear arguments on new law restricting health care for transgender minors in Kentucky

By Sarah Ladd
Kentucky Lantern

A three-judge federal panel on Friday heard opposing arguments over Kentucky’s ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, after first hearing arguments in a similar case in Tennessee.

Stephanie Schuster presented arguments for the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which are suing on behalf of seven anonymous transgender minors and their parents seeking to restore access to hormone treatments and puberty blockers for transgender minors in Kentucky.

Attorney General Daniel Cameron’s office is fighting to keep the ban imposed by Senate Bill 150, which the Republican-controlled legislature enacted earlier this year over Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear’s veto.

Schuster argued that SB 150 is inherently discriminatory on the basis of sex because a patient’s biological sex – what was assigned at birth – would need to be known for treatment to be legal or illegal.

Solicitor General Matthew Kuhn argued for Cameron that the law deals with “regulating the practice of medicine” and is not sex-based discrimination. He said the state “has chosen a particular condition and has chosen particular treatments for that condition and restricted that. That is not a a sex-discrimination issue.”

Judges Jeffrey Sutton, Amul Thapar and Helene White heard
arguments at the Cincinnati court. (L.A. Blade photo illustration)

The arguments before a three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati came after the same panel rejected on a 2-1 vote an August request from the ACLU of Kentucky to let transgender minors get certain medical care, such as puberty blockers.

SB 150 also bans gender-related surgeries like phalloplasty, vaginoplasty or hysterectomies and vasectomies on minors. But neither the ACLU nor Kentucky LGBTQ+ organizations are challenging the ban on such surgeries.

Schuster argued, “The evidence in this record shows that withholding treatment – even up until the age of 18 – and allowing puberty to occur consistent with the sex identified at birth is extraordinarily harmful to these children.

“And what this regulates is not just procedures that they can’t get until the age of 18. It’s many aspects of these children’s lives while they’re in school and able to get treatment that is medically indicated and medically necessary for them to live and develop into functioning and happy adults.”

Friday’s arguments — streamed to the press and public with audio only — were heard by Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton and judges Amul Thapar and Helene White.

One of the judges said “I feel like there’s compassion (in) both directions.”

He continued: “It’s not crazy to say that there’s a compassion component to the other side of this, that maybe this is the kind of thing some people might regret if they do it at age 14, 15.”

Kuhn argued that the law is indeed “a compassion measure.”

“The plaintiffs think that Senate Bill 150 is going to cause harm to children,” Kuhn said in rebuttal. “And the Kentucky General Assembly thinks it’s going to prohibit harm for children.”