[ad_1]
BOISE, Idaho (AP) — Starting next year, anyone providing gender-affirming healthcare in Idaho Transgender youth could become convicted felons after the state’s Republican governor signed a bill banning medical treatment late Tuesday.
At least one organization has already pledged to take legal action over the new law. The Idaho American Civil Liberties Union announced Wednesday that it is looking for potential plaintiffs in the lawsuit and asked anyone affected by the law to contact them.
Idaho is one of at least 13 states that have enacted laws restricting or banning gender-affirming care for minors, and nearly 20 more are considering similar legislation. Under Idaho’s new law, doctors face up to 10 years in prison for providing hormones, puberty blockers, or other gender-affirming care. For those under the age of 18.
Opponents of the bill say it will likely increase suicide rates among teens, but supporters of the bill say they want to “protect children” from medical or surgical treatment for gender dysphoria. It said we needed a bill.
Still, supporters acknowledge that there is no indication that transgender youth in Idaho are undergoing gender reassignment surgery.
“By signing this bill, we recognize our society’s role in protecting minors from surgeries and treatments that can irreversibly damage their healthy bodies,” said Brad. “But as policy makers, we should be vigilant whenever we consider government intervention in loving parents and their decisions about what is best for their children,” Little wrote in a statement signed. You have to pay attention.”
Gender-affirming care for young people is supported by all major medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Psychiatric Association.
Medical professionals define gender dysphoria as the severe psychological distress experienced by people whose gender identity differs from the gender they were assigned at birth.
Add the Words Idaho, an organization that advocates for equal rights and treatment for LGBTQ+ people, says the law violates parental rights and signals to all health professionals that it is not welcome in Idaho. said to send. The organization’s executive director, Chelsea Gaona Lincoln, said the group was responding to “desperate” calls from desperate families.
“We are seeing parental rights being dismantled in the name of stigmatizing and harming the most vulnerable young people,” said Gaona Lincoln. “The fear in the voices of parents is real, they don’t know what to tell their teens, how to give them hope, and they are elected. These representatives are actively trying to legislate and eliminate them.”
Gender-affirming care for young people under the age of 18 is permitted for “medically verifiable disabilities,” including children born intersex and with both male and female physical characteristics.
Leo Morales, executive director of the ACLU in Idaho, said the law is discriminatory.
“It is clearly excessive and unacceptable for the government to have legislators interfering in decisions that should be made by families and their health care providers,” Morales said in a statement.
Little spokesperson Madison Hardy said the governor’s office had received nearly 20,000 calls and emails from people supporting the bill by Tuesday evening.
This bill is one of several anti-LGBTQ bills introduced in the Idaho Legislature.
Last week, the governor signed a bill restricting access to school restrooms for transgender children. The bill requires school facilities that are accessible to more than one person at a time to be designated as “men-only or women-only.” If a person encounters a person of the opposite sex in the restroom, he can sue the school district for $5,000 each time.
Few have yet signed a bill that would allow parents to sue libraries and public schools for $2,500 if anything deemed “harmful to minors” becomes available to their children. The definition of “harmful to” includes depictions of homosexual acts and “intimate sexual acts.” The governor has until Thursday afternoon to sign the bill, veto it, or allow it to become law without signature.
Other bills died in Congress. The school would have prohibited any discussion of gender identity or sexual orientation before her fifth grade. In another example, if a student reveals a change in sexual orientation or gender identity, it could be construed as requiring the school to notify the student’s parents.
[ad_2]
Source link