Following the U.S. Supreme Court decision permitting Tennessee to ban gender-affirming health care for minors, Florida officials claimed similar authority to deny coverage for adults. A federal judge previously ruled that Florida cannot deny care to state employees, which the state appealed. The recent ruling in United States v. Skrmetti was cited by Florida legal representatives as justification for restricting healthcare choices. However, plaintiffs argue that this ruling does not affect their challenge regarding insurance coverage and emphasizes the ongoing protections under previous rulings like Bostock v. Clayton County.
The Skrmetti ruling opened the door to government dictating health care decisions, as noted by Florida attorney Mohammad Jazil in a court brief.
The State legislature concluded that there is an ongoing debate among medical experts regarding the risks and benefits associated with administering puberty blockers and hormones to treat gender dysphoria.
Attorneys for Kori Dekker and other plaintiffs argue that Skrmetti should have no impact on their lawsuit centered around insurance coverage.
Skrmetti did not reject Plaintiffs' arguments that classifications based on transgender status are subject to heightened scrutiny, emphasizing that Bostock v. Clayton County still stands.
Collection
[
|
...
]