上诉法院称排除变性手术的州卫生政策违反宪法
Appeals Court Says State Health Policies Excluding Transgender Surgeries Violate Constitution

原始链接: https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/appeals-court-says-state-health-policies-excluding-transgender-surgeries-violate

联邦上诉法院驳回了两项排除“性别肯定”治疗的州级健康政策,这可能为美国最高法院的审查奠定基础。 第四巡回法院以 8 比 6 的投票结果裁定,将某些诊断排除在外进行特定手术(如阴道成形术)违反了第 14 修正案的平等保护条款。 由法官罗杰·格雷戈里撰写的法院多数意见强调,这些排除是基于性别认同和性别的歧视。 因此,下级法院针对西弗吉尼亚州医疗补助政策和北卡罗来纳州教师和雇员医疗保健计划的裁决得到了确认。 批评者认为,这些政策并没有因性别认同而存在歧视,因为它们专注于诊断。 然而,格雷戈里法官认为,基于诊断的歧视等同于基于性别认同和性别的歧视。 强调了性别不安——跨性别地位的一个关键因素——针对性别差异的治疗对于解决跨性别地位至关重要。 三种不同意见反对这一判决,引发了人们对性别不安护理的科学有效性以及司法部门在干预国家医疗保健决策方面的作用的担忧。 支持者预计最高法院会上诉,而反对者则称赞这一裁决是拯救生命的宪法胜利。

相关文章

原文

Authored by Sam Dorman via The Epoch Times,

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled against two state-level health policies that exclude so-called “gender-affirming” treatments, teeing up potential review by the U.S. Supreme Court...

Judge Roger Gregory, an appointee of Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, wrote in his majority opinion that the policies’ exclusion of surgeries such as vaginoplasties for certain diagnoses violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

“The coverage exclusions facially discriminate on the basis of sex and gender identity, and are not substantially related to an important government interest,” he said.

The 8–6 decision affirmed lower court decisions against West Virginia’s Medicaid policy and the North Carolina State Health Plan for Teachers and State Employees. Both aimed to preclude coverage of procedures or treatments pursuant to attempts at changing one’s gender.

During oral arguments in September, at least two judges said it’s likely the case will eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

Judge Gregory’s opinion rejected the idea that the policies didn’t discriminate on the basis of gender identity merely because they focused on diagnoses rather than individuals experiencing that condition.

“Appellants argue that the district courts’ equal-protection analyses were flawed because, they say, the exclusions distinguish on the basis of diagnosis,” he said.

He added that “in this case, discriminating on the basis of diagnosis is discriminating on the basis of gender identity and sex.”

Later in the opinion, Judge Gregory wrote that “gender dysphoria is so intimately related to transgender status as to be virtually indistinguishable from it. The excluded treatments aim at addressing incongruity between sex assigned at birth and gender identity, the very heart of transgender status.”

He later added that in “addition to discriminating on the basis of gender identity, the exclusions discriminate on the basis of sex.”

Certain gender-affirming surgeries that could be provided to people assigned male at birth and people assigned female at birth are provided to only one group under the policy. Those surgeries include vaginoplasty (for congenital absence of a vagina), breast reconstruction (post-mastectomy), and breast reduction (for gynecomastia).”

Judge Gregory’s opinion encountered three separate dissents, including one in which Judge Harvie Wilkinson, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, argued “the science behind gender dysphoria care is far from settled.”

He suggested the majority overstepped its authority in encroaching on state decisions about health care.

“Providing the best possible care to adults and youth struggling with gender dysphoria is a challenging task for our States,” he said.

“But it is one that they are entitled to perform without premature judicial interference.”

Andrea Picciotti-Bayer, director of the Conscience Project, said in a statement to The Epoch Times that the decision “cries out for reversal from the Supreme Court.”

She warned that Judge Gregory’s reasoning “surely will be cited in attempts to force private insurance plans to do the same.”

Judge Marvin Quattlebaum, an appointee of President Donald Trump, said the majority “improperly” declared statements from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health “to be facts.”

“Individually and combined, these missteps improperly stack the deck, effectively ignoring the fair-minded debate about the medical necessity and efficacy of the treatments the plaintiffs seek,” he added.

Lambda Legal, which challenged both states’ policies, declared victory.

“We are pleased with the Court’s decision, which will save lives. It confirms that discriminating against transgender people by denying critical medical care is not only wrong but unconstitutional,” Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Tara Borelli said in a press release.

“No one should be denied essential health care, but our clients in both cases were denied coverage for medically necessary care prescribed by their doctors just because they’re transgender.”

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com