Threaded Index     Date Index     BC



Has Gorsuch Tied SCOTUS' Hands on Trans Care?

Posted by Pharmakon on 2024-April-30 02:34:04, Tuesday




The Fourth US Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, has ruled that North Carolina and West Virginia cannot exclude sex change surgery and related care from coverage under Medicaid or state employee health care programs.

Unsurprisingly, the 8-6 ruling significantly relied on Neil Gorsuch's 2020 opinion for the US Supreme Court in Bostock v. Clayton County, holding that employment discrimination against trans people is illegal discrimination based on sex. Gorsuch is part of the SCOTUS "conservative" majority, though Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented in Bostock, and the decision was greeted with disapproval by many self-styled conservatives. Chief Justice John Roberts and the court's four "liberals" at the time -- Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan -- agreed with Gorsuch. Ginsburg has since died and been replaced by an additional "conservative," Amy Coney Barrett, while Breyer retired and was replaced by another "liberal," Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The ruling is doubtless headed to SCOTUS, where the question will be whether Gorsuch and Roberts will agree that Bostock's reasoning is controlling, and will stick to it. If they do, the three remaining liberals will provide the votes necessary to affirm.

Here are the key passages from the Fouth Circuit ruling citing the Gorsuch rationale in Bostock.

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).... Those assigned female at birth can receive vaginoplasty and breast reconstruction for gender-affirming purposes, but those assigned male at birth cannot. And those assigned male at birth can receive a mastectomy for gender-affirming purposes, but those assigned female at birth cannot. In other words, when the purpose of the surgery is to align a patient’s gender presentation with their sex assigned at birth, the surgery is covered. When the purpose is to align a patient’s gender presentation with a gender identity that does not match their sex assigned at birth, the surgery is not covered....

This is textbook sex discrimination, for two reasons. For one, we can determine whether some patients will be eliminated from candidacy for these surgeries solely from knowing their sex assigned at birth. And two, conditioning access to these surgeries based on a patient’s sex assigned at birth stems from gender stereotypes about how men or women should present....

Try figuring out whether the State Health Plan or Medicaid Program will cover a certain patient’s vaginoplasty. By virtue of the fact that they are seeking a vaginoplasty, we know that they were born without a vagina. But we do not know what sex they were assigned at birth. Without that information, we cannot say whether the Plan or Program will cover the surgery....

The Supreme Court used this type of thought experiment in Bostock v. Clayton County. There, it imagined a job applicant asked to disclose the applicant’s sexual orientation.... “There is no way for an applicant to decide whether to check the homosexual or transgender box without considering sex,” it wrote.... “To see why, imagine an applicant doesn’t know what the words homosexual or transgender mean. Then try writing out instructions for who should check the box without using the words man, woman, or sex (or some synonym). It can’t be done.”... The same is true here. A third-party administrator cannot make the coverage decision without knowing whether the vaginoplasty is to treat gender dysphoria—in other words, whether the patient was assigned male at birth.

[Footnotes omitted]


The Fourth Circuit opinion is linked below. The majority opinion was authored by Judge Roger Gregory. Gregory was originally named to the court by Bill Clinton on a temporary recess appointment, but then given a permanent appointment by George W. Bush. His opinion was joined by Chief Judge Albert Diaz (Obama) and Judges Robert King (Clinton), James Wynn (Obama), Stephanie Thacker (Obama), Pamela Harris (Obama), Toby Heytens (Biden), and DeAndrea Benjamin (Biden). Dissenting were Judges Julius Richardson (Trump), J. Harvie Wilkinson III (Reagan), Paul Niemeyer (George H.W. Bush), A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr. (Trump), G. Steven Agee (George W. Bush) and Allison Rushing (Trump).

hugzu ;-p


Pharmakon
  • (https site) Kadel v Follwell (Fourth US Circuit Court of Appeals, en banc)
    [@nonymouse] [Guardster] [Proxify] [Anonimisierungsdienst]



  • Follow ups:



    Post a response:

    Nickname:

    Password:

    Email (optional):
    Subject:


    Message:


    Link URL (optional):

    Link Title (optional):


    Add your sigpic?