A national LGBTQ legal group has sued Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey over his emergency rule that limits gender-affirming healthcare for adolescents and adults.
Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union filed their lawsuit April 24 in St. Louis County Court against Bailey along with a temporary restraining order to halt the rule from becoming effective April 27.
“It will deny people care that they need, and it will cause people to have exacerbated anxiety, exacerbated repression, exacerbated dysphoria, and may cause increased suicidality among transgender people who require this care,” said Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, a Lambda Legal staff attorney. “We know this is a real effect of untreated gender dysphoria.”
Issued on April 13, Bailey’s directive becomes effective on April 27 and expires in February 2024.
It requires informed written consent, screening for social media addiction, screening for autism, and assurance that the patient is not experiencing social gender identity contagion.
“The informed consent required here is a testament to disinformation and misinformation,” Gonzalez-Pagan said. “There is no tool, test, or criteria to do an assessment for social contagion. These are false obstacles that are being erected in order to prevent people from accessing medically necessary safe, effective evidence-based care."
Bailey issued the ruling after it was alleged by a case manager at Washington University Transgender Center at St. Louis Children’s Hospital that instead of receiving mental health treatment, children were receiving puberty blockers even in cases where the drugs were questioned by family members.
“What’s at stake is that new people who are about to start care may not be able to do so unless they meet these incredibly onerous and divorced from reality requirements and then the rule also requires for people who are already on a particular form of treatment to meet these requirements promptly,” Gonzalez-Pagan told the St. Louis Record.
The lawsuit alleges the following three counts.
* The rule is non-compliant with rulemaking procedures.
“The problem here is that there is no emergency,” Gonzalez-Pagan said in an interview. “He actually announced that he was doing this weeks before he published a rule so what is the emergency here? There isn’t one. Bailey also must comply with procedural requirements, including a cost assessment of the impact of this rule.”
* The rule lacks statutory authority and conflicts with state law
“Bailey is acting way beyond his authority and doing so in a way that creates unprecedented restrictions and extreme restrictions on the provision of safe, effective, and necessary care,” Gonzalez-Pagan said.
* The rule is arbitrary and capricious.
“The fact that the rule doesn't consider the evidence-based as it actually is for this care shows that it is arbitrary and capricious,” Gonzalez-Pagan added. “The fact that Bailey did not consider who tends to be affected and how they would be harmed shows that it is arbitrary and capricious.”