The ruling marks the latest decision in a legal challenge the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed against the ban, enacted last spring amid a national push by GOP-led legislatures to curb LGBTQ+ rights.

A federal appeals court on Tuesday allowed Indiana’s ban on gender-affirming care to go into effect, removing a temporary injunction a judge issued last year.

The ruling was handed down by a panel of justices on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. It marked the latest decision in a legal challenge the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed against the ban, enacted last spring amid a national push by GOP-led legislatures to curb LGBTQ+ rights.

    • jeffw@lemmy.worldM
      426·
      9 months ago

      That’s an odd take. Courts interpret laws. What law or constitutional measures forces them to ban healthcare?

      • LufyCZ@lemmy.world
        1310·
        9 months ago

        Yes, they interpret what the lawmakers have written. If lawmakers made a law saying minors shouldn’t receive healthcare, that’s what the court should say.

        Not taking sides btw, if I was I’d just get mad at the state of US politics

        • jeffw@lemmy.worldM
          192·
          9 months ago

          They can say “it’s not constitutional to ban healthcare.” They aren’t bound only by the text of the law.

          • gedaliyah@lemmy.worldM
            14·
            9 months ago

            The lawsuit, first filed in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Indiana, alleges that Senate Bill 480 violates the U.S. Constitution on multiple fronts, including the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In addition, the lawsuit claims that the law violates the federal requirements of the Medicaid Act and the Affordable Care Act, because it prohibits essential medical services that would otherwise be authorized and reimbursed by Medicaid

            Via ACLU

            • jeffw@lemmy.worldM
              211·
              9 months ago

              I’m quite sure a constitutional scholar could come up with a well worded reply to make that argument in detail. I’ll just say that I think part of individual liberty is accessing healthcare.

                • jeffw@lemmy.worldM
                  112·
                  9 months ago

                  The constitution doesn’t say we have a right to lay bricks so we should ban construction, right? Reading into the constitution and assuming they understood modern brick making would be a massive leap.

                  Or something like that? I don’t really get what you’re saying.

                  • LufyCZ@lemmy.world
                    111·
                    9 months ago

                    The law on the ban for youth care was challenged in court, the courts decided the law is not against the constitution, and so it can take effect.

                • Zombiepirate@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  3·
                  9 months ago

                  Go on and elaborate on what you think the right to privacy means in the US.

                  The Supreme Court, however, beginning as early as 1923 and continuing through its recent decisions, has broadly read the “liberty” guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee a fairly broad right of privacy that has come to encompass decisions about child rearing, procreation, marriage, and termination of medical treatment.

      • LufyCZ@lemmy.world
        511·
        9 months ago

        Because laws tell them what to decide. The courts are there to make sure the laws don’t infringe on constitutional rights, on federal laws etc., but they don’t create rules.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          113·
          9 months ago

          but they don’t create rules.

          I see you’re unfamiliar with our court system and only know the idealized version.

          • LufyCZ@lemmy.world
            19·
            9 months ago

            If a court decides to interpret a law some way or another, it’s because the law’s wording allowed for some leeway.

            That’s on the lawmakers.