OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that two state laws banning abortion are unconstitutional, but the procedure remains illegal in the state in most cases.
In a 6-3 ruling, the high court said the two bans are unconstitutional because they require a “medical emergency” before a doctor can perform an abortion. The court said this language conflicts with a previous ruling it issued in March. That ruling found the Oklahoma Constitution provides an “inherent right of a pregnant woman to terminate a pregnancy when necessary to preserve her life.”
The laws struck down Wednesday both included a civil-enforcement mechanism that allowed citizens to sue someone who either performed or helped someone perform an abortion.
Courthouse News’ podcast Sidebar tackles the stories you need to know from the legal world. Join our hosts as they take you in and out of courtrooms in the U.S. and beyond.
“Despite the court’s decisions today on SB 1603 and HB 4327, Oklahoma’s 1910 law prohibiting abortion remains in place,” Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond said in a statement. “Except for certain circumstances outlined in that statute, abortion is still unlawful in the state of Oklahoma.”
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — The parents of three transgender children in Florida are trying to get a federal judge to block a new law that bans gender-affirming care for minors, a signature policy of Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis as he nears his presidential campaign.
U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle on Friday heard arguments from an attorney representing the three families in a case that argues they are being stripped of the right to make medical decisions for their children.
DeSantis has curtailed transgender medical treatments for minors in the state — often describing the issue in terms that are at odds with the nation’s major medical associations — as he leans into cultural divides that animate the Republican base ahead of his anticipated presidential run.
Courthouse News’ podcast Sidebar tackles the stories you need to know from the legal world. Join our hosts as they take you in and out of courtrooms in the U.S. and beyond.
Florida’s law, signed this week by DeSantis, prohibits the prescription of puberty-blocking, hormone and hormone antagonist therapies to treat gender dysphoria in minors. It also bans gender-affirming medical procedures or surgeries for minors.
The law also bans the use of state money for gender-affirming care and places new restrictions on adults seeking treatment. Among those restrictions are a requirement that people meet face to face with a doctor — not a nurse or nurse practitioner — and not through telemedicine. Private organizations that provide such care could be risking any state funding they receive.
Transgender medical treatment for children and teenagers has increasingly been subject to restrictions or outright bans from Republicans across the country.
At least 17 states have now enacted laws restricting or banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, including Idaho, Montana, North Dakota and Oklahoma. Federal judges have blocked enforcement of laws in Alabama and Arkansas, and Oklahoma has agreed to not enforce its ban while opponents seek a temporary court order blocking it. Several other states are considering bills this year to restrict or ban care.
The treatments have been available in the United States for more than a decade and are endorsed by major medical associations as appropriate care for people diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Guidelines say surgery generally should be reserved for those ages 18 and older.
Treatment typically begins with an evaluation for the distress caused when gender identity doesn’t match a person’s assigned sex. With parental consent, persistent dysphoria can be treated with hormones, but typically not until age 16.
The parents did not appear in court Friday. It is unclear when the judge could issue a ruling on their request to block the law. Attorney Jennifer Levi, said the law is discriminatory against transgender people and hopes the judge moves quickly.
“My hope is that what it means for these adolescents is that they will very quickly be able to be moving forward in getting the care that they need, but the judge is going to set the timeframe for that,” Levi said.
WASHINGTON (CN) — An Alabama death row inmate gets to live longer than anticipated by the state, after the Supreme Court on Monday rejected its bid to carry out his execution by lethal injection following a failed attempt last fall.
Kenneth Eugene Smith was found guilty of murdering Elizabeth Dorlene in 1988, after her husband, who was having an affair and consumed by debts, paid him $1,000 to do so.
Smith was sentenced to death and his execution was scheduled for Nov. 17, 2022. But he filed an Eighth Amendment challenge to stop it, arguing the use of lethal injection violated his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.
A federal judge initially dismissed Smith’s claims, but they were reinstated by a divided 11th Circuit panel that held Smith had pleaded a viable claim seeking an alternate method of execution: nitrogen hypoxia, also called nitrogen suffocation.
The process forces the inmate to breathe only nitrogen, thereby depriving them of the oxygen needed to maintain bodily functions.
Alabama lawmakers approved legislation in 2018 that authorized nitrogen hypoxia as an alternate execution method, as has Oklahoma and Mississippi, although it has never actually been used to carry out a death sentence.
While the law allows certain inmates to elect nitrogen hypoxia as their execution method, it remains unavailable as Alabama has yet to develop an execution protocol for the practice. According to the state’s Department of Corrections, a protocol is expected to be finished later this year.
In its ruling for Smith, the 11th Circuit held that even if “no mechanism to implement the procedure has been finalized,” it is “available” because it has been adopted by Alabama law.
After the state turned to the U.S. Supreme Court, the justices granted its application to dissolve the 11th Circuit’s stay, which had suspended the district court’s order. But Alabama was unable to execute Smith before its death warrant expired because prison officials could not establish an IV line, leaving his lawsuit pending in the district court.
In its 7-2 decision without comment Monday, the high court declined to take on the case, turning down a petition from John Hamm, the commissioner of Alabama’s Department of Corrections, who claims that the 11th Circuit’s ruling goes against Supreme Court precedent.
Hamm argued in his petition for writ of certiorari that the high court has “repeatedly held” that to satisfy an Eighth Amendment claim, a prisoner must prove that their proposed alternative execution method is “not just theoretically ‘feasible’ but also ‘readily implemented.'”
Dissenting from the majority, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito agreed with Hamm’s argument and called the 11th Circuit’s decision “flawed.”
“‘The Constitution allows capital punishment’ and ‘does not guarantee a prisoner a painless death,’” Thomas wrote.
He said that just last term, the court “underscored” its finding that a prisoner must provide the state with “a veritable blueprint” for carrying out the requested method of execution in the case of Nance v. Ward.
In 2019, the Supreme Court also denied a petition to hear an almost identical case filed by death row inmate Christopher Price. Contrary to Monday’s denial, the justices in that case called the 11th Circuit’s precedent about whether nitrogen hypoxia was available and readily implemented “suspect.” They wrote that the appeals court’s suggestion that the state should bear the burden of showing that a method of execution is unavailable incentives the state to “delay or even refrain from approving even the most human methods of execution.”
Thomas highlighted that case in his dissent, writing that Smith’s petition offered the court a unique opportunity “to consider and correct Price’s faulty reasoning outside of that posture.”
(AP) — As Republican-governed states across the nation advance myriad bills targeting transgender young people, America’s faith leaders are starkly divided in their assessment. Some view the legislation as reflecting God’s will; others voice outrage that Christianity is being invoked to justify laws they view as cruel and hateful.
In one camp are many legislators who have cited their conservative religious beliefs while promoting these bills, as well as leaders of America’s two largest denominations — the Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention.
U.S. Catholic bishops have rejected the concept of gender transition; they issued guidelines in March to stop Catholic hospitals from assisting in such transitions. The SBC has been on record since 2014 asserting that gender transition is “contrary to God’s design.”
Courthouse News’ podcast Sidebar tackles the stories you need to know from the legal world. Join our hosts as they take you in and out of courtrooms in the U.S. and beyond.
In an online article, the Rev. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, depicted gender transition as “a blatant attempt to undermine the very order of creation.”
“The Bible reveals that any attempt to subvert creation ends in disaster, not in human liberation,” he wrote.
Faith leaders who support transgender rights bristle at the use of religious rhetoric to marginalize trans people.
“As a Christian leader, it’s horrifying to me that Christianity and the Bible are being used by the religious right to bludgeon people through these many bills,” said Serene Jones, the president of Union Theological Seminary in New York City.
“To use religious language like that is an abomination,” she said. “They are threatening the lives and well-being of so many people around the U.S. and the world.”
Jones said it was wrong to cite the Bible in rejecting transgender identity.
“It wasn’t something that the Bible even thought about,” she said. “The larger message there is a message of love and inclusion.”
By the latest count, at least 20 states have imposed bans or limits on transgender athletes’ sports participation at the K-12 or collegiate level. And at least 18 states have adopted laws or policies — including some blocked by courts — barring gender-affirming medical care, such as puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgery for minors.
In Oklahoma, state Sen. David Bullard cited a biblical passage in introducing what he calls the Millstone Act — a bill that would make it a felony for doctors to provide gender transition procedures to anyone under the age of 26. Bullard, who has served as a deacon at his Baptist church, said the act’s name alludes to a passage in the Book of Matthew suggesting that anyone causing a child to sin should be drowned in the sea with a millstone hung around their neck.
In the Texas legislature, one of the leading backers of anti-trans legislation is an ordained minister — Rep. Steve Toth. One bill he introduced also proposes making it a felony to provide gender-affirming care for minors.
Bills in other states have sought to restrict transgender people’s use of public restrooms and limit their ability to be called by the pronouns that reflect their gender identity.
In recent months, several of the Southern Baptists’ state affiliates have adopted resolutions embracing the overall thrust of the anti-trans bills.
A resolution approved by the Tennessee Baptist Convention depicted gender dysphoria as a “sexual perversion.”
The South Carolina Baptist Convention urged its followers “to resist speaking falsely and giving credence to the philosophies of the LGBTQ+ movement by adopting preferred pronouns that do not refer to a person’s created sex and biological makeup.” And the Southern Baptists of Texas cited a verse from Genesis in rejecting “any type of false doctrine or deceptive application related to gender identity and sexuality.”
In various communities across the U.S. — including Knoxville, Tennessee, and Madison, Wisconsin — interfaith groups of moderate and liberal religious leaders have held events to show support for transgender people and denounce the wave of anti-trans legislation.
In Pasadena, California, one such event took place on March 31, bringing together Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders for a news conference at All Saints Church, home to an Episcopal congregation that embraces LGBTQ inclusion.
Even though California’s Democratic-controlled legislature would not approve any anti-trans measures, an organizer of the event said it was important to speak out in support of trans people in states enacting such bills.
“If our voices can be heard by some trans kid in Kentucky, realizing there are faith leaders who’ve got their back, they might hang on a little bit longer,” said the Rev. Pat Langlois, senior pastor of Metropolitan Community Church United Church of Christ in the Valley.
“These bills are the most vitriolic and cruel legislation I’ve seen,” she said. “I have a non-binary teenager, so I take this really personally, not just as a person of faith and as a lesbian, but as a mom.”
Langlois, whose LGBTQ activism spans several decades, described the current situation as “probably the scariest time” because of the array of hostile bills.
Her worries were compounded on May 4, when the rector of All Saints, Mike Kinman, told his congregation that the church had received two threats — that a bomb would be detonated during Sunday worship, and that someone would come to a service with a gun to kill the pastor.
In response, Kinman said the church would be deploying security guards, requesting that police conduct a sweep of church property before the services and closing the church balcony to the public.
The leader of one of the largest mainline Protestant denominations, the Rev. Elizabeth Eaton of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, has condemned the anti-trans bills as an attack on trans people’s humanity.
“While members of our church hold various convictions regarding gender, the teaching of our church supports legislation and policies to protect every person’s human dignity and civil rights,” Eaton said in a recent statement. “Our church teaches that we affirm transgender and nonbinary siblings as God’s children.”
As for U.S. Catholics, there are diverse views among church personnel.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has told Catholic hospitals they must not perform “interventions, whether surgical or chemical, that aim to transform the sexual characteristics of a human body into those of the opposite sex.”
Christine Zuba, a transgender woman who lives in New Jersey, was disappointed that transgender people weren’t even mentioned in the USCCB’s 14-page document, except in a footnote.
“All we ask is listen to us,” she said. “Open your hearts and try to understand.”
Yet some parish priests — including Zuba’s pastor — have welcomed transgender people into their congregations, and honored their decisions to transition. In March, several thousand Catholic nuns, representing orders across the U.S., signed a statement urging people to oppose anti-transgender legislation in their states.
“As members of the body of Christ, we cannot be whole without the full inclusion of transgender, nonbinary, and gender-expansive individuals,” the statement said.
__
By DAVID CRARY AP National Writer
Associated Press religion coverage receives support through the AP’s collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content.
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (CN) — In a move that will almost certainly draw a legal challenge, the Missouri House of Representatives on Wednesday approved a ban on puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender minors.
The state’s Republican-dominated Legislature also signed off on a measure requiring athletes to compete on school sports teams aligned with their sex assigned at birth.
The legislation affects transgender adults by prohibiting Medicaid payments for hormone therapy, puberty blockers and gender surgeries. It also prohibits gender surgeries for prisoners, and blocks surgeries for minors completely. Doctors who treat patients in violation of the law would be subject to professional discipline and civil liability.
Patients being treated with puberty blockers or hormone therapy before the law takes effect would be able to continue treatment through 2027.
The measures have been sent to Governor Mike Parson for his approval. Parson, a Republican, is expected to sign the restrictions after threatening to keep lawmakers in a special session if the measures weren’t passed by Friday.
Once Parson signs the bills, the restrictions will take effect Aug. 28. Most of the restrictions are set to expire in four years.
Missouri will join a wave of other red states including neighboring Arkansas, Kentucky and Oklahoma that have approved limits on gender-affirming care for minors.
Supporters of the restrictions claims minors lack the life experience to make such life-altering decisions and will regret going through transgender treatment later in life.
Opponents claim the bans are nothing but an attack on the transgender community and Republicans are interfering with private medical decisions.
House Republicans originally wanted a more restrictive measure that would immediately block all gender-affirming care for minors, but Democrats were able to work in a four-year window to allow current patients to continue treatment.
Gender-affirming care has become a hot-button topic in Missouri immediately after it became the first state to outlaw abortion just minutes after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year.
“It just seems unfair to the child,” Representative Lane Roberts, a Republican from Joplin, told Courthouse News during a phone interview in March. “Most parents of either persuasion, whether conservative or liberal, probably want to protect their children. But there are those who, for one reason or another, seem to want to abdicate to the child. I don’t understand that.”
Democratic Senator Greg Razer, the only openly gay member of the state’s Senate, has been a vocal opponent of restrictions on gender-affirming care. He said the GOP has been using LGBTQ rights as a wedge issue for decades.
“And that’s bad enough, but at least I’m an adult,” Razer said in a March phone interview. “Attack me as an adult and I can defend myself. They’re taking children and the health care that children need on an issue that they don’t understand, and they will admit they don’t understand. So why are we legislating health care decisions over the advice of every major medical organization in the country?”
He also said the issue of transgender sports participation has been blown out of proportion.
“There are 311,000 Missouri students who participate in sanctioned middle and high school sports in Missouri,” Razer said. “Of those 311,000, approximately five are transgender. That means you are four times more likely to be struck by lightning than you are to be a trans kid on a sports team in Missouri.”
Razer and other Democrats worry that the bills are sending a message that transgender people aren’t welcome in Missouri, which could drive people from the state.
Katherine Sasser, a Columbia School District board member who has a transgender daughter, announced Monday that she was resigning and leaving the state due to the restrictions under consideration, the Columbia Daily Tribune reported.
In a separate matter, Attorney General Andrew Bailey, a Republican, became the first state attorney general to attempt to limit gender-affirming care when he announced emergency regulations prohibiting gender-affirming care on March 20. The restrictions, which apply to both minors and adults, include an 18-month waiting period, 15 hourlong psychiatric assessment sessions and a requirement that any mental conditions are “resolved” before Missouri doctors can provide gender-affirming care.
Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit challenging the orders in the St. Louis County. That case is still pending, with a hearing set for June 20 and a temporary restraining order in place until June 24.
Neither Bailey’s office nor Lambda Legal immediately responded to a request for comment on whether the newly passed laws would affect that litigation.
