South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley joined a coalition of seven states this week challenging a Biden administration rule that would preempt South Dakota’s ban on gender-affirming care.
The rule seeks to add protections to a section of the Affordable Care Act that prevent health care providers who discriminate on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation from receiving federal funding as payment. The states say that the rule conflicts with their states’ restrictions on gender-affirming care for minors.
That South Dakota politicians continue to use trans youth as a political punching bag is not surprising, the ACLU of South Dakota said. In May, Jackley joined five other state attorneys general filing suit against the U.S. Department of Education over updated regulations that make it clear that Title IX covers harassment and discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity and sex stereotypes.
But this case isn’t just about enforcing South Dakota’s ban on gender-affirming care. It’s about the harmful rhetoric surrounding the question of whether providers should be allowed to discriminate against a broader group of people, including trans adults.
The following statement can be attributed to Samantha Chapman, ACLU of South Dakota advocacy manager:
“Federal courts and agencies have recognized that existing sex discrimination bans also prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity – but that’s exactly what Marty Jackley is doing on behalf of the state of South Dakota.
“This case isn’t just about gender-affirming health care. It’s about the legacy of discrimination and devaluation and a rejection of our shared humanity in our state.
“Every person has the right to express themselves, control their bodies, and seek the health care they need free of discrimination and prejudice from the government. No one should be denied health care simply because of who they are.
“The ACLU envisions a world in which all LGBTQ+ people can live openly, freely and fully without discrimination, harassment or violence. It’s unfortunate that South Dakota is actively litigating against that and, in doing so, harming some of the most vulnerable people in our state.”
Comments