Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey (R) and six other states are suing to avoid the implementation of a federal rule that expands nondiscrimination rules to include transgender people. This lawsuit comes shortly after a federal judge issued a injunction last week against the rule in a separate federal case.
“Joe Biden is once again exceeding his legal authority to force his radical transgender ideology on the American people,” Bailey wrote in a press release. “His administration is threatening to hold federal funding hostage to any healthcare provider who refuses to perform or affirm harmful and irreversible transgender procedures.”
In May, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) unveiled a final set of sweeping changes to Section 1557, the nondiscrimination provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The changes expand the definition of the sex discrimination rule to include discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Under the rule, doctors and health insurance companies cannot turn away patients or refuse coverage for gender-affirming care.
If state health plans and services do not comply with this rule, your access to federally funded programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) may be cut off.
The rule was supposed to take effect on July 5, but a federal judge in Mississippi issued a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit filed by 15 Republican states against it. Missouri’s new lawsuit is another attempt to block the rule.
If Mississippi’s ruling is overturned on appeal, a ruling in Missouri’s favor would still prevent implementation of the rule. Conflicting rulings in different circuits can also speed up the process of a matter reaching the U.S. Supreme Court. Mississippi is in the 5th Circuit and Missouri is in the 8th Circuit.
Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota and Utah have joined Missouri’s new process.
“HHS threatens to punish doctors and states that do not comply with the mandate by imposing huge financial penalties and excluding them from federally funded health programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP),” the researchers wrote. states in the process. . “This punishment would effectively prevent doctors and states from providing health care to the most vulnerable children in low-income communities.”
States argue that there is no basis for expanding the ACA to protect transgender people and have complained that there was no such mandate when they began receiving federal funds for Medicaid, Medicare and CHIP.
The Human Rights Campaign and the Biden administration have criticized previous attempts to block this rule from being implemented, with HHS saying the rule’s updated definition of sex discrimination is in line with a 2020 Supreme Court ruling that protects employees from discrimination. based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
“The discrimination that LGBTQ+ people will continue to experience under this injunction is indefensible,” Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson said in the July 3 injunction against the rule. “Everyone deserves access to the medical care they need to be healthy and thrive. Instead, this court has sided with fringe groups and politicians who want to intimidate our community at every opportunity.”
The Hill has reached out to HHS for comment.
This story originally appeared on thehill.com read the full story
