Washington, D.C. — A new Center for American Progress column examines how Idaho v. United States and Poe v. Labrador are interconnected—as are the threats they pose to abortion and transgender medical care in Idaho and across the country. The connections between these cases reveal that patients and medical providers bear the ultimate consequences when political actors and a far-right judiciary fuel the politicization of medicine. These five connections include:
- Chief strategist behind these cases: Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is the principal litigator defending the state of Idaho in both cases and has been the chief strategist behind eradicating access to abortion and transgender medical care across the entire country.
- Criminalization of medical providers: Both cases demonstrate how medical providers in Idaho are forced to live under the threat of severe criminal and civil sanctions for simply doing their job.
- Chilling effects on medical providers: Idaho is now grappling with a dearth of maternal care professionals and available facilities. In terms of transgender medical care access in Idaho, H.B. 71—the law at issue, which functions as a statewide ban on transgender medical care for youth—began causing delays in accessing gender-affirming care even before going into effect. Now, it will be even harder for patients to access this lifesaving care.
- Cherry-picked evidence: In both cases, conservative judges and ADF are cherry-picking their evidence that suits their personal ideologies and ignoring robust scientific evidence.
- Carve-out exceptions to existing law: If carve-out exceptions to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) are allowed, it also paves the way for medical providers to refuse any emergency medical care to transgender people—even if the care is not related to gender-affirming care.
“Conservative judges and ADF are cherry-picking evidence in support of their personal ideology and throwing scientific evidence to the wayside, thereby threatening access to crucial abortion and gender-affirming care, which will have a ripple effect across the country,” said Sabrina Talukder, director of the Women’s Initiative at CAP and co-author of the column. “To mitigate the politicization of medicine and protect patients and medical providers, we must in turn stop the politicization of the judiciary.”
“Transgender medical care is medically necessary and lifesaving. Like other medical care, treatment for gender dysphoria is not one-size-fits-all. Decisions on care should be made by the patient and their medical team, not the judiciary,” said Cait Smith, director of LGBTQI+ Policy at CAP and co-author of the column. “Transgender people, like everyone else, deserve access to the medical care they need.”
Read the column: “5 Connections Between Attacks on Abortion Care and Transgender Medical Care in Idaho Court Cases” by Sabrina Talukder and Cait Smith
For more information or to speak with an expert, please contact Sarah Nadeau [email protected].