A California judge pauses a school policy on disclosure of pronouns, the supreme court says ban on gender-affirming care can pass in Texas, and a Georgia judge allows gender-affirming care ban.
Judge Pauses School Policy On Disclosure of Pronouns
A Southern California school district’s policy on notifying parents regarding their children’s preferred pronouns has been paused due to a judicial ruling, according to NBC News.
Attorney General Rob Bonta sued the Chino Valley Unified School District over their policy of informing parents when their children use different pronouns or a bathroom that doesn’t correspond to their assigned sex at birth.
San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge Thomas S. Garza ruled on Sept. 6 that the policy must be paused until the lawsuit concludes.
“Today’s decision by the San Bernardino Superior Court rightfully upholds the state rights of our LGBTQ+ students and protects kids from harm by immediately halting the board’s forced outing policy,” Bonta said in a statement.
Supreme Court: Ban on Gender-Affirming Care Can Pass
Photo via Adobe Stock.
According to CNN, the Texas Supreme Court ruled against a district court judge’s pause on a state law restricting gender-affirming care for minors on Aug. 31, allowing the law to take effect on Sept. 1.
Senate Bill 14 bans most minors from receiving gender-affirming care such as hormone replacement therapy and puberty blockers, with exceptions for intersex patients. Medical providers would have their license revoked under the law if they offer these treatments to patients.
“Let’s be clear: Trans youth are loved and belong in Texas,” the ACLU of Texas said in a post on X, previously named Twitter. “We won’t stop until this cruel ban is struck down.”
Federal Judge Allows Gender-Affirming Care Ban
Photo via PxHere.
According to CNN, a federal judge reversed a block on enforcement of a Georgia law that banned gender-affirming care for minors on Sept. 5.
US District Judge Sarah Geraghty ruled last month that the law was “likely” unconstitutional. After an appellate court supported a similar Alabama law, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia cited the decision and allowed enforcement of the ban to resume.
“It is undisputed that this Court’s preliminary injunction order rests on legal grounds that have been squarely rejected by the panel in Eknes-Tucker [the Alabama decision], and that this Court’s injunction cannot stand on the bases articulated in the order,” Geraghty wrote in her order.
“The Court deems it prudent to await further developments in Eknes-Tucker before adjudicating the motion to reconsider,” she continued.
