Judge Charles Wilson, in his dissent, highlighted that the majority's decision fails to recognize the 'transgender animus' evident in the case, suggesting a bias in favoring a stay. He emphasized the thoroughness of the district court's analysis and argued that a close issue should not warrant a stay that undermines thoughtful decision-making.
The 11th Circuit Court's ruling enforces significant restrictions on gender-affirming care, with Judge Hinkle's original ruling aimed at protecting the access for vulnerable families disrupted by the ban.
The decision from the majority was driven by the Trump-appointed judges, raising concerns about potential biases in judicial decisions impacting vulnerable communities seeking gender-affirming care.
With minors unable to access vital medical services such as hormone replacement therapy or surgeries, the new rulings create barriers and thrust many families into uncertainty regarding their health options.
Collection
[
|
...
]