"Left to stand, the panel’s reasoning could amount to judicially-endorsed regulation of transgender people’s liberty to be themselves," lawyers for the plaintiffs wrote.
Oh lord, that panel had gotten past my radar. Gee. if a law is OK if " it denies coverage to everyone for certain services when sought to treat a given medical diagnosis" then exclusion of prostate surgery from Medicaid would be just fine, right? No issue of discrimination against males at all.
Thanks for the coverage here; this has been one of the more concerning developments of many in recent months for trans folks, and your article explains exactly why. Hoping the appeal will be taken up. From what you've laid out, it'd seem pretty egregious not to, so I have hope!
Oh lord, that panel had gotten past my radar. Gee. if a law is OK if " it denies coverage to everyone for certain services when sought to treat a given medical diagnosis" then exclusion of prostate surgery from Medicaid would be just fine, right? No issue of discrimination against males at all.
Judge Julias Richardson is a he, not a she.
Pardon the misspelling. Judge Julius Richardson is a he, not a she.
Yes? Did I get it wrong somewhere?
Ah, I found one instance. Fixed.
Thank you so much for this excellent coverage of an extremely important case.
Thanks for the coverage here; this has been one of the more concerning developments of many in recent months for trans folks, and your article explains exactly why. Hoping the appeal will be taken up. From what you've laid out, it'd seem pretty egregious not to, so I have hope!