The Legislature did not make gender-affirming care unlawful, nor did it make the treatments unlawful for all minors. Instead, it restricted a broad swath of medical treatments only when sought for a particular purpose. The record indicates that Provider Plaintiffs, or other medical professionals providing gender-affirming care, are recognized as competent in the medical community to provide that care. The law puts governmental regulation in the mix of an individual's fundamental right 'to make medical judgments affecting her or his bodily integrity and health in partnership with a chosen health care provider.'
The District Court made no error of law and did not manifestly abuse its discretion. We affirm its grant of a preliminary injunction on the basis of Plaintiffs' right to privacy claim. The case will proceed to trial, at which point the District Court will finally resolve the disputed facts and issue a final determination on the constitutional issues presented.
Collection
[
|
...
]