Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador blasted a liberal federal judge’s ruling blocking the state’s ban on gender-transition drugs and procedures for minors, accusing him of placing children “at risk of irreversible harm.”
Mr. Labrador, a Republican, unleashed on U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill, a Clinton appointee, vowing to appeal the decision and comparing it to the now-discredited eugenics movement of the early 20th century.
“The federal judiciary once endorsed the eugenics movement and forced sterilization of intellectually disabled people,” Mr. Labrador said in a Wednesday statement.
“Similarly, Judge Winmill’s ruling places children at risk of irreversible harm. History will not look kindly at this decision,” he warned.
Judge Winmill granted a preliminary injunction Tuesday against the Idaho law known as House Bill 71, which bars those under 18 from accessing puberty blockers, hormones and surgeries.
The law’s constitutionality is now pending the outcome of a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of two Idaho families.
HB 71, which was signed by Idaho Gov. Brad Little in May, was slated to take effect Jan. 1. Medical providers violating the law would face felony charges and up to 10 years in prison.
“Yesterday, a federal judge preliminarily enjoined an Idaho law that protects young girls and boys from being experimentally treated with mastectomies, penectomies, puberty blockers, and other irreversible and untested treatments,” Mr. Labrador’s office said.
“The federal Court for the District of Idaho held that the U.S. Constitution forbids Idaho from banning these mutilating procedures that have been largely rejected, even in many European countries,” the office said.
Twenty-one states have passed laws banning gender-transition drugs and surgeries for those under 18 — Arizona also has a law prohibiting surgeries only — prompting a slew of legal challenges.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in September that the Tennessee and Kentucky laws banning gender-transition treatment for minors may remain in effect as lawsuits play out, siding with judges who rejected efforts to block the laws temporarily.
In August, a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the Alabama law to take effect, finding that the state has “a compelling interest in protecting children from drugs, particularly those for which there is uncertainty regarding benefits, recent surges in use, and irreversible effects.”
Mr. Labrador’s office pointed to those decisions in calling the district court’s block on the Idaho law unreasonable.
“What’s most telling is that the district court refused to follow precedent from two other circuit courts of appeals that have affirmed a State’s right to protect children from these experimental surgeries,” said Mr. Labrador’s office in a statement. “It is hard to overstate the magnitude of the court’s error.”
AG @Raul_Labrador : “The federal judiciary once endorsed the eugenics movement and forced sterilization of intellectually disabled people. Similarly, Judge Winmill’s ruling places children at risk of irreversible harm. History will not look kindly at this decision. We are taking…
— Idaho GOP (@IdahoGOP) December 28, 2023
Federal judges in Florida and Indiana have blocked similar laws from taking effect pending litigation.
Judge Winmill found that Idaho’s Vulnerable Child Protection Act violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment.
“Transgender children should receive equal treatment under the law,” said Judge Winmill in the 53-page ruling. “Parents should have the right to make the most fundamental decisions about how to care for their children.”
Cheering the decision was ACLU of Idaho Executive Director Leo Morales, who called it “a much-needed ray of hope for trans people amid a years-long onslaught against their rights to access health care.”
“Everyone should be free to live and thrive in their authentic identity, which means transgender people should not be shut out of accessing medically sound health care,” said Mr. Morales in a Wednesday statement.
In August, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied Idaho’s effort to enforce its first-in-the nation 2020 law prohibiting male-born athletes from competing in girls’ and women’s sports.
• This article was based in part on wire-service reports.
• Valerie Richardson can be reached at vrichardson@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.