By Clara Bates & Annelise Hanshaw | JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey this week joined with 18 other states to oppose a proposed federal rule that aims to protect LGBTQ youth in foster care and provide them with necessary services.

The attorneys general argue in a letter to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services that the proposed rule — which requires states to provide safe and appropriate placements with providers who are appropriately trained about the child’s sexual orientation or gender identity  — amounts to religion-based discrimination and violates freedom of speech.

“As a foster parent myself,” Bailey said in a news release Tuesday, “I am deeply invested in protecting children and putting their best interests first.”

“Biden’s proposed rule does exactly the opposite by enacting policies meant to exclude people with deeply held religious beliefs from being foster parents.”

The rule is part of a package of federal proposals on foster care and is an extension of the Biden administration’s broader push to protect LGBTQ kids in foster care.

“Because of family rejection and abuse,” the Biden administration said in a September press release, LGBTQ children are “overrepresented in foster care where they face poor outcomes, including mistreatment and discrimination because of who they are.”

State agencies would be required under the rule to provide safe and appropriate foster care placements for those who are “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, intersex,” along with children who are “non-binary or have non-conforming gender identity or expression.”

A qualifying foster parent would need to be educated on the needs of the child’s sexuality or gender identity and, if the child wishes, “facilitate the child’s access to age-appropriate resources, services, and activities that support their health and well-being.”

An example of a safe and appropriate placement is one where a provider is “expected to utilize the child’s identified pronouns, chosen name, and allow the child to dress in an age-appropriate manner,” according to the proposal, “that the child believes reflects their self-identified gender identity and expression.”

The attorneys general characterize that as “forcing an individual to use another’s preferred pronouns by government fiat,” in violation of the First Amendment.

Robert Fischer, director of communications for Missouri LGBTQ advocacy organization PROMO, said the freedom of religion “doesn’t give any person the right to impose those beliefs on others, particularly to discriminate.” 

“Any state official who claims to put ‘children’s interests first’ and in the same breath is willing to risk their well-being and opportunity to thrive in the name of religion — I think that speaks for itself,” Fischer told The Independent. 

The rule prohibits retaliation against children who identify as LGBTQ or are perceived as LGBTQ.

Public agencies would need to notify children about the option to request foster homes identified as “safe and appropriate” and tell them how to report concerns about their placement.

Agencies would also have to go through extra steps before placing transgender, intersex and gender non-conforming children in group care settings that are divided by sex.

The “majority” of states, according to the proposed rule, would have to “expand their efforts” to recruit and identify providers who could meet the needs of LGBTQ children.

Missouri guidelines

Laws and policies for protecting LGBTQ youth in foster care — relating to kids’ rights, supports, placement considerations, caregiver qualifications and definitions — currently vary by state. 

According to a federal report published in January, which reviewed states’ laws and policies, Missouri does not have laws or policies explicitly addressing any of those five categories.

Most states — 39 states and Washington, D.C. — have “explicit protections from harassment or discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity or expression,” according to a federal report, as of January. Missouri is not one of them. 

Twenty-two  states and D.C. as of January, require agencies to provide tailored services and supports to LGBTQ youth, and eight states and D.C. offer case management and facilitate access to “gender-affirming medical, mental health and social services.”

Children’s Division, the agency within the Missouri Department of Social Services that oversees foster care, offers guidance on their website for providers and child welfare staff in “supporting LGBTQ youth in foster care,” but still does not appear to have official policy on the issue.

A spokesperson for the Missouri Department of Social Services did not respond to a request for comment. 

Those guidelines include using the child’s “preferred name and pronouns,” along with establishing a supportive environment and providing “physically and emotionally safe and supportive care and resources regardless of one’s personal attitudes and beliefs.”

The Department of Social Services is part of the administration of Missouri Gov. Mike Parson, and the guidelines were in place the entire time Bailey was serving as Parson’s general counsel — the second highest ranking job in the governor’s office.  

Bailey’s spokesperson did not immediately respond when asked whether he raised any objections to the guidelines during his tenure with Parson.

AG arguments

The 19 attorneys general contend the federal rule would “remove faith-based providers from the foster care system” because of their “religious beliefs on sexual orientation and gender identity.”

They cite Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, a U.S. Supreme Court case that ruled a public agency couldn’t force private, religious foster agencies to allow same-sex foster parents.

The proposed rule itself also acknowledges the Supreme Court case and alleges that by not requiring religious foster-care providers to welcome LGBTQ children, it is complying with the court’s precedent.

But the attorneys general do not believe this is enough. Their letter argues the proposal violates freedom of religion because those unwilling to support LGBTQ foster children “would be excluded from providing care to as many as one-third of foster children ages 12-21.”

“In addition to discriminating against religion, the proposed rule will harm children by limiting the number of available foster homes, harm families by risking kinship placements, and harm states by increasing costs and decreasing care options,” the letter says.

The rule would “discourage individuals and organizations of faith from joining or continuing in foster care,” the attorneys general argue, and “reduce family setting options.” Without faith-based foster parents, the attorneys general say, children would be more likely to be placed in congregate settings.

They also say the rule could disqualify family members who volunteer as placement, or kinship care, if the family member does not agree to support the child’s sexuality or gender identity with age-appropriate resources, as the rule entails.

******************************************************************************************

Clara Bates covers social services and poverty. She previously wrote for the Nevada Current, where she reported on labor violations in casinos, hurdles facing applicants for unemployment benefits and lax oversight of the funeral industry. She also wrote about vocational education for Democracy Journal. Bates is a graduate of Harvard College and a member of the Report for America Corps.

Annelise Hanshaw writes about education — a beat she has covered on both the West and East Coast while working for daily newspapers in Santa Barbara, California, and Greenwich, Connecticut. A born-and-raised Missourian, she is proud to be back in her home state.

******************************************************************************************

The preceding article was previously published by the Missouri Independent and is republished with permission.

The Missouri Independent is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization dedicated to relentless investigative journalism and daily reporting that sheds light on state government and its impact on the lives of Missourians. This service is free to readers and other news outlets.

By Erin Reed | O’FALLON, Mo. –  The Francis Howell School District in suburban St. Louis, Missouri, one of the state’s largest, recently held a hearing regarding a new policy aimed at transgender students and their use of bathrooms.

This policy seeks to prevent transgender youth from using restrooms that match their gender identity, while offering only limited alternative options. Additionally, the policy contains provisions concerning the presence of litter boxes in bathrooms, a baseless rumor circulated by several far-right anti-trans websites that has been proven to be a hoax. The school district is scheduled to vote on this policy in November.

The new policy, Policy 2116, would mandate that transgender students may only utilize restrooms corresponding to the gender marker on their birth certificate. While it advises schools to establish a gender-neutral restroom, the policy only designates one such facility per school and does not require its presence on every floor.

The limited availability of gender-neutral restrooms has previously sparked concerns. Relying solely on them can inadvertently disclose a student’s transgender identity. Additionally, these facilities are often inconveniently located from classrooms and are occupied, leading to potential health complications from youth holding in their pee. Notably, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that “gender-neutral bathrooms” are not a constitutional substitute for allowing transgender individuals to use restrooms matching their gender identity due to these reasons.

The policy dismissively brushes aside these legitimate concerns. It goes so far as to penalize students for “abusing the privilege” of accessing single-use facilities after the imposed ban. If, for example, a student is repeatedly delayed due to the impracticality of such facilities, they risk being barred from using them altogether.

This could result in some schools pushing trans students to use bathrooms corresponding to their sex assigned at birth, simply because the only facility provided is too out of the way for practical use.

See this section of the policy here:

The policy doesn’t stop there. It specifically notes that “Except as necessary due to a physical or kinetic disability, only toilets and urinals shall be used to discharge human waste within restrooms or single-use restrooms.” This seems to allude to the unfounded “litter boxes in classrooms” myth, propagated by Libs of TikTok—a right-wing account notorious for fueling transphobic harassment and violence. The claim is that students “identifying as cats” have demanded litter boxes. To this day, no verified incidents of litter boxes being used in schools exist, except for an isolated case in the late 2010s where kitty litter was stored in classrooms as a precautionary measure during school shootings.

See the section on litter boxes here:

The organization responsible for the election of many of the candidates confirmed this in its published materials. Francis Howell Families, a right-wing organization opposing transgender rights and DEI initiatives, stated that the policy “mandates that only toilets and urinals can be used to dispose of human waste (in other words, no cat litter-boxes for staff to clean up).” The conservative PAC actively campaigns for school board members with anti-trans views and five school board members are backed by this organization.

This is not the first time Francis Howell Families candidates have taken controversial positions and actions. In July, the school board voted to do away with an anti-racism statement. The district is 87% white.

The transgender bathroom policy ignited a tumultuous hearing, drawing numerous people vehemently opposed to enacting it. Amy Easterling, an advocate from Francis Howell Forward, vocally criticized the policy, stating, “The first read of policy 2116 puts our transgender and gender non-conforming students in the crosshairs of a manufactured culture war.” She then chastised the board for succumbing to the litter box myth.

See her testimony:

Though it seems unlikely that this bill will be stopped via vote, it will almost certainly lead to a lawsuit. Becky Hormuth, another voice at the hearing and the parent of a transgender child, stated emphatically, “If this policy passes, my family has no choice but to seek further legal action against the Francis Howell board of education, because inclusivity is not only a moral imperative, it is also a legal one.” Such a policy might come at a steep financial cost for the school board, potentially over a million dollars as seen in other similar lawsuits. In November, the school board will have to weigh whether a policy that discriminates against transgender students is worth such a gamble.

****************************************************************************

Erin Reed is a transgender woman (she/her pronouns) and researcher who tracks anti-LGBTQ+ legislation around the world and helps people become better advocates for their queer family, friends, colleagues, and community. Reed also is a social media consultant and public speaker.

Follow her on Twitter (Link)

Website here: https://www.erininthemorning.com/

******************************************************************************************

The preceding article was first published at Erin In The Morning and is republished with permission.

By Erin Reed | SAINT LOUIS, Mo. – In February, Jamie Reed, a worker who handled patient intake forms and emails, brought forth a series of explosive allegations against the Washington University School of Medicine’s gender clinic.

Among these allegations were claims that the university was “harming” trans youth by supporting their transition and offering gender-affirming care. Her accusations, first seen in The Free Press, contained several misrepresentations about gender-affirming medical care. In the months that followed, a number of families have come forward, asserting that Reed has lied their care.

On Thursday, investigative reporters from KMOV4’s First Alert 4 team, after speaking with one such family, uncovered a pivotal inaccuracy that could damage Jamie Reed’s credibility: a trans teen’s liver damage was likely caused by a COVID medication, not the hormone blocking medication she was on.

In Jamie Reed’s allegations against the gender clinic, she claimed that one trans girl (who she intentionally misgenders and uses male pronouns for) was sent to another unit of the hospital and immediately taken off the drug after she experienced liver damage:

“As with most cancer drugs, bicalutamide has a long list of side effects, and this patient experienced one of them: liver toxicity. [She] was sent to another unit of the hospital for evaluation and immediately taken off the drug. Afterward, [her] mother sent an electronic message to the Transgender Center saying that we were lucky her family was not the type to sue.”

This allegation was one of a handful of claims that the gender affirming care clinic was harming trans youth despite following international protocol for their care. This claim even appeared in Reed’s sworn affidavit to Attorney General Andrew Bailey, who has personally opposed gender affirming care and who led an effort to ban such care for many transgender adults earlier this year, before those efforts were blocked in court.

You can see this allegation here:

The family provided medical records to the investigative team, demonstrating that the liver damage occurred after the intake of a COVID medication known to cause such harm, not from bicalutamide. Moreover, the family pointed out that Jamie Reed omitted a crucial part of their communication with the gender-affirming care clinic concerning the event.

In the lines following the section of their email mentioned in Jamie Reed’s accusations, the family wrote, “we don’t regret any decision and would never have denied our daughter these life-saving treatments.” Jamie Reed’s allegations indeed leave this portion of the email out of her reporting.

This is not the first time Reed’s allegations have come under dispute by families who were treated at the clinic.

An article in the Missouri Independent featured multiple families contesting her assertions. Several parents, for example, noted prolonged waits spanning months and numerous visits to receive care, contradicting Reed’s allegations of patients being rushed into treatment.

Another family highlighted that their trans child was advised to “put surgery out of your mind until you’re 18,” conflicting with Reed’s claim that the center made surgical referrals. Jess Jones, a colleague of Reed, corroborates this, mentioning the clinic never made such referrals. Jones further claims that Reed proposed patients undergo IQ tests to qualify for gender-affirming care, a procedure neither endorsed by any leading medical institution nor backed by scientific validation.

Despite this, Reed’s allegations have been used by those who oppose care for transgender youth. In Missouri, Senate Republicans cited Jamie Reed’s claims to pass a gender affirming care ban for trans youth in the state.

She has submitted sworn testimony in favor of gender affirming care bans for trans youth in other states, such as Indiana.

In Nebraska, a legislator incorrectly referred to Reed as a doctor, and stated that her allegations justify banning gender affirming care for trans youth. Her credibility directly has played a role in these bans.

Jamie Reed’s platform continues to grow among pseudoscience organizations like SEGM and Genspect, which are both holding conferences in the next month. She will be speaking at both of these conferences alongside noted anti-trans activists such as James Lindsey, who played a role in the proliferation of the “groomer” slur for LGBTQ+ people and allies, and Stella O’Malley, who has called transgender children fetishists who deserve “no empathy.”

For her former patients and trans youth worldwide, however, her platform comes at their expense, and her assertions, despite lacking credibility, have helped lead to a loss of their care.

****************************************************************************

Erin Reed is a transgender woman (she/her pronouns) and researcher who tracks anti-LGBTQ+ legislation around the world and helps people become better advocates for their queer family, friends, colleagues, and community. Reed also is a social media consultant and public speaker.

Follow her on Twitter (Link)

Website here: https://www.erininthemorning.com/

******************************************************************************************

The preceding article was first published at Erin In The Morning and is republished with permission.

NORTH KANSAS CITY, Mo. – In a recent interview with the Kansas City Star newspaper, 17-year-old Tristan Young described the joy she felt when two weeks ago her peers at suburban Oak Park High School had chosen her for their 2023 homecoming queen.

As the Young approached midfield at half-time in the game, along with the four other nominees, she told the Star she heard the roar of her classmates cheering and applauding at the sound of her name. She was chosen queen and for the transgender senior it was ‘the’ moment.

“I was so overwhelmed,” Young told the Star. “I thought I was never going to be in this position. And, in that moment, I had tears welling in my eyes because I just felt so supported. And I just felt like, this school wants me to be who I am, and not who other people want me to be.”

However, the next day Young was caught up in an explosion of transphobic hate speech and threats from across the United States.

The transphobic hate and threats was spread on Facebook, Instagram, and on X, formerly known as Twitter, where the notorious Libs of TikTok, a handle for the far-right anti-LGBTQ+ hate speech social-media accounts operated by Chaya Raichik- a former Brooklyn, New York real estate agent, spread the anti-trans messaging directed at Young.

Libs of TikTok has millions of followers and the account’s vitriol and hate speech has in the past fomented and instigated threats against the LGBTQ+ community and allies.

The Star also reported that with the deluge of hatred directed at the teenager, family members including a sister attending university in Boston became alarmed and called home.

“She was worried about Tristan being safe,” said Chari Young, the senior’s mother told the Star.

Responding to the threats Young told the paper,

“The comment that has stuck with me,” Young said, “was that I should have been dragged off the field by my hair and beaten up.”

While no one is certain how the news spread nationally, although once Raichik posted about young, the inevitable tsunami of hate followed. Ironically the Star reported that Young was in fact the second transwoman crowned homecoming queen at Oak Park High.

Nearly 8 years to the day on September 15, 2015, Landon Patterson, 18, was named homecoming queen.

Young told the paper that the hatred would not deter her from living her life authentically.

“I’m just not one of those people,” Young said. “I like to stay strong. I don’t really buckle unless something is really wrong. Right now, what’s happening is people are trying to turn a joyous thing into something that I should regret. But it’s going to stay a joyous thing.” She added that ‘Trans is beautiful.”

Local advocacy groups and others including former trans homecoming queen Patterson have rallied to the teen’s side.

Justice Horn, the chair of the Kansas City LGBTQ Commission, posted on X: “I uplift this against the transphobic comments against this young person.”

I want to pause and congratulate Tristan for being crowned Oak Park High School’s Homecoming Queen! 👑

I uplift this against the transphobic comments against this young person who was named queen by their peers. I’m thankful the next generation of Kansas City is so kind. 💓 https://t.co/MDpsuQJ14T

— Justice Horn (@JusticeHorn_) September 19, 2023

“I told her stay strong. You’re gorgeous. You’re beautiful. And no matter what these people say, they can’t take away this crown. They can’t take away this moment from you,” Patterson told The Star, adding, “Everything is amplified as a kid. Choosing yourself over everyone else’s opinion takes a lot of courage and bravery. … All these things that they said about her, that they said about me, what they say about trans people, it’s truly just ignorance. They probably don’t even know a trans person. They’re just saying things to be hateful. “Being trans is a reality. This is our life. It’s not going away.”

Additional reporting by the Kansas City Star and wire service reports.

Watch:

PLATTE CITY, Mo. — The American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri filed a lawsuit against Platte County School District for allegedly denying a transgender former student access to bathrooms matching her gender identity, the group announced on Tuesday.

The complaint argues the district’s policies and practices violated provisions of the Missouri Human Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the state’s constitution.

“Forcing transgender students to use the bathroom or locker room that matches their sex designated at birth is not only discrimination but dangerous and causes serious harm to Missouri’s youth,” said Gillian Wilcox, deputy director of litigation at the ACLU of Missouri, in a press release announcing the move.

The student “lives as a female and was living as a female when she was denied the use of the girls’ restroom at her school,” and received “a series of escalating punishments ranging from verbal warnings to out-of-school suspension” for noncompliance with the policy, according to the press release.

When she began using the boys’ restroom after serving a suspension, the student was harassed and threatened with rape, the ACLU of Missouri said. Suffering anxiety and depression, she was unable to return to school and finished her freshman year virtually.

The Movement Advancement Projects tracks laws across the country restricting trans people’s access to restrooms and facilities consistent with their gender identities. These range from statutes defining “sex” in ways that may impact access to Florida’s law that criminalizes the use of “bathrooms and facilities consistent with their gender identity in all schools, colleges and government-owned buildings and spaces.”

The ACLU of Missouri is challenging efforts to ban gender affirming care for minors through implementation of Senate Bill 49 and the state attorney general’s attempt to use consumer protection laws for this purpose, joined in litigation by Lambda Legal and the law firm Bryan Cave.

JEFFERSON CITY – Senate Bill 39, a law that bans transgender athletes, kindergarten through college, from participating in school-sanctioned team sports, and Senate Bill 49, a bill revoking access to gender-affirming healthcare for transgender minors and some adults, were signed by Republican Governor Mike Parson on Wednesday, June 7; Both measures will go into effect on August 28. 

According to the Saint Louis Post-Dispatch, Parson told capital reporters that he signed the measures without a ceremony and in private because “the issue is divisive to some.” 

Gov. Mike Parson signed legislation Wednesday adding Missouri to a list of states that ban gender-affirming health care for minors and prevent transgender girls and women from participating on female sports teams.https://t.co/R7aZPbSWBK

— St. Louis Post-Dispatch (@stltoday) June 8, 2023

Addressing SB49, Parson noted: “We support everyone’s right to his or her own pursuit of happiness; however, we must protect children from making life-altering decisions that they could come to regret in adulthood once they have physically and emotionally matured.”

Today, in an effort to protect the integrity of female sports and Missouri children from potentially harmful experimental surgeries and treatment, I have signed Senate Bill (SB) 39 and SB 49 into law. pic.twitter.com/NDbbkoq6gA

— Governor Mike Parson (@GovParsonMO) June 7, 2023

PROMO, Missouri’s LGBTQ+ public policy and advocacy organization, said in a statement:

“The final signature of the governor comes during the month-long Pride celebration across the country for the LGBTQ+ community, which recognizes the progress made in our community’s quest for equality, respect, and safety and the battles yet to come. These laws are not what Missourians want, and cities across our state have shown up to double down on protecting transgender youth and adults.”

The ACLU of Missouri issued the following statement:

“The anti-trans legislation Governor Parson penned into law will be devastating for trans people of all ages. While the government pushed this deceitful bill behind the guise of protecting children, buried within the law is a ban on health care for adults based on the amount of money they earn or whether they are incarcerated. 

“As was true with the Attorney General’s failed attempt to limit care for all trans Missourians with his emergency rule, Senate Bill 49 ignores the evidence-based clinical recommendations of every major medical association. This law strips patients and parents of their rights and requires that decisions related to medical treatment that should be based on consent informed by medical professionals be dictated by the uninformed opinions of politicians.

“In alarming fashion, legislators took extraordinary efforts to target and prevent eight students statewide from playing sports in SB 39, while choosing to not solve issues that would benefit all Missouri students such as Missouri’s teacher shortage.

“These bills do nothing but harm transgender Missourians and their families while adding inequities to a system already ripe with discriminatory laws and practices. The ACLU of Missouri will continue to explore all options to fight these bans and to expand the rights of trans Missourians.”

By Annelise Hanshaw | SAINT LOUIS – St. Louis Mayor Tishaura Jones on Thursday signed an executive order seeking to insulate transgender Missourians from bills passed by the state legislature restricting access to certain medical procedures for minors and limiting participation in school sports.

“The responsibility now falls to local governments to take tangible steps to respond to this state intrusion into private family medical decisions and minors’ bodily privacy,” she wrote in a letter to the city’s legislative delegation earlier in the day notifying them of her planned order.

Missouri lawmakers passed bills earlier this month banning minors from beginning gender-affirming hormones or puberty blockers for four years, starting in August, and restricting transgender athletes to competing on teams as their birth sex. Both bills await action by Gov. Mike Parson, who has indicated he intends to sign them into law. 

Jones’ order calls the bills “an abhorrent intrusion into personal freedom and liberty.”

She wrote that her executive order was crafted after “conversation and consultation with members of the LGBTQ+ community and our city departments” and expressed concern for families moving out of state because of state legislation.

The order calls for the city Department of Health to inform residents, including minors, about gender-affirming care. Jones plans for an annual “summit of health care providers and other individuals” to discuss the best practices for transgender health care.

The order would direct city agencies to inform residents, including minors, about gender-affirming care and allow athletes in city-funded recreation programs to compete according to their gender identity

It also allows transgender athletes in city-funded recreation programs to compete according to their gender identity, for she states that these programs must not require the disclosure of gender or one’s gender-affirming hormone treatment. The Missouri State High School Activities Association policy currently allows transgender athletes to compete according to their gender identity only if they have been taking cross-sex hormones.

City recreation centers would also have at least one all-gender restroom under her order, and staff would receive training on “affirming best practices.”

Buildings housing city administration are ordered to also have at least one all-gender restroom, and the city departments are directed to administer their services in a gender-affirming manner.

Jones prioritizes economic development in the order, stating future projects must support gender inclusivity.

She requests that the St. Louis Development Corp. advise how to incentivize inclusive business practices.

“All of our children in St. Louis deserve to know that there are still elected leaders out here fighting for them,” Susan Halla, president of transgender advocacy group TransParent, said in a news release. “I am grateful to Mayor Jones for instituting these important changes in the face of recent attacks on trans youth from the Missouri legislature. For our trans youth, please know that you are seen and you are loved for who you are.”

Earlier this month, the Kansas City Council resolved that the city would be a “safe haven” for gender-affirming care. The resolution directs city staff, including law enforcement, from penalizing those seeking gender-affirming care or providing it.

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey called the city council’s actions “unprecedented and radical” in a letter to the Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners. In it, he urged the board to make sure police enforce the new law when it goes into effect. 

The bill does not have criminal penalties for those who seek care, so it is outside the police’s enforcement, Kansas City Police Chief Stacey Graves said in a statement to the Kansas City Star.

Rep. Peter Merideth, D-St. Louis, told The Independent he was proud to be a St. Louis resident after the mayor signed her order.

“Government should be supporting folks’ access to quality medical care, not interfering with our private medical decisions,” he said. “Our leaders should be fighting for all kids to be included in activities like sports and have an opportunity to succeed — not bullying kids who are too often already bullied and left out.”

****************************************************************************************

Annelise Hanshaw writes about education — a beat she has covered on both the West and East Coast while working for daily newspapers in Santa Barbara, California, and Greenwich, Connecticut. A born-and-raised Missourian, she is proud to be back in her home state.

MORE FROM AUTHOR

************************************************************************************

The preceding article was previously published by The Missouri Independent and is republished with permission.

The Missouri Independent is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization dedicated to relentless investigative journalism and daily reporting that sheds light on state government and its impact on the lives of Missourians. This service is free to readers and other news outlets.

KANSAS CITY, Mo. – By a 12 to 1 vote, the city council approved a resolution Thursday to declare it a sanctuary for people seeking or providing gender-affirming care.

The action was taken a day after the Republican majority statehouse sent two bills to Missouri Republican Governor Mike Parson that will restrict trans residents’ access to healthcare and prohibit them from participating in school sports.

“Kansas City government is committed to ensuring Kansas City is a welcoming, inclusive, and safe place for everyone, including our transgender and LGBTQ+ community. After the Missouri state legislature introduced several bills criminalizing access to gender affirming healthcare across Missouri, I am proud City Council took action and approved the “safe haven” resolution to take steps, within our legal power, to protect our transgender community and anyone seeking gender-affirming care,” Mayor Quinton Lucas said. “For decades, Kansas City has been at the forefront of our region, ensuring we have equality for all, and we will continue to do everything in our power to fight for equal rights for all in our city, no matter what happens at our state capitol.”

A spokesperson for the City noted that the resolution directs City personnel to not criminally prosecute or impose administrative penalties on an individual or organization for providing, seeking, receiving, or assisting another individual who is seeking gender-affirming healthcare.

If a law is put into place by the State of Missouri which imposes criminal punishment, civil liability, administrative penalties, or professional sanctions on an individual or organization against gender-affirming healthcare, City staff are now directed to make this their lowest priority. The Kansas City, Missouri Police Department is encouraged to adopt a similar policy.

“Today, we reiterate our commitment to a diverse and inclusive Kansas City that is welcoming to all. As a woman and a mother, I strongly feel that personal health care decisions should be reserved for individuals, families, and their physicians without influence from politicians,” Councilwoman Andrea Bough, the resolution’s sponsor said. “Public service should be about helping the community not harming individuals. Today we are proclaiming to our Transgender and LGBTQ community that you are safe with us.”

“This is an important first step in Kansas City’s commitment to trans and nonbinary people. This resolution is critical to protecting health outcomes for trans people and it’s important to remember that gender affirming health care is still out of reach for many trans communities, including many trans people of color – especially trans women and femmes of color, poor trans people, and trans youth living in unsupportive homes” Merrique Jenson, founder of Transformations KC said. “I look forward to trans leaders and Kansas City working together to address the health disparities in our communities and ways we can have sustainable funding & programming reaching all trans people.”

The two bills, once signed by the governor would make Missouri the 17th state to enact bans on gender-affirming healthcare.

Senate Bill 39 will ban “all transgender student athletes from kindergarten through college from being able to play sports on sanctioned school teams that align with their gender identity.”

The law would apply to public, private, and charter schools, which risk losing state funding for noncompliance.

Senate Bill 49, meanwhile, “bans gender affirming surgery for anyone under 18,” along with “access to transgender affirming care for minors who are not already on a prescribed path for healthcare.”

Additionally, under the law,” Medicaid will no longer be able to cover gender affirming healthcare for children or adults” and “people who are incarcerated will no longer have access to any gender affirming care while they are in state custody.”

Sherae Honeycutt, the Press Secretary for the City noted that Kansas City has lengthy record of standing support for its LGBTQ+ residents:

• In 2023, the City hosted its first Transgender Day of Visibility event hosting Admiral Rachel Levine, the highest ranking Transgender person in the Federal Government as the Assistant Secretary for Health.
• In 2023, the City added gender-affirming treatments and procedures to the City’s employee Healthcare plan.
• In 2021 & 2022, the City received a perfect score on the Municipal Equality Index from the Human Rights Campaign which measures how a municipality supports the LGBTQ+ community as a whole.
• In 2021, City Manager Brian Platt and LGBTQ+ Commission partnered to install four Pride Progress rainbow themed crosswalks at 39th & Summit.
• In 2021, the City flew the Progress Pride Flag atop City Hall.
• In 2021, City Manager Brian Platt developed an all-gender restroom policy for city buildings.
• In 2020, the City established the LGBTQ Commission to help broaden perspectives and assist in the guidance of initiatives, issues, polices, and legislation.
• In 2019, the City Council banned conversion therapy and “reparative therapy.”
• In 2018, KC Proud, the City’s first LGBTQ+ employee resource group was established.
• In 1993, the City Council adopted an anti-discrimination ordinance.

JEFFERSON CITY – The Republican controlled Missouri legislature on Wednesday sent bills to the state’s Gov. Mike Parson (R) that will restrict trans residents’ access to healthcare and prohibit them from participating in school sports.

“It’s an incredibly devastating day for transgender Missourians, for families raising transgender youth, and for all of Missouri,” said Shira Berkowitz, senior public policy director for PROMO Missouri, the statewide LGBTQ advocacy organization, in a video shared on Twitter.

Today is a devastating day for trans Missourians, families raising trans youth, BIPOC & trans women of color who will see an increase in violence, and rural trans Missourians with less resources available. Our state government is waging an all-out war on trans Missourians. pic.twitter.com/lkNtmWRHx3

— PROMO Missouri (@PROMOMissouri) May 10, 2023

According to PROMO, S.B. 39 will ban “all transgender student athletes from kindergarten through college from being able to play sports on sanctioned school teams that align with their gender identity.”

The law would apply to public, private, and charter schools, which risk losing state funding for noncompliance.

S.B. 49, meanwhile, “bans gender affirming surgery for anyone under 18,” along with “access to transgender affirming care for minors who are not already on a prescribed path for healthcare.”

Additionally, under the law,”Medicaid will no longer be able to cover gender affirming healthcare for children or adults” and “people who are incarcerated will no longer have access to any gender affirming care while they are in state custody.”

Saint Louis Rabbi Daniel Bogard, who is raising a trans son and has been active in advocacy over the state’s anti-trans legislation, condemned the move in a tweet Wednesday.

I hate them so much. And I hate that I hate them. May the grandchildren of the Republican politicians passing these bigoted bills grow up to be ashamed of who their grandparents were. Yimach shemam #ProtectTransKids #SB49 #DarkDayInMissouri

— Rabbi Daniel Bogard (@RavBogard) May 10, 2023

By Annelise Hanshaw | CLAYTON, Mo. – Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey is still blocked from enforcing an emergency rule limiting gender-affirming care after a St. Louis County judge granted a 14-day temporary restraining order Monday.

The lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri and Lambda Legal, alleges that Bailey abused the state’s consumer protection law to create the emergency order. If the attorney general is allowed to place restrictions on gender-affirming care, the lawsuit contends, their five plaintiffs will face harm, like possible infertility or not being able to continue medical treatment.

Circuit Court Judge Ellen Ribaudo ruled Monday that plaintiffs proved they would be harmed by the emergency rule, and the court will have to decide whether Bailey could use the consumer protection law, known as the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, to regulate gender-affirming care.

“This is a novel use of the attorney general’s power to promulgate emergency rules under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act that has never previously been subjected to judicial scrutiny and may impermissibly invade a function reserved to the legislature,” Ribaudo wrote in her order.

Ribaudo scheduled a hearing for 1 p.m. on May 11 to determine whether the court will place a preliminary injunction, which would stop the emergency rule until the completion of the lawsuit.

The rule was originally scheduled to go into effect last Friday, but Ribaudo blocked it until today to give both sides a chance to make their case regarding a temporary restraining order.

Inside the attorney general’s argument

Solicitor General Josh Divine wrote in a 62-page response to the plaintiff’s request for a restraining order that the emergency rule was inspired by three things: “Emerging international consensus” on potential dangers of gender-affirming care, a growing number of transgender youth and an independent investigation by the Missouri Attorney General into the state’s gender-affirming care centers.

He repeats allegations from Jamie Reed, a former case worker at the Washington University Transgender Center who has lately been asking legislators to ban gender-affirming care for minors.

Reed’s allegations have been countered by Washington University, which denied wrongdoing after an internal investigation, and Transgender Center patients and parents who spoke to The Independent about the care process.

Divine advocates for “talk therapy” in the court filing and alleges that some gender-affirming-care providers skip this step before prescribing puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones. The attorney general office’s argument alleges some trangender people may not want medical intervention after talk therapy.

“Without the benefit of well-established talk therapy, many individuals are chemically transitioning who would never have felt the need to do so had they been guaranteed access to basic talk therapy care,” Divine writes.

Talk therapy is encouraged by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), Divine says, though he cites WPATH’s seventh edition of its standards of care, not its most updated recommendations. 

Plaintiff’s argument also leans on WPATH’s standards of care, which are endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry and the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Population Affairs.

But Divine criticizes WPATH as a “self-described activist organization” with “low-quality evidence,” despite also citing the organization.

His argument refers to international agencies’ critique of gender-affirming care in youth as “the elephant in the room” that plaintiffs don’t acknowledge.

Plaintiffs’ argument instead focuses on the decades of gender-affirming care in the United States.

“The rule fails to explain how medical care that has existed for decades now suddenly constitutes an emergency demanding immediate non-legislative action,” the original lawsuit says.

The ACLU of Missouri and Lambda Legal also note in the original petition that the emergency rule affects adults, despite press releases from the attorney general stating he was intending to protect children.

Divine addresses the emergency rule’s scope by arguing that “talk therapy is beneficial for all individuals.”

“Had the attorney general limited the regulation to 16- and 17-year- olds, plaintiffs no doubt would have attacked it as arbitrary and underinclusive for removing protections from patients as soon as they turn 18,” he also wrote.

The case may come down to whether the attorney general has the authority to enact the emergency rule under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.

The ACLU of Missouri and ACLU say the rule oversteps the law’s bounds, but Divine writes that the law covers “medical goods and services.”

“The invocation of the MMPA as authority to implement the emergency rule for the explicit purpose of prohibiting or limiting medical care to patients of any age presents an issue of first impression for the courts,” Ribaudo wrote in her order Monday.

********************************************************************************

ANNELISE HANSHAW writes about education — a beat she has covered on both the West and East Coast while working for daily newspapers in Santa Barbara, California, and Greenwich, Connecticut. A born-and-raised Missourian, she is proud to be back in her home state.

************************************************************************************

The preceding article was previously published by The Missouri Independent and is republished with permission.

The Missouri Independent is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization dedicated to relentless investigative journalism and daily reporting that sheds light on state government and its impact on the lives of Missourians. This service is free to readers and other news outlets.