Trump judge blocks Indiana law against gender-affirming care for minors

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

53% : The statute authorizes any individual to sue, although the normal means of enforcement would be proceedings by the medical licensing board.
52% : Restrictions on speech protected by the First Amendment are subjected to a higher level of scrutiny than sex discrimination claims, placing an even higher burden of justification on the state.
48% : Because he found the equal protection claims by the minor plaintiffs and the free speech claim by Dr. Bast sufficient to justify a preliminary injunction, Judge Hanlon did not address the plaintiffs' argument that SEA 480 violates the parents' due process rights, or issues raised under the Medicaid law and the Affordable Care Act.
43% : In this case, the plaintiffs have presented evidence of the harms to transgender minors if they don't get gender-affirming care, which are substantial: "prolonging of their dysphoria, and causing additional distress and health risks, such as depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and suicidality.""So," concluded Judge Hanlon, "while the State has identified legitimate reasons for regulation in this area, the designated evidence does not demonstrate, at least at this stage, that the extent of its regulation was closely tailored to uphold those interests.

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.