States move to restrict transgender adult care amid gender-affirming youth care battles
After months of targeting transgender youth medical care, legislators in some states are now setting their sights on restricting funding for care for transgender adults.
Lawmakers in at least eight states are seeking to restrict state or public funds from being used for gender-affirming care, limiting a patient's ability to use Medicaid to help pay: Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia.
For Mason Kalinsky, that would mean he may no longer be able to access the hormone therapy that he has been taking for roughly three years. Kalinsky, a 27-year-old transgender activist in Kentucky, told ABC News in an interview that hormone therapy changed his life.
Before accessing hormone therapy, Kalinsky said he and his doctors tried a slew of medications including antidepressants to address his mental health challenges, including his struggles with addiction.
Hormone therapy and gender-affirming care made him feel "more awake and alive in my body in a way that no other medication had," Kalinsky said.
"It's a necessary medication for me," he said. "And this bill, if it passes, would mean that I would no longer be able to get this care, as would a lot of other people who also have insurance that is in some way paid for by the public."
MORE: Trans youth care ban vetoed by Kansas governor again
Kentucky state Rep. Josh Calloway, a Republican, is one of the legislators behind the Kentucky bill. He told ABC News in an interview that he believes state funds should not go toward gender-affirming health care.
His bill would bar state funds from going toward services related to gender transitioning, including mental health counseling or therapy, hormone therapy or any surgical procedures.
Calloway could not provide details about how much in state funding currently goes to gender-affirming care for transgender patients. Instead, Calloway stated that the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services informed him that if his bill were implemented, it could cost the state between $12 to $21 million in the need for psychiatric care, counseling and hospital stays from impacted patients who may need increased mental health services.
"What they are saying by that statement is that we have a mental health crisis," Calloway told ABC News, adding "they're saying that these people will be in psychiatric care and treatment if we remove the ability to use these medications."
ABC News has reached out to the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services to confirm the estimate.
"The truth is there's only male and female, and there is no way that either can transition to the other," said Calloway.
The bill has exceptions for intersex people – such as those with differences in sexual development – and does not restrict such care for non-transgender people.
"This is what is best: men, women, having a family, having babies, procreating," said Calloway. "Those aspects of our society are under attack through many different avenues. This is just one of those avenues -- promote confusion. Cause kids to be confused. They become unstable. They become adults, and before you know it, our society is totally disrupted."
Transgender Americans -- who are estimated to make up less than 1% of the U.S. population over the age of 13 -- have been the target of hundreds of Republican-backed bills in recent years.
These bills target bathroom usage and sports participation by transgender residents and restrict certain content in schools or libraries that refer to transgender identities.
However, many anti-LGBTQ bills fail to move forward each year. In 2024, 533 anti-LGBTQ bills were considered by state legislatures and only 49 passed, according to the ACLU.
Kentucky, like other states behind the new wave of restrictive bills, previously passed a gender-affirming care ban for people under the age of 18.
In 2023, the gender youth care ban was vetoed by Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, which was quickly overridden by the state legislature and passed into law.
Beshear argued that the bill allowed too much government interference in personal health care decisions.
MORE: Transgender, nonbinary people sue Trump administration over passport policy
Many of the laws that have been signed or passed into law have led to ongoing legal battles. The Supreme Court is currently considering a case, U.S. v. Skrmetti, which would decide the constitutionality of gender-affirming care bans for transgender minors.
For Carma Marshall Bell, a 34-year-old trans Kentucky resident who has been on hormone therapy for five years, she said she is "terrified" about what could happen if she's unable to afford her treatment, which could include hormone withdrawal symptoms, which may lead to physical changes and a potential negative impact on mental health.
"I feel like I'm in a good place. I used to be in a really dark place at the beginning. I didn't see myself in who I used to be versus who I see myself now," said Marshall. Losing her hormones "would exacerbate depression and just those dark feelings that so many Americans right now are battling and fighting against."
She continued, "Hormones, to a degree, have saved my life. If I hadn't got on them, I don't know where I would be right now."
Marshall plans on attending a rally with other LGBTQ advocates and allies to call on lawmakers to vote against the bills impacting the transgender community in the state.
"We are people that are deserving of love, respect, humanity. We deserve our little piece of the American dream," said Marshall. "We actually take a lot of steps to ensure that there's nothing wrong with us, by ensuring that we see our mental health professionals, by ensuring that we're in those doctor's offices taking care of our health and well being, because health is wealth, and we want to prosper in this country known as America."
States move to restrict transgender adult care amid gender-affirming youth care battles originally appeared on abcnews.go.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Wants to Make It More Expensive to Sue Over His Policies
(Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump and his allies are pursuing an alternative strategy to defend against mounting court orders blocking his policies: Raise the financial stakes for those suing the administration. Shuttered NY College Has Alumni Fighting Over Its Future Trump's Military Parade Has Washington Bracing for Tanks and Weaponry NYC Renters Brace for Price Hikes After Broker-Fee Ban Do World's Fairs Still Matter? NY Long Island Rail Service Resumes After Grand Central Fire Republicans want to force people suing the US to post financial guarantees to cover the government's costs if they win a temporary halt to Trump's policies but ultimately lose the case. A measure in the House's 'big, beautiful' tax-and-spending bill would condition a judges' power to hold US officials in contempt for violating their orders to the payment of that security. A new proposed version of the bill announced by Senate Republicans on Thursday removes the contempt language but would broadly restrict judges' discretion to decide how much of a security payment to order from challengers who win initial pauses to Trump's policies, or to waive it altogether. While the legislation faces hurdles, the push to make suing the government more expensive is gaining steam. Critics say it's part of a broader effort to discourage lawsuits against the Trump administration. In addition to the tax bill provision, Republican lawmakers have introduced a plan to require plaintiffs who lose suits against the administration to cover the government's legal costs. Meanwhile, Trump has directed the Justice Department to demand bonds from court challengers when judges temporarily halt his policies. Trump has also targeted law firms over everything from past work for Democratic rivals to their diversity policies. Courts historically haven't required bonds to be put up in lawsuits against the government. In recent cases, the Trump administration's bond requests included $120,000 in litigation over union bargaining and an unspecified amount 'on the high side'' in a fight over billions of dollars in frozen clean technology grants. Judges in those and other cases have denied hefty requests or set smaller amounts, such as $10 or $100 or even $1. 'Having to put that money up is going to prevent people from being able to enforce their rights,' said Eve Hill, a civil rights lawyer who is involved in litigation against the administration over the treatment of transgender people in US prisons and Social Security Administration operations. The Trump administration has faced more than 400 lawsuits over his policies on immigration, government spending and the federal workforce, among other topics, since his inauguration. A Bloomberg analysis in May found that Trump was losing more cases than he was winning. White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said in a statement that 'activist organizations are abusing litigation to derail the president's agenda' and that it is 'entirely reasonable to demand that irresponsible organizations provide collateral to cover the costs and damages if their litigation wrongly impeded executive action.' Dan Huff, a White House lawyer during Trump's first term, defended the idea but said the language needed fixes, such as clarifying that it only applies to preliminary orders and not all injunctions. Huff, whose op-eds in support of stiffer injunction bonds have circulated among Republicans this year, said that Congress wanted litigants 'to have skin in the game.' Some judges have already found in certain cases that the administration was failing to fully comply with orders. Alexander Reinert, a law professor at Cardozo School of Law, said the timing of Congress taking up such a proposal was 'troubling and perverse.' 'Defy Logic' Some efforts by the Trump administration to curb lawsuits have already paid off. By threatening probes of law firms' hiring practices, the White House struck deals with several firms that effectively ruled out their involvement in cases challenging Trump's policies. Other aspects of the effort have been less successful. Judges have overwhelmingly rebuffed the Justice Department's efforts that plaintiffs put up hefty bonds. A judge who refused to impose a bond in a funding fight wrote that 'it would defy logic' to hold nonprofit organizations 'hostage' for the administration's refusal to pay them. Several judges entered bonds as low as $1 when they stopped the administration from sending Venezuelan migrants out of the country. In a challenge to federal worker layoffs, a judge rejected the government's push for a bond covering salaries and benefits, instead ordering the unions that sued to post $10. The clause in the House tax bill tying contempt power of judges to injunction bonds was the work of Trump loyalists. Representative Andy Biggs, a Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee, pushed to include the provision, Representative Jim Jordan told Bloomberg News. Jordan, who chairs the committee, said Biggs and Representative Harriet Hageman, another Republican, were 'very instrumental in bringing this to the committee's attention.' Biggs' office did not respond to requests for comment. Hageman said in a statement that the measure will 'go a long way in curbing this overreach whereby judges are using their gavels to block policies with which they disagree, regardless of what the law may say.' Liberals have slammed the proposed clause in the tax-and-spending bill as an attack on the judiciary, but it may not be the controversy that dooms it in the Senate. Reconciliation, the process lawmakers are using to pass the bill with only Republican support, requires the entire bill to relate directly to the budget. 'Make It Happen' Several Republicans have expressed skepticism the measure can survive under that process. But, Jordan, the House judiciary chair, said Republican lawmakers will seek an alternative path to pass the measure if it's ruled out in the Senate. 'I'm sure we'll look at other ways to make it happen,' Jordan said. The bond fight stems from an existing federal rule that says judges can enter temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions 'only if' the winning side posts a security that the court 'considers proper.' The bond is to cover 'costs and damages' if they ultimately lose. University of Notre Dame Law School professor Samuel Bray, a proponent of injunction bonds, said courts should account for whether litigants have the ability to pay. Still, he said, defendants should be able to recover some money if a judge's early injunction — a 'prediction' about who will win, he said – isn't borne out. 'If courts routinely grant zero dollars, what they are doing is pricing the effect of a wrongly granted injunction on the government's operations at zero,' Bray said. Courts have interpreted the rule as giving judges discretion to decide what's appropriate, including waiving it, said Cornell Law School Professor Alexandra Lahav. The bond issue usually comes up in business disputes with 'clear monetary costs,' she said, and not in cases against the federal government. 'It's not clear to me what kind of injunction bond would make sense in the context of lawsuits around whether immigrants should have a hearing before they're deported,' Lahav said. 'I'm not really sure how you would price that.' (Updates with Senate proposal in the third paragraph.) American Mid: Hampton Inn's Good-Enough Formula for World Domination The Spying Scandal Rocking the World of HR Software New Grads Join Worst Entry-Level Job Market in Years As Companies Abandon Climate Pledges, Is There a Silver Lining? US Tariffs Threaten to Derail Vietnam's Historic Industrial Boom ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Hamilton Spectator
30 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Tennessee judge will hear arguments about releasing Kilmar Abrego Garcia from pretrial detention
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whose mistaken deportation has become a flashpoint in President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown, on Friday will stand before a Tennessee judge who'll decide whether he can be released while awaiting trial on human smuggling charges. Before the hearing began in Nashville, Abrego Garcia's wife told a crowd outside a church that Thursday marked three months since the Trump administration 'abducted and disappeared my husband and separated him from our family.' Her voice choked with emotion, Jennifer Vasquez Sura said she saw her husband for the first time on Thursday. She said, 'Kilmar wants you to have faith,' and asked the people supporting him and his family ''to continue fighting, and I will be victorious because God is with us.'' Abrego Garcia is a citizen of El Salvador who had been living in the United States for more than a decade before he was wrongfully deported by the Republican administration in March. The expulsion violated a 2019 U.S. immigration judge's order that shielded him from deportation to his native country because he likely faced gang persecution there. While the Trump administration described the mistaken removal as 'an administrative error,' officials have continued to justify it by insisting Abrego Garcia was a member of the MS-13 gang . His wife and attorneys have denied the allegations, saying he's simply a construction worker and family man. Trump's administration returned Abrego Garcia to the U.S. last week to face criminal charges related to what it said was a human smuggling operation that transported immigrants across the country. The charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee during which Abrego Garcia was driving a vehicle with eight passengers. His lawyers have called the allegations 'preposterous.' U.S. attorneys have asked U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes to keep Abrego Garcia in jail, describing him as a danger to the community and a flight risk. Abrego Garcia's attorneys disagree, pointing out he was already wrongly detained in a notorious Salvadoran prison thanks to government error and arguing due process and 'basic fairness' require him to be set free. The charges against Abrego Garcia are human smuggling. But in their request to keep Abrego Garcia in jail, U.S. attorneys also accuse him of trafficking drugs and firearms and of abusing the women he transported, among other claims, although he is not charged with such crimes. The U.S. attorneys also accuse Abrego Garcia of taking part in a murder in El Salvador. However, none of those allegations is part of the charges against him, and at his initial appearance June 6, the judge warned prosecutors she cannot detain someone based solely on allegations. One of Abrego Garcia's attorneys last week characterized the claims as a desperate attempt by the Trump administration to justify the mistaken deportation three months after the fact. 'There's no way a jury is going to see the evidence and agree that this sheet metal worker is the leader of an international MS-13 smuggling conspiracy,' private attorney Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg said. In a Wednesday court filing, Abrego Garcia's public defenders argued the government is not even entitled to a detention hearing — much less detention — because the charges against him aren't serious enough. Although the maximum sentence for smuggling one person is 10 years, and Abrego Garcia is accused of transporting hundreds of people over nearly a decade, his defense attorneys point out there's no minimum sentence. The average sentence for human smuggling in 2024 was just 15 months, according to court filings. The decision to charge Abrego Garcia criminally prompted the resignation of Ben Schrader, who was chief of the criminal division at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Tennessee. He posted about his departure on social media on the day of the indictment, writing, 'It has been an incredible privilege to serve as a prosecutor with the Department of Justice, where the only job description I've ever known is to do the right thing, in the right way, for the right reasons.' He did not directly address the indictment and declined to comment when reached by The Associated Press. However, a person familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a personnel matter confirmed the connection. Although Abrego Garcia lives in Maryland, he's being charged in Tennessee based on a May 2022 traffic stop for speeding in the state. The Tennessee Highway Patrol body camera video of the encounter that was released to the public last month shows a calm exchange between officers and Abrego Garcia. It also shows the officers discussing among themselves their suspicions of human smuggling before sending him on his way. One of the officers says, 'He's hauling these people for money.' Another says Abrego Garcia had $1,400 in an envelope. Abrego Garcia was not charged with any offense at the traffic stop. Sandoval-Moshenberg, the private attorney, said in a statement after the video's release that he saw no evidence of a crime in the footage. Meanwhile, the lawsuit over Abrego Garcia's mistaken deportation isn't over. Abrego Garcia's attorneys have asked a federal judge in Maryland to impose fines against the Trump administration for contempt, arguing that it flagrantly ignored court orders for several weeks to return him. The Trump administration said it will ask the judge to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that it followed the judge's order to return him to the U.S. ___ This story has been corrected to show the Trump administration said that the human smuggling operation transported immigrants across the country, not that it brought immigrants into the country illegally. ___ Finley reported from Norfolk, Va. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Hamilton Spectator
30 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Trump administration gives personal data of immigrant Medicaid enrollees to deportation officials
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's administration this week provided deportation officials with personal data — including the immigration status — on millions of Medicaid enrollees, a move that could make it easier to locate people as part of his sweeping immigration crackdown. An internal memo and emails obtained by The Associated Press show that Medicaid officials unsuccessfully sought to block the data transfer, citing legal and ethical concerns. Nevertheless, two top advisers to Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ordered the dataset handed over to the Department of Homeland Security, the emails show. Officials at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services were given just 54 minutes on Tuesday to comply with the directive. The dataset includes the information of people living in California, Illinois, Washington state and Washington, D.C., all of which allow non-U.S. citizens to enroll in Medicaid programs that pay for their expenses using only state taxpayer dollars. CMS transferred the information just as the Trump administration was ramping up its enforcement efforts in Southern California. California Gov. Gavin Newsom 's office said in a statement that it was concerned about how deportation officials might utilize the data, especially as federal authorities conduct immigration raids with the assistance of National Guard troops and Marines in Los Angeles. 'We deeply value the privacy of all Californians,' the statement said. 'This potential data transfer brought to our attention by the AP is extremely concerning, and if true, potentially unlawful, particularly given numerous headlines highlighting potential improper federal use of personal information and federal actions to target the personal information of Americans.' U.S. Health and Human Services spokesman Andrew Nixon said the data sharing was legal. He declined to answer questions about why the data was shared with DHS and how it would be used. 'With respect to the recent data sharing between CMS and DHS, HHS acted entirely within its legal authority – and in full compliance with all applicable laws – to ensure that Medicaid benefits are reserved for individuals who are lawfully entitled to receive them,' Nixon said. DHS officials did not respond to requests for comment. Besides helping authorities locate migrants, experts said, the government could also use the information to scuttle the hopes of migrants seeking green cards, permanent residency or citizenship if they had ever obtained Medicaid benefits funded by the federal government. A targeted review of millions of immigrant Medicaid enrollees CMS announced late last month that it was reviewing some state's Medicaid enrollees to ensure federal funds have not been used to pay for coverage for people with 'unsatisfactory immigration status.' In a letter sent to state Medicaid officials, CMS said that the effort was part of Trump's Feb. 19 executive order titled 'Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders.' As part of the review, California, Washington and Illinois shared details about non-U.S. citizens who have enrolled in their state's Medicaid program, according to a June 6 memo signed by Medicaid Deputy Director Sara Vitolo that was obtained by the AP. The memo was written by several CMS officials under Vitolo's supervision, according to sources familiar with the process. The data includes addresses, names, social security numbers and claims data for enrollees in those states, according to the memo and two people familiar with what the states sent to CMS. Both individuals spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to share details about the data exchange. CMS officials attempted to fight the data sharing request from Homeland Security, saying that to do so would violate federal laws, including the Social Security Act and the Privacy Act of 1974, according to Vitolo's memo. 'Multiple federal statutory and regulatory authorities do not permit CMS to share this information with entities outside of CMS,' Vitolo wrote, further explaining that the sharing of such personal data is only allowed for directly administering the Medicaid program. Sharing information about Medicaid applicants or enrollees with DHS officials would violate a 'longstanding policy,' wrote Vitolo, a career employee, to Trump appointee Kim Brandt, deputy administrator and chief operating officer of CMS . Vitolo and Brandt could not be reached for comment. The legal arguments outlined in the memo were not persuasive to Trump appointees at HHS, which oversees the Medicaid agency. Four days after the memo was sent, on June 10, HHS officials directed the transfer of 'the data to DHS by 5:30 ET today,' according to email exchanges obtained by AP. Former government officials said the move was unusual because CMS, which has access to personal health data for nearly half of the country, does not typically share such sensitive information with other departments. 'DHS has no role in anything related to Medicaid,' said Jeffrey Grant, a former career employee at CMS. Beyond her legal arguments, Vitolo said sharing the information with DHS could have a chilling effect on states, perhaps prompting them to withhold information. States, she added needed to guard against the 'legal risk' they were taking by giving federal officials data that could be shared with deportation officials. A 'concerning' development All states must legally provide emergency Medicaid services to non-U.S. citizens, including to those who are lawfully present but have not yet met a five-year wait to apply for Medicaid. Seven states, along with the District, allow immigrants who are not living legally in the country to enroll — with full benefits — in their state's Medicaid program. The states launched these programs during the Biden administration and said they would not bill the federal government to cover those immigrants' health care costs. The Trump administration has raised doubts about that pledge. Nixon, the HHS spokesman, said that the state's Medicaid programs for immigrants 'opened the floodgates for illegal immigrants to exploit Medicaid – and forced hardworking Americans to foot the bill.' All of the states — California, New York, Washington, Oregon, Illinois, Minnesota and Colorado — have Democratic governors. Due to his state's budget woes, Newsom announced earlier this year he would freeze enrollment into the program; Illinois will also shut down its program for roughly 30,000 non-U.S. citizens in July. The remaining states — New York, Oregon, Minnesota and Colorado — have not yet submitted the identifiable data to CMS as part of the review, according to a public health official who has reviewed CMS' requests to the states. State health officials from the District, Washington and Illinois did not respond to requests for comment. Newsom's office said in its statement that the data sharing has 'implications for all Californians, but it is especially concerning for vulnerable communities.'
