People could be asked to prove biological sex under new EHRC code
Sports clubs and hospitals could ask for a person's birth certificate if there is "genuine concern" about their biological sex under an updated Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) code of practice.
The regulator published updates to the code on Tuesday in light of a Supreme Court ruling that a woman is defined by biological sex under equalities law.
Other changes include guidance that trans people can be excluded from sport "when necessary for reasons of safety or fair competition".
EHRC chairwoman Baroness Kishwer Falkner said the changes, which will be subject to a six-week public consultation, were intended to satisfy a "demand for authoritative guidance" after the ruling.
The EHRC, a public body which enforces the Equality Act 2010, issued a code of practice to public services and businesses on how to comply with the law.
The regulator began redrafting its code after the Supreme Court ruled in April that the terms "woman" and "sex" in the 2010 act "refer to a biological woman and biological sex".
Shortly after that ruling, the EHRC published interim guidance intended to "highlight the main consequences of the judgment", including on the provision of single-sex toilets.
That said trans women "should not be permitted to use the women's facilities" in workplaces or public-facing services like shops and hospitals, with the same applying for trans men using men's toilets.
On Tuesday, the regulator published a more comprehensive update to the code and began a public consultation, which it said had been extended to six weeks, from two, due to high levels of public interest and input from a range of organisations.
It says people can be asked to confirm their birth sex in some circumstances if it is "necessary and proportionate" for a service provider to "know an individual's birth sex to be able to discharge their legal obligations".
Any request should be made in a "sensitive way which does not cause discrimination or harassment", it said.
The commission adds that if there is "genuine concern about the accuracy of the response to a question about birth sex, then a birth certificate could be requested".
As some trans people who have obtained a Gender Recognition Certificate may also have an amended birth certificate, the draft code says any further enquiries about biological sex at birth should be "made in a proportionate way which is discreet and sensitive" in the "unlikely event" they are needed.
The code says: "Where obtaining information on birth sex is not necessary and proportionate, asking a trans person about their birth sex may risk unjustifiably interfering with their human rights...
"Therefore, care should be taken, particularly by public authorities, that this is only done where necessary and justified.
"Discrimination or harassment could occur if, for example, individuals are asked about their birth sex in a way which may require them to disclose this information in public, or if the language or manner of a request is rude, combative or offensive."
Elsewhere, the draft guidelines say a service provided only to women and trans women or only to men and trans men "is not a separate-sex or single-sex service" under equalities law, and could amount to unlawful sex discrimination against those of the opposite sex who are not allowed to use it.
In a statement published alongside the draft updates, Baroness Falkner said: "People with protected characteristics should never be discriminated against or harassed when using a service.
"Where services are provided on a single-sex basis, that needs to be done in a way which is consistent with the law, which protects the rights of all service users and which ensures everyone is treated with respect and dignity.
"It's vital that service providers know what they need to do to comply with the law, and that service users have confidence that every provider is doing so."
Five key takeaways from Supreme Court ruling
Trans former judge plans to challenge gender ruling at European court
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Key SCOTUS parental rights cases draw McMahon, Moms for Liberty to rally on court steps
Education Secretary Linda McMahon and the conservative group Moms for Liberty took to the Supreme Court steps Tuesday to recognize the 100-year anniversary of a landmark case that they said gave parents more control over their children's education. But advocates who spoke at the event are also anticipating decisions in two other pivotal cases that could affect the conservative-led parental rights movement. Rosalind Hanson, who is part of a group of plaintiffs in Mahmoud v. Taylor, told Fox News Digital in an interview after the rally that she is optimistic about a forthcoming decision from the high court on the key religious liberty case. She said it came from Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland refusing to allow parents to opt their elementary school children out of being exposed to books containing gender and sexuality concepts. "We are not trying to change the curriculum," Hanson said. "We are not trying to say what you teach.… The majority of states across the country have said you can have an opt-out for these very sensitive issues and topics, especially because of the religious component, but also because of the age appropriateness." Supreme Court Likely To Side With Parents In Letting Them Opt Out Of Lgbtq Storybooks, Expert Says Montgomery County Public Schools attorneys argued to the Supreme Court that courts have long held that "mere exposure to controversial issues in a public-school curriculum does not burden the free religious exercise of parents or students." Still, the attorneys stood by the school system's decision to incorporate what they described as a "handful of storybooks featuring lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer characters" for use in language arts lessons. Read On The Fox News App The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the case in April, and a decision is expected in the coming weeks. Also on Moms for Liberty's radar is United States v. Skrmetti, one of the most closely watched cases of the court's term. The case arose from the Biden administration suing over a bill Tennessee passed in 2023 to ban puberty blockers and hormone therapy as treatments for minors who identify as transgender. The Supreme Court is now poised to decide within the next few weeks if states can restrict such medical treatments for minors. Maryland Mom Taking Fight To Opt Child Out Of Lgbtq Story Books Before Supreme Court Scarlett Johnson, who has a leadership role in Moms for Liberty, called the case a "big one" and told Fox News Digital she also urges members of her group to advocate legislation that "will protect children from the puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries for minors regarding the issue of gender identity." McMahon, meanwhile, reflected on Pierce v. Society of Sisters, a landmark decision issued 100 years ago that struck down Oregon's law requiring all children to attend public school. McMahon called it "one of the most impactful education-related cases in American history" but said the parental rights movement remains necessary. Watch Live: Moms For Liberty Rally With Linda Mcmahon At Supreme Court "Special interest and progressive activists still try to agitate for the government to override moms and dads in education," McMahon said. "Whether it's through ideological indoctrination, sexually explicit curriculum, or hiding health and safety risks from parents, the progressive left always wants to come between you and your kids." The speakers' remarks could be heard clearly over livestreams online, but in person in front of the Supreme Court building, they were drowned out entirely by a single protester screaming profanities and bashing a string of officials, including McMahon, Justice Clarence Thomas and President Donald Trump. Rep. Kat Cammack, R-Fla., elicited laughs when she thanked the protester, who was holding a sign reading "Let's TACO 'bout tariffs," a reference to an acronym Democrats' adopted for "Trump Always Chickens Out." "I'd also like to thank our lone protester for highlighting the mental health crisis in our country. Bless your heart, as we would say in the South," Cammack article source: Key SCOTUS parental rights cases draw McMahon, Moms for Liberty to rally on court steps
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Yes, the Trump Admin Is Still Very Much Attacking Abortion Rights
The Trump administration has moved to revoke Biden-era federal guidelines that require hospitals to provide emergency abortions to women, regardless of state law. It's a stark reminder that amid the chaos of President Donald Trump's first few months back in office, the MAGA movement remains committed to denying women life-saving medical treatment, and their right to bodily autonomy. The guidance — which Biden issued in 2022 in the aftermath of the Supreme Court overturning of Roe v. Wade — was essentially a reminder to hospitals that under the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), emergency rooms that accept Medicare funding (nearly every emergency room in the country) are required to provide an exam and stabilizing care to any patient that walks through its door. The Biden administration argued that the law covered emergency abortions, should they be necessary to the health of a pregnant patient. On Tuesday night, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a statement rescinding the directive. The agency claimed it would 'continue to enforce EMTALA, which protects all individuals who present to a hospital emergency department seeking examination or treatment, including for identified emergency medical conditions that place the health of a pregnant woman or her unborn child in serious jeopardy.' 'CMS will work to rectify any perceived legal confusion and instability created by the former administration's actions,' the statement added. The decision is not the only challenge to the Biden administration's interpretation of EMTALA in recent years. Last year, the Supreme Court allowed Texas to begin enforcing a ban on virtually all abortions in the state — including emergency room abortions — in defiance of the previous administration's EMTALA guidelines. In a separate 2024 case brought by Idaho's House speaker against the Biden administration, the Supreme Court ruled that hospitals in Idaho could provide emergency abortions while lower courts continued to debate the larger questions of EMTALA's jurisdiction. Now that Biden's guidance has been rolled back, other states could begin restricting doctors in emergency rooms from providing life-saving obstetrics treatment to patients. 'If there was ever any doubt about where the Trump administration stands on abortion, it should be clear now: even in cases of life or death, they want to block your ability to get an abortion,' Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Alexis McGill Johnson wrote in a Tuesday statement. 'Every day, this administration strikes another blow at our most fundamental right: to make our own decisions about our bodies and our futures. Women have died because they couldn't get the lifesaving abortion care they needed. The Trump administration is willing to let pregnant people die, and that is exactly what we can expect.' More from Rolling Stone GOP Bill Would Legalize DOGE and Let Trump Dismantle Everything Republicans Are Trying to Block My State From Regulating AI Escaped Inmate Asks Lil Wayne, NBA YoungBoy, Meek Mill for Help Best of Rolling Stone The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence
Washington Post
2 hours ago
- Washington Post
Texas hospital that discharged woman with doomed pregnancy violated the law, a federal inquiry finds
WASHINGTON — A Texas hospital that repeatedly sent a woman who was bleeding and in pain home without ending her nonviable, life-threatening pregnancy violated the law, according to a newly released federal investigation. The government's findings, which have not been previously reported, were a small victory for 36-year-old Kyleigh Thurman, who ultimately lost part of her reproductive system after being discharged without any help from her hometown emergency room for her dangerous ectopic pregnancy. But a new policy the Trump administration announced on Tuesday has thrown into doubt the federal government's oversight of hospitals that deny women emergency abortions , even when they are at risk for serious infection, organ loss or severe hemorrhaging. Thurman had hoped the federal government's investigation, which issued a report in April after concluding its inquiry last year, would send a clear message to hospitals in Texas, which has one of the nation's strictest abortion bans. 'I didn't want anyone else to have to go through this,' Thurman said in an interview with the Associated Press from her Texas home this week. 'I put a lot of the responsibility on the state of Texas and policy makers and the legislators that set this chain of events off.' Women around the country have been denied emergency abortions for their life-threatening pregnancies after states swiftly enacted abortion restrictions in response to a 2022 ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, which includes three appointees of President Donald Trump. The guidance issued by the Biden administration in 2022 was an effort to preserve access to emergency abortions for extreme cases in which women were experiencing medical emergencies. It directed hospitals — even ones in states with severe restrictions — to provide abortions in those emergency cases. If hospitals did not comply, they would be in violation of a federal law and risk losing some federal funds. On Tuesday, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the federal agency responsible for enforcing the law and inspecting hospitals, announced it would revoke the Biden-era guidance. The Biden policy requiring doctors to provide emergency abortions was one of the few ways that Thurman was able to hold her local emergency room after she didn't receive any help from staff at Ascension Seton Williamson in Round Rock, Texas in February of 2023, a few months after Texas enacted its strict abortion ban. Emergency room staff observed that Thurman's hormone levels had dropped, a pregnancy was not visible in her uterus and a structure was blocking her fallopian tube — all telltale signs of an ectopic pregnancy, when a fetus implants outside of the uterus and has no room to grow. If left untreated, ectopic pregnancies can rupture, causing organ damage, hemorrhage or even death. Thurman, however, was sent home and given a pamphlet on miscarriage. She returned three days later, still bleeding, and was given an injected drug intended to end the pregnancy, but it was too late. Days later, she showed up again at the emergency room, bleeding out because the fertilized egg growing on Thurman's fallopian tube ruptured it. She underwent an emergency surgery that removed part of her reproductive system. CMS launched its investigation of how Ascension Seton Williamson handled Thurman's case late last year, shortly after she filed a complaint. Investigators concluded the hospital failed to give her a proper medical screening exam, including an evaluation with an OB-GYN. The hospital violated the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, which requires emergency rooms to provide stabilizing treatment to all patients. Thurman was 'at risk for deterioration of her health and wellbeing as a result of an untreated medical condition,' the investigation said in its report, which was publicly released last month. Ascension, a vast hospital system that has facilities across multiple states, did not respond to questions about Thurman's case, saying only that it is 'is committed to providing high-quality care to all who seek our services.' Doctors and legal experts have warned abortion restrictions like the one Texas enacted have discouraged emergency room staff from aborting dangerous and nonviable pregnancies, even when a woman's life is imperiled. The stakes are especially high in Texas, where doctors face up to 99 years in prison if convicted of performing an illegal abortion. Lawmakers in the state are weighing a law that would remove criminal penalties for doctors who provide abortions in certain medical emergencies. 'We see patients with miscarriages being denied care, bleeding out in parking lots. We see patients with nonviable pregnancies being told to continue those to term,' said Molly Duane, an attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights that represented Thurman. 'This is not, maybe, what some people thought abortion bans would look like, but this is the reality.' The Biden administration routinely warned hospitals that they need to provide abortions when a woman's health was in jeopardy, even suing Idaho over its state law that initially prohibited nearly all abortions, unless a woman's life was on the line. But CMS' announcement on Tuesday raises questions about whether such investigations will continue if hospitals do not provide abortions for women in medical emergencies. The agency said it will still enforce the law, 'including for identified emergency medical conditions that place the health of a pregnant woman or her unborn child in serious jeopardy.' While states like Texas have clarified that ectopic pregnancies can legally be treated with abortions, the laws do not provide for every complication that might arise during a pregnancy. Several women in Texas have sued the state for its law, which has prevented women from terminating pregnancies in cases where their fetuses had deadly fetal anomalies or they went into labor too early for the fetus to survive. Thurman worries pregnant patients with serious complications still won't be able to get the help they may need in Texas emergency rooms. 'You cannot predict the ways a pregnancy can go,' Thurman said. 'It can happen to anyone, still. There's still so many ways in which pregnancies that aren't ectopic can be deadly.'
