Illinois attorney general says state will protect gender-affirming care, despite Trump executive order
The statement, from Attorney General Kwame Raoul and the attorneys general of 14 other states, says that federal dollars remain available to institutions that provide gender-affirming care, and that Illinois and the other states will take legal action if that funding is halted.
'State attorneys general will continue to enforce state laws that provide access to gender-affirming care, in states where such enforcement authority exists, and we will challenge any unlawful effort by the Trump administration to restrict access to it in our jurisdictions,' the statement says.
The statement comes about a week after President Donald Trump issued an executive order seeking to end gender-affirming care that involves federal dollars for people under the age of 19, and that prohibits institutions that receive federal research grants from offering gender-affirming care for people under 19.
It's an executive order that's ignited confusion among hospitals and other providers of gender affirming care across the country, with some hospitals and clinics in other states abruptly halting such care.
It's unclear whether any health care providers in Illinois that offer gender-affirming care for minors have stopped those services in the last week.
A Rush spokesman said the hospital system is still providing gender-affirming care for minors. Lurie Children's Hospital said in a statement Wednesday that it 'is proud to provide access to comprehensive, family-centric, and developmentally appropriate healthcare in a safe and inclusive clinical space. We are reviewing the recent Executive Orders addressing gender care and assessing any potential impact to the clinical services we offer to our patient-families.'
Howard Brown Health, which receives federal funds to care for low-income patients and specializes in care for patients who are LGBTQ+, said in a statement Tuesday, 'The order has no immediate impact on our operations, and we will be monitoring developments working with our partners. We are continuing to provide gender-affirming care to all patients who rely on our services and remain committed to improving the health of trans and gender diverse communities.'
Gender-affirming care can include a range of services, such as counseling, medications to delay puberty, hormone therapy and/or surgery.
The statement from the attorneys general says that '… federal funding to institutions that provide gender-affirming care continues to be available, irrespective of President Trump's recent executive order. If the federal administration takes additional action to impede this critical funding, we will not hesitate to take further legal action.'
Raoul also notes in the statement that Illinois law requires health care providers to provide care to all residents and prohibits unlawful discrimination on the basis of gender identity.
Other states that joined Illinois in the statement include California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin.
The statement comes a day after PFLAG, the American Association of Physicians for Human Rights and transgender young adults and their families filed a lawsuit in federal court in Maryland challenging the executive order.
More to come.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
American Press
27 minutes ago
- American Press
25 states file legal brief defending Trump ban on youth sex change procedures
On Monday, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill joined 24 other Republican attorneys general in backing President Donald Trump's executive order aimed at halting federal funding for sex change procedures on minors, marking the state's latest push in a broader legal fight over transgender care. Three days earlier, Massachusetts filed a brief joined by 19 states challenging the same executive order. The states argue the order is unconstitutional, discriminatory, and violates the Spending Clause by tying federal health funds to ideological conditions. The Massachusetts-led brief contends that the order jeopardizes care for transgender youth, strips states of medical decision-making authority, and undermines long-standing Medicaid protections. The suit seeks a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction against implementation. The attorneys general defending the Trump order, led by Alabama's Steve Marshall, filed amicus briefs in the 4th and 9th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals, supporting Trump's order and urging the courts to overturn preliminary injunctions issued earlier this year in lawsuits out of Washington and Maryland. The Alabama-led briefs argue that continuing to fund such procedures violates both medical ethics and constitutional principles. 'Even though President Trump is in office, common sense and constitutional principles are under constant assault by radical leftist groups like the ACLU,' said Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, who is leading the coalition. Marshall accused the ACLU of pushing courts to 'force taxpayers to fund sex-change procedures on children.' Murrill, who has been an outspoken critic of so-called 'gender-affirming' care for minors, did not release a separate public statement, but her participation in the brief underscores Louisiana's alignment with a growing number of Republican-led states that seek to limit access to such treatments. In recent years, Louisiana's Legislature has passed bans on puberty blockers and hormone treatments for minors. According to the coalition's legal filings, the brief draws on findings from Alabama's discovery in a now-dismissed challenge to its own ban on 'gender-affirming' care, where Marshall's office claimed to uncover a coordinated effort to remove age restrictions from national medical guidelines — a move he described as politically motivated rather than science-based. The Alabama-led team argues that federal funding for 'gender-affirming' care is based on 'discredited standards' and that such medical interventions for minors have irreversible consequences. 'The evidence says otherwise,' Marshall said. 'These harmful interventions have lasting consequences for vulnerable children.' The Alabama-led brief was filed in both the 9th Circuit and 4th Circuit federal courts of appeal. Louisiana was joined by attorneys general from Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming in addition to Louisiana. The filings are part of a broader conservative legal strategy seeking to bolster state laws banning so-called 'gender-affirming' care while reinforcing Trump-era federal policy that frames such care as medically unnecessary and ideologically driven.
Politico
28 minutes ago
- Politico
Will feds weigh in on religious vax carveouts?
Driving the Day RELIGIOUS VAX EXEMPTIONS — It's back-to-school season, which means parents are shuttling their kids to pediatricians for annual checkups — and advocates for and against states' exemptions to vaccine mandates for school entry are gearing up for a fight, Lauren reports. Vaccine skeptics have sought to make their case to the Trump administration's Religious Liberty Commission — created by executive order in May — for executive action to bolster religious carve-outs. But they face pushback from public health experts who warn that more exemptions could threaten public health, setting up another front in the vaccine wars. Four states — California, Connecticut, Maine and New York — don't offer religious exemptions to school vaccine requirements, and Massachusetts lawmakers are considering banning them. West Virginia provides exemptions after GOP Gov. Patrick Morrisey signed an executive order earlier this year invoking the state's religious freedom law. Some religious liberty groups have called on the federal government — which has no say in state vaccine mandates — to use federal education funding as leverage to expand religious opt-outs from school immunization requirements, pointing to a Clinton-era religious protection statute. Precedential web: Some vaccine law experts question how far the executive branch could go to nudge those outlier states toward accepting religious exemptions. The Supreme Court curtailed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act's application to the states in 1997, and administrative conditions on federal funding can't run afoul of Congress' directions. But proponents say those lawyers ignore more recent opinions that work in exemption advocates' favor, pointing to a Covid-19-era decision lifting in-home gathering restrictions on religious grounds and, more recently, the court's ruling in favor of parents who want to opt their children out of LGBTQ+-themed lessons in public schools. Shifting winds: The number of kindergarteners entering school with at least one vaccine exemption continues to tick up, with the CDC reporting last week that 3.6 percent had one in the 2024-2025 school year, compared with 2.2 percent a decade ago. Days before the updated data was released, the American Academy of Pediatrics reaffirmed its opposition to religious exemptions, arguing they should be abolished to protect public health. 'In practice, nonmedical exceptions based on religious belief can substantially limit the public health value of vaccine requirements for school attendance,' the group said in a statement. 'There is no practicable way for schools or other involved community partners to distinguish fairly among religious or other nonmedical claims.' What's next: The Religious Liberty Commission will hold a hearing next month on public education issues, giving exemption proponents another opening to make their case. It's unclear where the White House stands on the concept — a spokesperson didn't comment — but the first Trump administration's HHS pursued avenues to grant health care workers expanded 'conscience' protections and to allow imports of certain vaccines due to some patients' religious beliefs. IT'S TUESDAY. WELCOME BACK TO PRESCRIPTION PULSE. Your host is wondering whether concerns about a common allergy medicine's risks might catch the FDA's attention. Send tips to David Lim (dlim@ @davidalim or davidalim.49 on Signal) and Lauren Gardner (lgardner@ @Gardner_LM or gardnerlm.01 on Signal). Eye on the FDA NEW TOP LAWYER — FDA Commissioner Marty Makary named a longtime government attorney on Monday to be the agency's chief counsel, months after his first pick was torpedoed by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.). Sean Keveney, who most recently served as HHS's acting general counsel, served as a career civil servant at DOJ's civil rights division before becoming deputy general counsel at HHS in 2019, according to the department and his LinkedIn profile. His predecessor in the position, Hilary Perkins, was also a career DOJ lawyer whose appointment drew Hawley's ire before Makary's confirmation because of her record defending the Biden administration's abortion pill policies. While Perkins also defended the Trump FDA's mifepristone positions, that wasn't enough to overcome his opposition, and she ultimately stepped down days into the job. MDUFA KICKOFF — The FDA's medical device user fee program is not set to expire until Sept. 30, 2027, but the process to renew it has already begun. Despite HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s vocal distaste for the user fee programs, the Trump administration has made it clear they are committed to the monthslong process that will likely result in their renewal for another five years. Industry and FDA leaders — including FDA Commissioner Marty Makary and Center for Devices and Radiological Health Director Michelle Tarver — met Monday to discuss the potential sixth iteration of the medical device user fee program. 'While user fees support timeliness and predictability by providing FDA with additional resources, user fees are not a guarantee of approval,' AdvaMed's senior executive vice president, Janet Trunzo, said according to prepared remarks. 'They never have been, and they never should be.' In Congress SENATE PASSES FDA FUNDING — Before leaving town for the August recess, the Senate passed a bill to fund the FDA for fiscal 2026 as part of a minibus package by an 87-9 vote. The legislation, which funds the agency at $7 billion, is made up of $3.6 billion in taxpayer funds and $3.4 billion in user fee revenues. But it is unclear whether lawmakers will have to turn to a continuing resolution before government funding runs out at the end of September. The House Appropriations Committee previously advanced an FDA bill that funded the agency at a lower level. Research Corner BOOST FOR WOMEN'S HEALTH — The Gates Foundation said Monday it would spend $2.5 billion through 2030 to speed global women's research into maternal, menstrual, gynecological and sexual health. Pharma Moves Erika Sward is now chief advocacy officer at UsAgainstAlzheimer's. She previously was assistant vice president of national advocacy at the American Lung Association. Document Drawer FDA Commissioner Marty Makary met with Rep. John Joyce (R-Pa.) for an introductory meeting on July 24. He also met with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals to discuss nonanimal testing approaches on July 21, according to newly posted public calendar disclosures. He also met with the leadership team of the Government Accountability Office on July 16 to discuss 'items of mutual interest.' WHAT WE'RE READING Top FDA cancer medicine regulator Richard Pazdur played a critical role in the rejection of Replimune Group's skin cancer therapy, STAT's Adam Feuerstein reports. Longevity companies are eyeing Montana as a potential hub for 'biohacking' treatments thanks to state laws embracing patients' 'right-to-try' experimental drugs, The Wall Street Journal's Alex Janin writes.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
What is IVF? Trump once called himself 'father of IVF,' but has not released coverage plan
Months after a deadline for policy recommendations to expand access to in vitro fertilization passed, the White House has not released any plans for the fertility treatment. In February, Trump signed an executive order directing policy advisers to make recommendations on how to lower costs for IVF after promising to do so on the campaign trail. The order gave the Domestic Policy Council 90 days to do so, making the deadline May 19, according to CBS News. On Aug. 3, the Washington Post reported that anonymous sources said the White House currently has no plan to provide or require coverage. Trump once called himself the "father of IVF" during the campaign as he pledged to find ways to cover the cost of the treatment, either through government coverage or through a mandate on insurance companies. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for an update on the possible policy plans. More: The White House wants women to have more babies. They're ignoring part of the problem − men What is IVF? IVF is the process of combining a sperm and egg in a laboratory and transferring them to a uterus, commonly used to aid conception for someone with fertility issues. Advocates for the treatment were worried that access to the treatment could come under threat after the Dobbs decision in June 2022. That fear was somewhat realized in February 2024 when the Alabama Supreme Court decided embryos had the legal status of children in a landmark case. The Alabama legislature later passed a bill to protect IVF patients and providers. Why is IVF controversial? Approximately 2% of births in the U.S. each year come from IVF pregnancies, and it can be a life-changing procedure for people experiencing infertility who want to start a family. But the procedure is opposed by some religious groups, many conservative Christians, who argue that life begins the moment an egg is fertilized and that humans should leave procreation to God, not science. When the first IVF baby was born in 1979, a coalition of anti-abortion groups spoke out against the procedure. But that was after the Roe v. Wade decision, so embryos were treated as private property that the respective egg and sperm donors could decide if they wanted to implant, destroy or pass on the embryo without consequence. What has Trump said about IVF in the past? Trump has long supported IVF, but surprised many conservatives on the campaign trail when he promised to require insurance companies or the government to cover costs associated with IVF. 'Under the Trump administration, your government will pay for – or your insurance company will be mandated to pay for – all costs associated with IVF treatment," Trump said at an event in August 2024. 'We want more babies, to put it very nicely.' At a Fox News town hall in October, Trump called himself the "father of IVF," while promising coverage for the procedure, which can cost tens of thousands of dollars. Upon returning to the White House, Trump issued an executive order in February directing his policy advisers to make recommendations on how to lower the costs of the procedure. The order he signed had no immediate impact on the cost or access of the treatment. 'I've been saying we are going to do what we have to do and I think the women and families, husbands, are very appreciative of it,' Trump said of the order from his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. Contributing: Jessica Guynn, Bailey Schulz, Adrianna Rodriguez, Liam Adams, John Kennedy, Trevor Hughes, Riley Beggin, USA TODAY NETWORK Kinsey Crowley is the Trump Connect reporter for the USA TODAY Network. Reach her at kcrowley@ Follow her on X and TikTok @kinseycrowley or Bluesky at @ This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: What is IVF? Deadline for Trump's coverage plans passed months ago
