Latest news with #SenateBill63
Yahoo
3 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Transgender teens challenge Kansas law banning gender-affirming care for minors
Two transgender teenagers and their parents are challenging a Kansas law banning gender-affirming care for minors, arguing the measure violates the state constitution and 'is actively harming Kansas families' in a lawsuit filed Wednesday in a state district court. Kansas's Senate Bill 63 prohibits health care providers from administering treatments such as puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgeries to minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria, characterized by a severe psychological distress that stems from a mismatch between a person's gender identity and sex at birth. The bill, passed by the state Legislature in January, includes exceptions for minors born with 'a medically verifiable disorder of sex development.' Health care providers who break the law, which also targets social transition, face civil penalties and may be stripped of their license. The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Kansas filed Wednesday's challenge in Douglas County District Court pseudonymously on behalf of plaintiffs Lily Loe, 13, Ryan Roe, 16, and their mothers, Lisa Loe and Rebecca Roe. The two children 'have been thriving since they started receiving puberty blockers and hormone therapy,' the lawsuit states, 'but now their trusted doctors in Kansas can no longer help them, and they are at risk of unimaginable suffering.' For their parents, Senate Bill 63 'impermissibly infringes on the fundamental right to the care, custody, and control of their children,' the lawsuit says, 'by displacing their medical decision-making authority with a government mandate, even when they, their adolescent children, and medical providers are all aligned.' Republican state Attorney General Kris Kobach, who is named in the lawsuit, did not immediately return a request for comment. Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly vetoed the bill in February for the third time in as many years, though her veto ultimately did not stand. 'It is disappointing that the Legislature continues to push for government interference in Kansans' private medical decisions instead of focusing on issues that improve all Kansans' lives,' Kelly said in a statement at the time. 'Infringing on parental rights is not appropriate, nor is it a Kansas value. As I've said before, it is not the job of politicians to stand between a parent and a child who needs medical care of any kind.' The state's Republican-led Legislature overrode Kelly's veto the following week. Kansas Senate President Ty Masterson (R) and House Speaker Dan Hawkins (R) said they voted to override the governor's action 'in honor of the children Governor Kelly failed to protect with her repeated vetoes of this sensible legislation.' The ACLU and the ACLU of Kansas are seeking an injunction to block enforcement of the law while the case moves forward. 'Our clients and every Kansan should have the freedom to make their own private medical decisions and consult with their doctors without the intrusion of Kansas politicians,' said D.C. Hiegert, civil liberties legal fellow for the ACLU of Kansas. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
3 days ago
- Health
- The Hill
Transgender teens challenge Kansas law banning gender-affirming care for minors
Two transgender teenagers and their parents are challenging a Kansas law banning gender-affirming care for minors, arguing the measure violates the state constitution and 'is actively harming Kansas families' in a lawsuit filed Wednesday in a state district court. Kansas's Senate Bill 63 prohibits health care providers from administering treatments such as puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgeries to minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria, characterized by a severe psychological distress that stems from a mismatch between a person's gender identity and sex at birth. The bill, passed by the state Legislature in January, includes exceptions for minors born with 'a medically verifiable disorder of sex development.' Health care providers who break the law, which also targets social transition, face civil penalties and may be stripped of their license. The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Kansas filed Wednesday's challenge in Douglas County District Court pseudonymously on behalf of plaintiffs Lily Loe, 13, Ryan Roe, 16, and their mothers, Lisa Loe and Rebecca Roe. The two children 'have been thriving since they started receiving puberty blockers and hormone therapy,' the lawsuit states, 'but now their trusted doctors in Kansas can no longer help them, and they are at risk of unimaginable suffering.' For their parents, Senate Bill 63 'impermissibly infringes on the fundamental right to the care, custody, and control of their children,' the lawsuit says, 'by displacing their medical decision-making authority with a government mandate, even when they, their adolescent children, and medical providers are all aligned.' Republican state Attorney General Kris Kobach, who is named in the lawsuit, did not immediately return a request for comment. Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly vetoed the bill in February for the third time in as many years, though her veto ultimately did not stand. 'It is disappointing that the Legislature continues to push for government interference in Kansans' private medical decisions instead of focusing on issues that improve all Kansans' lives,' Kelly said in a statement at the time. 'Infringing on parental rights is not appropriate, nor is it a Kansas value. As I've said before, it is not the job of politicians to stand between a parent and a child who needs medical care of any kind.' The state's Republican-led Legislature overrode Kelly's veto the following week. Kansas Senate President Ty Masterson (R) and House Speaker Dan Hawkins (R) said they voted to override the governor's action 'in honor of the children Governor Kelly failed to protect with her repeated vetoes of this sensible legislation.' The ACLU and the ACLU of Kansas are seeking an injunction to block enforcement of the law while the case moves forward. 'Our clients and every Kansan should have the freedom to make their own private medical decisions and consult with their doctors without the intrusion of Kansas politicians,' said D.C. Hiegert, civil liberties legal fellow for the ACLU of Kansas.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Kansas trans kids file lawsuit over new law banning gender-affirming care
Kansans rally in support of transgender rights May 5, 2023, at the Statehouse in Topeka. (Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector) TOPEKA — Two transgender teenagers and their parents are challenging a new Kansas law that bans gender-affirming care for minors. The American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas and the national ACLU filed a lawsuit Wednesday in Douglas County District Court on behalf of a 16-year-old trans boy and a 13-year-old trans girl. The lawsuit argues the new law violates state constitutional rights for equal protection, personal autonomy, and parenting. Senate Bill 63 prohibits health care providers from using surgery, hormones or puberty blockers to treat anyone younger than 18 who identifies with a gender that is different from the sex they were assigned at birth. Health care providers who break the law may be subject to civil penalties and stripped of their license. The ACLU is seeking an injunction to block enforcement of the law while the case is being litigated. 'Every Kansan should have the freedom to make their own private medical decisions and consult with their doctors without the intrusion of Kansas politicians,' said D.C. Hiegert, a legal fellow for the ACLU of Kansas. 'SB 63 is a particularly harmful example of politicians' overreach and their efforts to target, politicize, and control the health care of already vulnerable Kansas families.' The GOP-led Legislature passed SB 63 and overrode a veto by Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly earlier this year, ignoring overwhelming opposition from Kansas social workers, teachers, medical providers and members of the LGBTQ+ community who said gender-affirming care saves lives by acknowledging and supporting vulnerable kids for who they are. The lawsuit points to medical guidance established by the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Endocrine Society and others surrounding gender identity, gender expression, and gender dysphoria. The guidelines require medical providers to confirm a minor has demonstrated a long-lasting and intense pattern of gender nonconformity, that the condition worsened with the onset of puberty, that coexisting psychological or social problems have been addressed, and that the patient has sufficient mental capacity to provide informed consent. Both of the plaintiffs, the lawsuit says, identified from a young age with a gender other than their sex assigned at birth. They are identified by pseudonyms. The family of the 16-year-old boy, who lives in Johnson County, moved from Texas to Kansas in 2022 to escape a rise in anti-trans legislation. When he started going through puberty, he 'could not stand the feminine aspects of his body,' the lawsuit says. A therapist and medical providers diagnosed him with gender dysphoria and recommended hormone therapy, because he had already started going through puberty. Now that he is taking testosterone, the lawsuit says, 'he is more comfortable in his body, and happier,' and he has 'blossomed at school and in his social life.' The 13-year-old girl, who lives in Douglas County, has lived as a girl since second grade. She legally changed her name in 2020 and changed the gender designation on her birth certificate in 2023. After consulting with doctors in 2024, she decided puberty blockers were the right choice to benefit her mental health, the lawsuit says. As soon as she received her first shot last year, at age 12, she 'literally started dancing,' the lawsuit says. 'She felt such enormous relief from no longer needing to worry about puberty, and had so much less fear,' the lawsuit says. 'The puberty blocking shots let her be herself, happy, and carefree.' She has not had any negative side effects from the shots, which last about six months, the lawsuit says. But her last shot was in November, and her next shot was supposed to be in late May. If she waits more than a few weeks, the lawsuit says, the medication will stop working. The lawsuit says both families have looked for care in other states as a result of the new law. Harper Seldin, senior staff attorney for the ACLU's LGBTQ and HIV Project, said all transgender Kansans should have the freedom to be themselves. 'Bans like SB 63 have already had catastrophic effects on the families of transgender youth across the country,' Seldin said. 'These bans have uprooted many families from the only homes they've ever known while forcing many more to watch their young people suffer knowing a politician stands between them and their family doctor's best medical judgment.' In addition to banning gender-affirming care, SB 63 bans the use of state funds for mental health care for transgender children, bans state employees from promoting 'social transitioning,' which is defined to include the use of preferred pronouns, and outlaws liability insurance for damages related to gender-affirming care. The model legislation, labeled the 'Help Not Harm Act,' was supported by faith-based anti-LGBTQ+ groups in and outside of Kansas. When the Legislature overrode the governor's veto in February, Brittany Jones, director of policy and engagement for Kansas Family Voice, said lawmakers voted on the side of 'common sense.' 'Every child deserves to be loved and protected — not manipulated into making life-altering decisions by individuals who profit off of those decisions,' Jones said. 'We celebrate this new day in Kansas in which Kansas children are protected.'
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
What ranked choice voting is, and why some Ohio lawmakers are trying to ban it
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) — Lawmakers in Ohio are working to ban local governments within the state from using ranked choice voting. Senate Bill 63 would prohibit any elections in Ohio from being conducted by ranked choice voting. Any local government found to be using ranked choice voting would have its state money withheld. The ban on ranked choice voting would also apply to party primary elections. Investigation alleges Kroger overcharges customers on items advertised as on sale Lawmakers in the Ohio Senate voted 27-5 on Wednesday to pass the bill, which would largely ban the use of ranked choice voting in the state. Ranked choice voting is a method where voters rank the candidates on their ballots in order of preference. If no candidate reaches a majority of votes, the last-place candidate is defeated, and those who had the defeated candidate as their first choice would then have their second-highest choice elevated in the next round of voting. This process generally repeats until one candidate has received a majority of votes, or until the same number of candidates are remaining as there are available seats. Ranked choice voting is sometimes referred to as 'instant runoff voting,' which avoids making voters return to the polls to cast another ballot in races where the leading candidate only has a plurality of the vote, rather than the majority. Ranked choice voting is used statewide in Maine and Alaska, plus in dozens of other cities across the country, according to FairVote, a nonprofit that works to 'research and advance voting reforms that make democracy more functional and representative for every American.' No cities in Ohio currently use ranked choice voting. Sen. Theresa Gavarone (R-Bowling Green) and Sen. Bill DeMora (D-Columbus) introduced the bipartisan bill in January. 'Ranked choice voting distorts election outcomes, which inherently leads to uncertainty in our results,' Gavarone said in a statement when the bill was introduced. 'If this idea came to Ohio, it could, as it has in other states, delay election results, decrease voter turnout, and create confusion among voters, diluting their voices at the ballot box.' According to FairVote, New York City's first election with ranked choice voting had the city's highest turnout in 30 years, but the full impact ranked choice has on voter turnout is still unknown. The organization said it's hard to compare elections when studying the effect ranked choice voting has on turnout since primary and runoff elections generally have lower turnout anyway, plus there are other factors such as competitive campaigns and media attention that are at play. Cities in Ohio with the most UFO sightings Ohio's ranked choice voting ban would not apply to municipalities or chartered counties in accordance with a 1923 Ohio Supreme Court ruling. Gavarone said that ranked choice voting would 'undo two centuries of voters having the ability to cast their vote with one vote and one voice, and alter our elections to look similar to the way it's done in New York City and San Francisco.' DeMora called ranked choice voting 'cumbersome, confusing, and unnecessary.' Rank the Vote Ohio, an organization that is pushing for ranked choice voting in the state, said ranked choice voting expands voter choice, ensures the winning candidate has a majority of support, and promotes more diverse candidates. 'In our current system, many candidates are pressured to drop out, shamed as 'spoilers,' and excluded from public debates,' the organization said. 'Ranked Choice Voting welcomes all candidates into the race — and you can't win if you don't run.' The bill must now pass the House before it goes to Gov. Mike DeWine's desk. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Ohio Senate passes bipartisan bill to block ranked choice voting at state, local level
May 16—The Ohio Senate voted 27-to-5 to ban ranked choice voting at the state level and to cut off state funding to local governments that choose to allow it. The bill, Senate Bill 63, received broad bipartisan support with a five Democratic detractors, including area Sen. Willis Blackshear, Jr., D-Dayton. It now heads to the Ohio House for further consideration. Ranked choice voting, as described by the Council of State Governments, is "any system for counting votes that gives voters the option to rank their choices in order of preference." Broadly, the higher a voter ranks a candidate, the more points that candidate gets in the count. It takes multiple rounds, each time eliminating the last-placed candidate and redistributing their first-ranked votes to whomever the voter picked as their second choice candidate, and so on until a winner is decided. Ranked choice systems are used at state levels in Alaska and Maine, the latter of which uses it in all state-level primaries and all general elections for federal office. While there are no local governments that use ranked choice voting in Ohio, there's a smattering of local governments across the country that do use ranked choice systems. "My opposition to S.B. 63 is based on the ability for the state to withhold local government funding for localities that implement ranked choice voting," Blackshear told this outlet after Wednesday's vote. "Municipalities shouldn't have to worry about losing funding for implementing something that people in their communities want." The bill received support from Democratic leaders (Senate Minority Leader Nickie Antonio, D-Lakewood, called ranked choice "confusing") in the Senate and every Republican. "Frankly, everywhere it's been tried, it's led to an awful lot of confusion, so I think it's good that we acted on this," Senate President Rob McColley, R-Napoleon, told reporters Wednesday. McColley said he's comfortable with the bill's provision that would punish local governments that choose to use ranked choice. "It does not infringe on home rule with the provision that's in there talking about the withholding of local government funds," McColley said. "There's (Ohio) Supreme Court precedent out there that says that is our appropriation authority to do that." ------ For more stories like this, sign up for our Ohio Politics newsletter. It's free, curated, and delivered straight to your inbox every Thursday evening. Avery Kreemer can be reached at 614-981-1422, on X, via email, or you can drop him a comment/tip with the survey below.
