Groups secure injunction pausing Alberta government's transgender health-care legislation
Alberta government legislation preventing doctors in the province from providing gender-affirming care to minors has been paused under a court judgment released Friday.
Article content
The Court of King's Bench of Alberta decision granted an injunction application led by Egale Canada and the Skipping Stone Foundation.
Article content
Article content
Justice Allison Kuntz, in her written decision granting the temporary injunction, said Charter challenges raised by the applicants over Bill 26, the Health Statues Amendment Act, warrant further legal argument.
Article content
Article content
'The evidence shows that singling out health care for gender diverse youth and making it subject to government control will cause irreparable harm to gender diverse youth by reinforcing the discrimination and prejudice that they are already subjected to,' Kuntz wrote.
Article content
Article content
The bill, introduced last October but not yet in full effect, restricted certain treatments and surgeries for gender dysphoria for individuals under 18, including a ban on puberty blocker and hormone therapies for individuals under the age of 16, and gender reassignment surgeries for people under 18.
Article content
The applicants included five gender-diverse young Albertans, aged six to 12, and their parents, in addition to the two LGBTQ advocacy groups.
Article content
They challenged the constitutionality of the amended provisions, arguing the changes violate rights guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Alberta Bill of Rights.
Article content
'This is an historic win, affirming that young people in Alberta and across Canada deserve to live authentically in safety and freedom,' Skipping Stone founders Lindsay Peace and Amelia Newbert said in a statement.
Article content
'As we have long argued, the government should never interfere in the medical decisions of doctors and patients or prevent parents and youth from deciding what medical care is right for them.'
Article content
The province had argued preventing access to puberty blocking drugs for trans children and other measures in the bill is based on evidence suggesting such treatments may be harmful.
Article content
'Alberta . . . does not doubt the value of providing care to children facing (gender dysphoria or gender incongruence), but that care must be safe and evidence based,' government lawyer David Madsen told Kuntz at a March hearing.
Article content
'That is what the legislation is about. Protecting the safety and long-term choice of children and youth from a risky and experimental medical intervention, for which there is little evidence of benefit and evidence of significant harm in some cases.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
3 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
What to know about the US Supreme Court's ruling on public school lessons using LGBTQ books
A divided U.S. Supreme Court has sided with religious parents who want to pull their children out of the classroom when a public school lesson uses LGBTQ-themed storybooks. The 6-3 decision Friday in a case brought by parents in Maryland comes as certain books are increasingly being banned from public schools and libraries. In Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion — joined by the rest of the court's conservatives — he wrote that the lack of an 'opt-out' option for parents places an unconstitutional burden on their rights to religious freedom. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent for the three liberal justices that public schools expose children to different views in a multicultural society. 'That experience is critical to our Nation's civic vitality,' she wrote. 'Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents' religious beliefs.' Here's what to know about the case and its potential impacts: What happens next The decision was not a final ruling in the case. It reversed lower-court rulings that sided with the Montgomery County school system, which introduced the storybooks in 2022 as part of an effort to better reflect the district's diversity. At first, the school district allowed parents to opt their children out of the lessons for religious and other reasons, but the district later reversed course, saying it became disruptive. The move prompted protests and eventually a lawsuit. Now, the case goes back to the lower court to be reevaluated under the Supreme Court's new guidance. But the justices strongly suggested that the parents will win in the end. The court ruled that policies like the one at issue in this case are subjected to the strictest level of review, nearly always dooming them. The ruling could have national implications for public education Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said the court's ruling could inspire similar lawsuits in other states. 'I think any school district that reads similar books to their children is now subject to suit by parents who don't want their kids to hear these books because it substantially interferes with their religious beliefs,' she said. Whether it could open the door to broader legal challenges remains to be seen. Levinson said the majority opinion's emphasis on the particular books at the center of the case, including 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' a story about a two men getting married, could narrow its impact. 'The question that people will ask,' Levinson said, 'is if this could now allow parents to say, 'We don't want our kids to learn about certain aspects of American history.' ' LGBTQ rights advocates slam court ruling Adam Zimmerman, who has two kids in school in Montgomery County, Maryland, called the ruling abhorrent. 'We need to call out what's being dressed up as religious faith and values and expose it for the intolerance that it really is,' he said. Zimmerman has lived in Montgomery County for 16 years and wanted to raise his son and daughter there, in large part, because of the school district's diversity. It was important to him, he said, that his kids be exposed to people from all walks of life. 'It's a beautiful thing, and this ruling just spits on that diversity,' he said. Other rights groups described the court's decision as harmful and dangerous. 'No matter what the Supreme Court has said, and what extremist groups are advocating for, book bans and other censorship will not erase LGBTQIA+ people from our communities,' said Fatima Goss Graves, CEO and president of the National Women's Law Center. Conservative advocates say the case is about parental rights and religious freedom Republican U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who was part of an amicus brief filed in the case in support of the Maryland parents, called the ruling a 'win for families.' 'Students should not be forced to learn about gender and sexuality subject matter that violates their family's religious beliefs,' he said. Lawyer Eric Baxter, who represented the parents at the Supreme Court, also called the decision a 'historic victory for parental rights.' 'Kids shouldn't be forced into conversations about drag queens, pride parades, or gender transitions without their parents' permission,' Baxter said. Other opponents say ruling will have 'broad chilling effect' PEN America, a group advocating for free expression, said the court's decision could open the door to censorship and discrimination in classrooms. 'In practice, opt outs for religious objections will chill what is taught in schools and usher in a more narrow orthodoxy as fear of offending any ideology or sensibility takes hold,' said Elly Brinkley, a staff attorney at PEN America. In a joint statement Friday, some of the authors and illustrators of the books in question described the ruling as a threat to First Amendment rights to free speech, as well as diversity in schools. 'To treat children's books about LGBTQ+ characters differently than similar books about non-LGBTQ+ characters is discriminatory and harmful,' the statement said.
Edmonton Journal
4 hours ago
- Edmonton Journal
Alberta transgender health-care bill blocked as judge issues temporary injunction
Article content EDMONTON — An Alberta judge has put on hold a provincial law that bans doctors from providing gender-affirming care to youth. Justice Allison Kuntz, in a written judgment Friday, said the law raises serious Charter issues that need to be hashed out in court, and issued a temporary injunction against it before it fully came into effect. Kuntz wrote that a temporary stop is needed while the issue is debated. Article content 'The evidence shows that singling out health care for gender diverse youth and making it subject to government control will cause irreparable harm to gender diverse youth by reinforcing the discrimination and prejudice that they are already subjected to,' Kuntz wrote in the judgment. 'Intentionally or not, the ban will signal that there is something wrong with or suspect about having a gender identity that is different than the sex you were assigned at birth.' The law, passed late last year but not fully in effect, bans doctors from providing treatment such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy to those under 16. LGBTQ+ advocacy groups Egale Canada and the Skipping Stone Foundation — as well as five transgender youth who would be affected by the law — took the province to court the same month it passed. In the Friday decision, Kuntz wrote that denying treatment risks causing youth emotional harm and exposing them to permanent physical changes that don't match their gender identity. Article content The government, according to the decision, argued that claims of harm were speculative considering the law wasn't fully in effect, and that the treatments the law seeks to ban aren't scientifically supported. Kuntz wrote that the advocacy groups also submitted scientific evidence on the treatments that support their perspectives, but the injunction hearings weren't the appropriate stage to determine which side's evidence stood taller. Kuntz, however, largely sided with the advocacy group's evidence in her decision. She wrote that the government's scientific evidence wasn't 'so overwhelming' as to prevent a finding that the youth's human rights are being infringed upon. The province also argued that the law didn't cause the psychological harm facing the youth involved in the case, but it was a result of going through puberty. Article content 'The starting point for an alleged harm might not be caused by government action, but government action may impact an individual's ability to address the harm in a way that infringes their Charter rights and causes further harm,' Kuntz wrote in response to that argument. Egale's legal director Bennett Jensen said Friday that the decision was a 'huge relief.' '(The legislation) does not solve any real issues in the medical system,' Jensen said in an interview. 'It simply creates them and targets an already very vulnerable, small group of young people with further discrimination, and that's what the judge found.' Premier Danielle Smith has said she believes the legislation is needed to protect young people from making permanent, life-altering decisions. Smith has said it's about preserving that adult choice, and that making 'permanent and irreversible decisions' about one's biological sex while still a child can limit that. Article content Kuntz, in her decision, disagreed and said Alberta's law was not necessary to preserve choice. 'That choice is available without government intervention,' Kuntz wrote. 'The ban takes away choice in favour of preserving a very specific choice that some youth may not want to preserve, or that some youth may want to approach differently than the ban assumes.' Alberta Justice Minister Mickey Amery's press secretary, Heather Jenkins, reiterated in an email that the legislation protects youth from making irreversible decisions. 'Alberta's government will continue to vigorously defend our position in court and is considering all options with respect to the court's decision,' Jenkins said. Opposition NDP Leader Naheed Nenshi said in a statement that his party was pleased with the decision, calling it a 'great day for young Albertans who simply want to live authentically and safely.' Article content 'This was never about doing the right thing: it was always about demonizing vulnerable kids to boost Danielle Smith's political fortunes,' Nenshi said. Also lauding the decision Friday was Senator Kris Wells, the former Canada Research Chair for the Public Understanding of Sexual and Gender Minority Youth. 'This isn't just a win for trans youth, it is a win for Canada's health-care system,' Wells wrote on social media. 'No politician should be dictating or restricting your access to evidence-based medical care.' Egale and the Skipping Stone Foundation aren't the only groups challenging the bill. Last month, the Canadian Medical Association and three Alberta-based doctors launched a legal case challenging the legislation's constitutionality, arguing it violates their Charter right to freedom of conscience. Alberta's other two pieces of transgender legislation _ banning transgender women from competing in women's sports and requiring children under 16 to have parental consent to change their names or pronouns at school — have yet to be challenged in court. Latest National Stories
National Post
4 hours ago
- National Post
Alberta transgender health-care bill blocked as judge issues temporary injunction
EDMONTON — An Alberta judge has put on hold a provincial law that bans doctors from providing gender-affirming care to youth. Article content Justice Allison Kuntz, in a written judgment Friday, said the law raises serious Charter issues that need to be hashed out in court, and issued a temporary injunction against it before it fully came into effect. Article content Kuntz wrote that a temporary stop is needed while the issue is debated. Article content Article content 'The evidence shows that singling out health care for gender diverse youth and making it subject to government control will cause irreparable harm to gender diverse youth by reinforcing the discrimination and prejudice that they are already subjected to,' Kuntz wrote in the judgment. Article content Article content 'Intentionally or not, the ban will signal that there is something wrong with or suspect about having a gender identity that is different than the sex you were assigned at birth.' Article content The law, passed late last year but not fully in effect, bans doctors from providing treatment such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy to those under 16. Article content LGBTQ+ advocacy groups Egale Canada and the Skipping Stone Foundation — as well as five transgender youth who would be affected by the law — took the province to court the same month it passed. Article content In the Friday decision, Kuntz wrote that denying treatment risks causing youth emotional harm and exposing them to permanent physical changes that don't match their gender identity. Article content The government, according to the decision, argued that claims of harm were speculative considering the law wasn't fully in effect, and that the treatments the law seeks to ban aren't scientifically supported. Article content Kuntz wrote that the advocacy groups also submitted scientific evidence on the treatments that support their perspectives, but the injunction hearings weren't the appropriate stage to determine which side's evidence stood taller. Article content Kuntz, however, largely sided with the advocacy group's evidence in her decision. Article content She wrote that the government's scientific evidence wasn't 'so overwhelming' as to prevent a finding that the youth's human rights are being infringed upon. Article content The province also argued that the law didn't cause the psychological harm facing the youth involved in the case, but it was a result of going through puberty. Article content 'The starting point for an alleged harm might not be caused by government action, but government action may impact an individual's ability to address the harm in a way that infringes their Charter rights and causes further harm,' Kuntz wrote in response to that argument.
