Latest news with #SenateBill63
Yahoo
02-06-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Three lawsuits confirm that Kansas lawmakers concocted menacing attacks on civil rights
The Ad Astra statue atop the Kansas Statehouse takes aim against a wall of gray clouds on May 2, 2025. (Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector) In their apparent eagerness to save money and do right by taxpayers, perhaps Kansas Republican leaders could try passing laws that don't trample on the rights of their constituents. That's my only response to lawsuits filed throughout May that highlight the downright sloppy lawmaking that has become a hallmark of our state's rushed, secretive legislative session. Bills are introduced and rubber-stamped in committee, testimony from experts is ignored, and the House and Senate send them through with nary a speed bump. Afterward, the taxpayers of Kansas have to foot the bill for any carelessness. Let's take a quick look at the lawsuits and their subjects. Up first, Kansas Reflector editor in chief Sherman Smith, who reported the following May 28. 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. You can read the law here. You can read the lawsuit here. Next, Reflector reporter Anna Kaminski wrote about another lawsuit on May 19. A Kansas reproductive rights advocacy group, backed by a Washington, D.C., law firm, sued state officials over a new law banning financial contributions from 'foreign nationals' to support or oppose constitutional amendments. The group, Kansans for Constitutional Freedom, argued in a complaint filed in federal court Friday that House Bill 2106, which passed the Legislature in April and is set to go into effect July 1, is broad, vague and unconstitutional. The group said the bill inhibits its ability to advocate for or against future constitutional amendments. Kansans for Constitutional Freedom and its donors have received contributions from foreign nationals, the lawsuit said. The complaint drew a connection between HB 2106 and opposition to the 2022 ballot measure that sought to limit reproductive rights. Voters rejected the proposed constitutional amendment by a 59-41 margin. You can read the law here. You can read the lawsuit here. But wait, there's still more! Here's senior reporter Morgan Chilson on May 6. Three advocacy organizations filed a lawsuit Monday in Douglas County District Court challenging the Kansas Legislature's attempt to 'arbitrarily' reject advance ballots of voters if the mail system fails to deliver them by Election Day. Kansas Appleseed, Loud Light and Disability Rights Center of Kansas are asking the court to find Senate Bill 4 unconstitutional. Defendants are Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab and Douglas County Clerk Jamie Shew. SB 4, which the Legislature passed this year, disqualifies any mail-in ballots not received by 7 p.m. on Election Day. Previously, mail-in ballots were counted if they were postmarked by Election Day and arrived within three days later. You can read the law here. You can read the lawsuit here. We covered all of these proposals at various stages, from twinkles in legislators' eyes to enshrinement in the statute books. Leaders sent the anti-trans bill to Gov. Laura Kelly as their first act of business in the 2025 session. She allowed the foreign nationals ban to become law without her signature and a warning that it 'went too far.' The advance-voting bill was called 'pure partisan politics' by former Rep. Ann Mah. Sure, the deluge of wastewater emanating from the Statehouse in 2025 may have overwhelmed at times. But none of this should have come as a surprise. If people or groups believe the government has infringed on their rights — to medical care, to advocacy, to voting — no one can be surprised if they bring legal action. When senators and representatives cast votes on such issues, they decide whether the state should place a barrier in front of the people they represent. No amount of victim blaming or sanctimonious claptrap obscures the truth. Defending the laws falls to Attorney General Kris Kobach and his office. Who pays their salaries? You and me and all the people of Kansas. We're all on the hook for legislative foolishness. The state may win some or all of these suits. So may those who filed them. Regardless, their mere presence suggests that our elected officials tread far too easily into the swamps of ideological overreaction. Rather than representing all, they have bowed and scraped in service to a hateful few. We will see the consequences play out before judges in the months ahead. Clay Wirestone is Kansas Reflector opinion editor. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.
Yahoo
29-05-2025
- 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
28-05-2025
- 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
28-05-2025
- 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.
