分裂平等:在第四巡回法院获得性别确认护理。

Journal of law and health Pub Date : 2025-01-01
Gilbert D Jones
{"title":"分裂平等:在第四巡回法院获得性别确认护理。","authors":"Gilbert D Jones","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This Note critically examines the evolving legal landscape surrounding transgender individuals' access to gender-affirming care in the United States, focusing on two pivotal cases before the Fourth Circuit: Kadel v. Folwell (North Carolina) and Fain v. Crouch (West Virginia). These cases present a constitutional and statutory challenge to the exclusion of medically necessary gender-affirming care from state health plans, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Note contextualizes these lawsuits within a broader historical trajectory of transgender rights, highlighting legal and cultural milestones that have shaped access to care and recognition. Drawing on precedent, including Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board and Bostock v. Clayton County, the analysis explores how gender identity is legally understood through the lens of sex discrimination. It further considers the persuasive value of medical consensus on the necessity of gender-affirming care, as endorsed by major health organizations. The paper identifies the legal inconsistencies and discriminatory rationales employed by states to deny this care and critiques the sociopolitical underpinnings of such exclusions. By comparing the different factual and legal circumstances of Kadel and Fain, the Note argues that the Fourth Circuit has an opportunity to affirm constitutional protections for transgender persons. It proposes a legally and politically viable middle ground: requiring states to provide coverage for non-surgical interventions such as medication and psychotherapy, thereby upholding basic standards of care while navigating judicial restraint. Ultimately, the Note underscores that the outcome of these joined en banc proceedings will significantly influence future litigation, legislative efforts, and the lived realities of transgender individuals. In doing so, it advocates for a legal framework rooted in equality, medical necessity, and the dignity of all persons under the law.</p>","PeriodicalId":73804,"journal":{"name":"Journal of law and health","volume":"38 3","pages":"402-421"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Splitting Equality: Access to Gender-Affirming Care in the Fourth Circuit.\",\"authors\":\"Gilbert D Jones\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This Note critically examines the evolving legal landscape surrounding transgender individuals' access to gender-affirming care in the United States, focusing on two pivotal cases before the Fourth Circuit: Kadel v. Folwell (North Carolina) and Fain v. Crouch (West Virginia). These cases present a constitutional and statutory challenge to the exclusion of medically necessary gender-affirming care from state health plans, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Note contextualizes these lawsuits within a broader historical trajectory of transgender rights, highlighting legal and cultural milestones that have shaped access to care and recognition. Drawing on precedent, including Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board and Bostock v. Clayton County, the analysis explores how gender identity is legally understood through the lens of sex discrimination. It further considers the persuasive value of medical consensus on the necessity of gender-affirming care, as endorsed by major health organizations. The paper identifies the legal inconsistencies and discriminatory rationales employed by states to deny this care and critiques the sociopolitical underpinnings of such exclusions. By comparing the different factual and legal circumstances of Kadel and Fain, the Note argues that the Fourth Circuit has an opportunity to affirm constitutional protections for transgender persons. It proposes a legally and politically viable middle ground: requiring states to provide coverage for non-surgical interventions such as medication and psychotherapy, thereby upholding basic standards of care while navigating judicial restraint. Ultimately, the Note underscores that the outcome of these joined en banc proceedings will significantly influence future litigation, legislative efforts, and the lived realities of transgender individuals. In doing so, it advocates for a legal framework rooted in equality, medical necessity, and the dignity of all persons under the law.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73804,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of law and health\",\"volume\":\"38 3\",\"pages\":\"402-421\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of law and health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of law and health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文批判性地考察了围绕美国变性人获得性别确认护理的法律环境的演变,重点关注第四巡回法院审理的两个关键案件:卡德尔诉福尔韦尔案(北卡罗来纳州)和费恩诉克劳奇案(西弗吉尼亚州)。根据1964年《民权法案》第七章和《第十四修正案》平等保护条款,这些案件对将医疗上必要的性别确认护理排除在州健康计划之外的做法提出了宪法和法律挑战。该报告将这些诉讼置于跨性别者权利的更广泛的历史轨迹中,强调了影响获得护理和认可的法律和文化里程碑。借鉴格林诉格洛斯特县学校董事会案和博斯托克诉克莱顿县案等先例,分析探讨了如何通过性别歧视的视角在法律上理解性别认同。它还审议了经各主要卫生组织赞同的关于肯定性别护理必要性的医学共识的说服价值。本文指出了各国在法律上的不一致和歧视性理由,以拒绝这种照顾,并批评了这种排斥的社会政治基础。通过比较卡德尔案和费恩案不同的事实和法律情况,《说明》认为第四巡回法院有机会确认宪法对跨性别者的保护。它提出了一个在法律上和政治上都可行的中间立场:要求各州为药物和心理治疗等非手术干预提供保险,从而在遵守司法约束的同时维护基本的护理标准。最后,《说明》强调,这些集体诉讼的结果将对未来的诉讼、立法努力和跨性别者的生活现实产生重大影响。在这样做的过程中,它倡导建立一个植根于平等、医疗需要和所有人依法享有尊严的法律框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Splitting Equality: Access to Gender-Affirming Care in the Fourth Circuit.

This Note critically examines the evolving legal landscape surrounding transgender individuals' access to gender-affirming care in the United States, focusing on two pivotal cases before the Fourth Circuit: Kadel v. Folwell (North Carolina) and Fain v. Crouch (West Virginia). These cases present a constitutional and statutory challenge to the exclusion of medically necessary gender-affirming care from state health plans, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Note contextualizes these lawsuits within a broader historical trajectory of transgender rights, highlighting legal and cultural milestones that have shaped access to care and recognition. Drawing on precedent, including Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board and Bostock v. Clayton County, the analysis explores how gender identity is legally understood through the lens of sex discrimination. It further considers the persuasive value of medical consensus on the necessity of gender-affirming care, as endorsed by major health organizations. The paper identifies the legal inconsistencies and discriminatory rationales employed by states to deny this care and critiques the sociopolitical underpinnings of such exclusions. By comparing the different factual and legal circumstances of Kadel and Fain, the Note argues that the Fourth Circuit has an opportunity to affirm constitutional protections for transgender persons. It proposes a legally and politically viable middle ground: requiring states to provide coverage for non-surgical interventions such as medication and psychotherapy, thereby upholding basic standards of care while navigating judicial restraint. Ultimately, the Note underscores that the outcome of these joined en banc proceedings will significantly influence future litigation, legislative efforts, and the lived realities of transgender individuals. In doing so, it advocates for a legal framework rooted in equality, medical necessity, and the dignity of all persons under the law.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信