![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
VIRick
128p10,507 comments posted · 39 followers · following 17
7 months ago @ Equality on Trial - 7/30 open thread · 1 reply · +4 points
Mexico: Supreme Court Decriminalizes Abortion Nationwide at Federal Level
On 6 September 2023, the full 11-member chamber of Mexico’s Supreme Court threw out all federal criminal penalties for abortion, ruling that national laws prohibiting the procedure were unconstitutional and violate women’s rights. The court struck down the federal penal code that criminalized abortion, deeming it “unconstitutional” and making abortion legally accessible in all federal health institutions across the country. It also ruled against bans on medical providers, including midwives, who perform the procedure.
The Mexican Supreme Court first ruled that criminalizing abortion was unconstitutional in 2021, but that ruling applied only to the northern state of Coahuila, abutting Texas. Eleven other Mexican states have already eliminated criminal penalties for the procedure, with Aguascalientes becoming the 12th to do so last week.
This latest ruling has no effect on state laws, and abortion remains illegal in 20 of the 32 states. But even in those states, women can now legally seek abortion in federal hospitals and clinics. The ruling also prohibits employees at these facilities from being penalized for carrying out abortions.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/06/world/americas...
Mexico: Social Security Law Limiting Pension Benefits to Heteros Unconstitutional
Per LGBT Marriage News:
On the same date, in a separate case, the Second Chamber of Mexico’s Supreme Court ruled that the Social Security (IMSS) law that had limited a widow’s pension benefit to heterosexual couples was unconstitutional discrimination.
https://lgbtmarriage.substack.com/p/courts-expect...
The unanimous ruling is here:
https://twitter.com/VE_Igualitaria/status/1699926...
As an aside, I am deliberately quoting from a post made by Venezuela Igualitaria who lament, in comparison, that la Sala Constitucional del TSJ de Venezuela continues to suffer quite acutely from "un severo retardo procesal," a classic understatement of note.
On 6 September 2023, the full 11-member chamber of Mexico’s Supreme Court threw out all federal criminal penalties for abortion, ruling that national laws prohibiting the procedure were unconstitutional and violate women’s rights. The court struck down the federal penal code that criminalized abortion, deeming it “unconstitutional” and making abortion legally accessible in all federal health institutions across the country. It also ruled against bans on medical providers, including midwives, who perform the procedure.
The Mexican Supreme Court first ruled that criminalizing abortion was unconstitutional in 2021, but that ruling applied only to the northern state of Coahuila, abutting Texas. Eleven other Mexican states have already eliminated criminal penalties for the procedure, with Aguascalientes becoming the 12th to do so last week.
This latest ruling has no effect on state laws, and abortion remains illegal in 20 of the 32 states. But even in those states, women can now legally seek abortion in federal hospitals and clinics. The ruling also prohibits employees at these facilities from being penalized for carrying out abortions.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/06/world/americas...
Mexico: Social Security Law Limiting Pension Benefits to Heteros Unconstitutional
Per LGBT Marriage News:
On the same date, in a separate case, the Second Chamber of Mexico’s Supreme Court ruled that the Social Security (IMSS) law that had limited a widow’s pension benefit to heterosexual couples was unconstitutional discrimination.
https://lgbtmarriage.substack.com/p/courts-expect...
The unanimous ruling is here:
https://twitter.com/VE_Igualitaria/status/1699926...
As an aside, I am deliberately quoting from a post made by Venezuela Igualitaria who lament, in comparison, that la Sala Constitucional del TSJ de Venezuela continues to suffer quite acutely from "un severo retardo procesal," a classic understatement of note.
7 months ago @ Equality on Trial - 7/30 open thread · 0 replies · +2 points
Georgia: Injunction Blocking Ban on Gender-Affirming Healthcare for Trans Youth Lifted
On 5 September 2023, a federal judge ruled that Georgia can again enforce its ban on hormone therapy for transgender minors. US District Judge Sarah Geraghty had issued a temporary injunction in August blocking enforcement of the ban while the lawsuit against it proceeds, as she found that the parties who sued were likely to succeed in proving that it violated the constitutional right to equal protection of the laws. But she put that injunction on hold due to a ruling by a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals lifting the injunction on Alabama’s ban on gender-affirming care for trans youth.
Since Georgia is in the same circuit, she was required to follow this lead, she said. “It is undisputed that this Court’s preliminary injunction order rests on legal grounds that have been squarely rejected by the panel in the Alabama case, 'Eknes-Tucker v. Alabama,' and that this Court’s injunction cannot stand on the bases articulated in the order,” Geraghty wrote. She added, “'Eknes-Tucker' is binding precedent right now.”
Geraghty and the 11th Circuit Court panel had different opinions as to the legal standard to which such laws should be held. The panel did not think that the plaintiffs in the Alabama case would succeed under the standard it applied. The full 11th Circuit Court of Appeals may rehear the matter.
https://www.advocate.com/law/georgia-trans-care-b...
On 5 September 2023, a federal judge ruled that Georgia can again enforce its ban on hormone therapy for transgender minors. US District Judge Sarah Geraghty had issued a temporary injunction in August blocking enforcement of the ban while the lawsuit against it proceeds, as she found that the parties who sued were likely to succeed in proving that it violated the constitutional right to equal protection of the laws. But she put that injunction on hold due to a ruling by a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals lifting the injunction on Alabama’s ban on gender-affirming care for trans youth.
Since Georgia is in the same circuit, she was required to follow this lead, she said. “It is undisputed that this Court’s preliminary injunction order rests on legal grounds that have been squarely rejected by the panel in the Alabama case, 'Eknes-Tucker v. Alabama,' and that this Court’s injunction cannot stand on the bases articulated in the order,” Geraghty wrote. She added, “'Eknes-Tucker' is binding precedent right now.”
Geraghty and the 11th Circuit Court panel had different opinions as to the legal standard to which such laws should be held. The panel did not think that the plaintiffs in the Alabama case would succeed under the standard it applied. The full 11th Circuit Court of Appeals may rehear the matter.
https://www.advocate.com/law/georgia-trans-care-b...
7 months ago @ Equality on Trial - 7/30 open thread · 0 replies · +3 points
Nations that Jumped from No Official Recognition to Marriage Equality
A complete, accurate answer to this question has proven to be far more complex than originally anticipated:
Cuba. This is the clearest example, as the proposed 2007 Civil Union bill was never approved by the National Assembly. However, in order to usher in marriage equality, Cuba needed a new Constitution, approved by referendum in February 2019, and a new Family Code, one that has simultaneously allowed for both civil unions and marriage without discrimination, approved by referendum in September 2022.
South Africa. Everything was accomplished because of the courts. On 1 December 2005, the Constitutional Court extended the common-law definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, and gave the Parliament one year to rectify the inequality. Thus, the marriage equality law came into force on 30 November 2006, exactly one day before the court-imposed deadline.
Colombia. Everything was accomplished through the courts, all the way to marriage equality. There has never been any civil union or partnership legislation. Furthermore, Congress ignored the court-ordered 2-year deadline to approve marriage equality. Government agencies only began recognizing same-sex marriages performed abroad (March 2016) a month before the Constitutional Court issued its marriage equality ruling (April 2016), following a long series of additional court rulings leading up to it.
Mexico. Given that this is a federal republic, the answer is complicated, but suffice it to state that only 8 of Mexico's 32 jurisdictions have ever approved of same-sex civil unions or partnership recognition. Only 6 remain current, as Colima and Jalisco up-graded all civil unions to marriage. The remaining 24 jumped (or were pushed) directly to marriage equality, although most seemed to take forever to leap, with lots of noise, bluster, and chaos during the long 8-year process after the 2015 Supreme Court ruling.
Canada. Given that only 4 provinces had civil unions/domestic partnerships available for same-sex couples prior to the enactment of the federal marriage equality law of July 2005, the other 9, British Columbia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland/Labrador, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Yukon, Nunavut, and Northwest Territories, all directly went from no recognition to marriage equality (most doing so ahead of the federal legislation. Only Alberta, Prince Edward Island, Nunavut, Northwest Territories waited). Ontario was first, moving directly to marriage equality in 2003.
USA. Given that this is a federal republic in which only 17 of 56 jurisdictions ever had domestic partnerships/civil unions for same-sex couples, 38 of the remaining 39 jurisdictions all moved from no recognition directly to marriage equality due to a string of federal court rulings, state court rulings (Massachusetts, Iowa, New Mexico), or a voter-initiated referendum (Minnesota), with the 2015 Supreme Court ruling as the finale for the last 15 red states: Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota. American Samoa and an assortment of Indigenous tribal groups continue to be exempt. But NOT the US Virgin Islands, the second-last US jurisdiction to implement the 2015 US Supreme Court ruling allowing for marriage equality (we beat Puerto Rico), prior to which there was no recognition. At the opposite extreme, Massachusetts also moved directly to marriage equality, but 11 years prior, in 2004.
India. Likely, assuming the Supreme Court rules favorably.
A complete, accurate answer to this question has proven to be far more complex than originally anticipated:
Cuba. This is the clearest example, as the proposed 2007 Civil Union bill was never approved by the National Assembly. However, in order to usher in marriage equality, Cuba needed a new Constitution, approved by referendum in February 2019, and a new Family Code, one that has simultaneously allowed for both civil unions and marriage without discrimination, approved by referendum in September 2022.
South Africa. Everything was accomplished because of the courts. On 1 December 2005, the Constitutional Court extended the common-law definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, and gave the Parliament one year to rectify the inequality. Thus, the marriage equality law came into force on 30 November 2006, exactly one day before the court-imposed deadline.
Colombia. Everything was accomplished through the courts, all the way to marriage equality. There has never been any civil union or partnership legislation. Furthermore, Congress ignored the court-ordered 2-year deadline to approve marriage equality. Government agencies only began recognizing same-sex marriages performed abroad (March 2016) a month before the Constitutional Court issued its marriage equality ruling (April 2016), following a long series of additional court rulings leading up to it.
Mexico. Given that this is a federal republic, the answer is complicated, but suffice it to state that only 8 of Mexico's 32 jurisdictions have ever approved of same-sex civil unions or partnership recognition. Only 6 remain current, as Colima and Jalisco up-graded all civil unions to marriage. The remaining 24 jumped (or were pushed) directly to marriage equality, although most seemed to take forever to leap, with lots of noise, bluster, and chaos during the long 8-year process after the 2015 Supreme Court ruling.
Canada. Given that only 4 provinces had civil unions/domestic partnerships available for same-sex couples prior to the enactment of the federal marriage equality law of July 2005, the other 9, British Columbia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland/Labrador, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Yukon, Nunavut, and Northwest Territories, all directly went from no recognition to marriage equality (most doing so ahead of the federal legislation. Only Alberta, Prince Edward Island, Nunavut, Northwest Territories waited). Ontario was first, moving directly to marriage equality in 2003.
USA. Given that this is a federal republic in which only 17 of 56 jurisdictions ever had domestic partnerships/civil unions for same-sex couples, 38 of the remaining 39 jurisdictions all moved from no recognition directly to marriage equality due to a string of federal court rulings, state court rulings (Massachusetts, Iowa, New Mexico), or a voter-initiated referendum (Minnesota), with the 2015 Supreme Court ruling as the finale for the last 15 red states: Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota. American Samoa and an assortment of Indigenous tribal groups continue to be exempt. But NOT the US Virgin Islands, the second-last US jurisdiction to implement the 2015 US Supreme Court ruling allowing for marriage equality (we beat Puerto Rico), prior to which there was no recognition. At the opposite extreme, Massachusetts also moved directly to marriage equality, but 11 years prior, in 2004.
India. Likely, assuming the Supreme Court rules favorably.
7 months ago @ Equality on Trial - 7/30 open thread · 0 replies · +5 points
Greece: Marriage Equality Bill Extends Rights, Including Adoption, to Same-Sex Couples
Per Marianna Kakaounaki for "Ekathimerini," 3 September 2023:
A draft bill to be submitted to Parliament in the coming months will extend marriage equality and adoption rights to same-sex couples, Kathimerini understands.
Five years after the leftist-led government passed legislation granting fostering rights to same-sex couples over the objections of government partner Independent Greeks, with only four New Democracy MPs (all women, including two current ministers and Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis’ sister and former minister Dora Bakoyannis) out of 75 who voted for it, Mitsotakis is determined to extend same-sex couples’ rights beyond that, as well as beyond the currently available partnership contract.
The bill’s first article defines marriage as between persons of the same or different sex. All the rights and obligations deriving from this relationship are implicit rather than explicit. Any thought of excluding same-sex couples was rejected as unconstitutional, unlikely to withstand scrutiny, either in Greek or European courts, a person with inside knowledge of the draft legislation’s provision told Kathimerini.
The issue is not whether we will allow LGBTQ people to have children; those who want to can already have them. The issue is to recognize the rights of those children and their parents’ obligations,” the same person said. It has been decided that, in the case of children of same-sex couples, the official paperwork will not mention “parent 1” and “parent 2,” but “father-father” or “mother-mother,” depending on the case.
The draft bill also contains transitional clauses about recognizing marriages registered abroad and the option for people in a civil contract to exchange it for a civil marriage. Only civil marriages will be covered by the bill. The opposition of the Orthodox Church of Greece would not allow for any other option.
Mitsotakis has decided that MPs will vote according to their conscience, hoping that at least the two main opposition parties, SYRIZA and socialist PASOK, will be supportive. The pitch to recalcitrant New Democracy MPs reportedly will be to not stand in the way of increasing acceptance of LGBTQ rights that might, in the longer term, hurt them politically.
https://www.ekathimerini.com/news/1219070/marriag...
Per Marianna Kakaounaki for "Ekathimerini," 3 September 2023:
A draft bill to be submitted to Parliament in the coming months will extend marriage equality and adoption rights to same-sex couples, Kathimerini understands.
Five years after the leftist-led government passed legislation granting fostering rights to same-sex couples over the objections of government partner Independent Greeks, with only four New Democracy MPs (all women, including two current ministers and Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis’ sister and former minister Dora Bakoyannis) out of 75 who voted for it, Mitsotakis is determined to extend same-sex couples’ rights beyond that, as well as beyond the currently available partnership contract.
The bill’s first article defines marriage as between persons of the same or different sex. All the rights and obligations deriving from this relationship are implicit rather than explicit. Any thought of excluding same-sex couples was rejected as unconstitutional, unlikely to withstand scrutiny, either in Greek or European courts, a person with inside knowledge of the draft legislation’s provision told Kathimerini.
The issue is not whether we will allow LGBTQ people to have children; those who want to can already have them. The issue is to recognize the rights of those children and their parents’ obligations,” the same person said. It has been decided that, in the case of children of same-sex couples, the official paperwork will not mention “parent 1” and “parent 2,” but “father-father” or “mother-mother,” depending on the case.
The draft bill also contains transitional clauses about recognizing marriages registered abroad and the option for people in a civil contract to exchange it for a civil marriage. Only civil marriages will be covered by the bill. The opposition of the Orthodox Church of Greece would not allow for any other option.
Mitsotakis has decided that MPs will vote according to their conscience, hoping that at least the two main opposition parties, SYRIZA and socialist PASOK, will be supportive. The pitch to recalcitrant New Democracy MPs reportedly will be to not stand in the way of increasing acceptance of LGBTQ rights that might, in the longer term, hurt them politically.
https://www.ekathimerini.com/news/1219070/marriag...
7 months ago @ Equality on Trial - 7/30 open thread · 0 replies · +4 points
Bulgaria Violated Rights Of Same-Sex Couple Married Abroad, ECHR Rules
On 5 September 2023, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) said Bulgaria violated the rights of a same-sex couple by not recognizing their marriage abroad, a ruling LGBT rights activists said would help seal a legal vacuum in the country, one that doesn't allow same-sex marriage and that does not recognize same-sex couples married abroad.
"It is clear to the Court that to date the Bulgarian authorities have taken no steps to have adequate legal regulations adopted with regard to the recognition of unions between persons of the same sex," the court wrote in its decision, noting the vote was unanimous among the seven presiding judges. The ECHR's ruling does not oblige Bulgaria to legalize same-sex marriage but says that the authorities must provide a legal framework ensuring that same-sex couples have protection.
Darina Koilova and Lili Babulkova, Bulgarian nationals married in 2016 in the United Kingdom, wanted their marital status to be recognized in Bulgaria, where they now live. The municipality of Sofia refused to acknowledge their status as "married" in the civil records, sparking the case in local courts, which ruled against them. In 2020, Koilova and Babulkova then filed the current complaint against Bulgaria at the ECHR, claiming that their inability to obtain any form of legal recognition for their relationship constitutes discrimination on the grounds of their sexual orientation.
In the case of Koilova and Babulkova, the ECHR's ruling said Bulgaria violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to respect for private and family life. The decision also says that the absence of any official recognition means that same-sex couples in Bulgaria cannot regulate essential aspects of their lives, such as those related to property, inheritance, and protection from domestic violence.
https://www.rferl.org/a/bulgaria-violated-rights-...
On 5 September 2023, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) said Bulgaria violated the rights of a same-sex couple by not recognizing their marriage abroad, a ruling LGBT rights activists said would help seal a legal vacuum in the country, one that doesn't allow same-sex marriage and that does not recognize same-sex couples married abroad.
"It is clear to the Court that to date the Bulgarian authorities have taken no steps to have adequate legal regulations adopted with regard to the recognition of unions between persons of the same sex," the court wrote in its decision, noting the vote was unanimous among the seven presiding judges. The ECHR's ruling does not oblige Bulgaria to legalize same-sex marriage but says that the authorities must provide a legal framework ensuring that same-sex couples have protection.
Darina Koilova and Lili Babulkova, Bulgarian nationals married in 2016 in the United Kingdom, wanted their marital status to be recognized in Bulgaria, where they now live. The municipality of Sofia refused to acknowledge their status as "married" in the civil records, sparking the case in local courts, which ruled against them. In 2020, Koilova and Babulkova then filed the current complaint against Bulgaria at the ECHR, claiming that their inability to obtain any form of legal recognition for their relationship constitutes discrimination on the grounds of their sexual orientation.
In the case of Koilova and Babulkova, the ECHR's ruling said Bulgaria violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to respect for private and family life. The decision also says that the absence of any official recognition means that same-sex couples in Bulgaria cannot regulate essential aspects of their lives, such as those related to property, inheritance, and protection from domestic violence.
https://www.rferl.org/a/bulgaria-violated-rights-...
7 months ago @ Equality on Trial - 7/30 open thread · 0 replies · +4 points
Bulgaria Ordered by ECHR to Offer Civil Unions to Same-Sex Couples
Per LGBT Marriage News:
On 5 September 2023, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Bulgaria violated the rights of same-sex couples by not offering a way to register their relationships, and ordered the government to offer some kind of civil union. Bulgaria has been recalcitrant about recognizing same-sex couples, going so far as to ignore European Court of Justice rulings it disagrees with, such as a ruling ordering it to recognize same-sex families of EU citizens, or issue a birth certificate to the child of a lesbian couple.
This is the most direct ruling so far ordering Bulgaria to recognize same-sex couples, but it remains to be seen how the government will react to it. It is also the latest in a series of cases from the ECHR that have established that European states are required to provide some form of recognition of same-sex couples' relationships.
https://lgbtmarriage.substack.com/p/courts-order-...
Per LGBT Marriage News:
On 5 September 2023, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Bulgaria violated the rights of same-sex couples by not offering a way to register their relationships, and ordered the government to offer some kind of civil union. Bulgaria has been recalcitrant about recognizing same-sex couples, going so far as to ignore European Court of Justice rulings it disagrees with, such as a ruling ordering it to recognize same-sex families of EU citizens, or issue a birth certificate to the child of a lesbian couple.
This is the most direct ruling so far ordering Bulgaria to recognize same-sex couples, but it remains to be seen how the government will react to it. It is also the latest in a series of cases from the ECHR that have established that European states are required to provide some form of recognition of same-sex couples' relationships.
https://lgbtmarriage.substack.com/p/courts-order-...
7 months ago @ Equality on Trial - 7/30 open thread · 0 replies · +2 points
Hong Kong: Top Court Rules against Marriage Equality, Orders Alternate within 2 Years
Hong Kong’s highest court has again declined to rule in favor of marriage equality, but it has ordered the city to establish some form of legal recognition for same-sex couples as an alternate within 2 years. On 5 September 2023, the Court of Final Appeal dismissed an appeal from LGBTQ and democracy activist Jimmy Sham, who argued that he has a constitutional right to the recognition of his marriage to another man. But it “effectively gave the government two years to ensure that rights, such as access to hospitals and inheritance, could be protected for same-sex couples,” Reuters reports.
The justices wrote that there is a need “for access to an alternative legal framework in order to meet basic social requirements,” as quoted by Reuters. Justice Patrick Keane added, “The absence of legal recognition of [a same-sex couple’s] relationship is apt to disrupt and demean their private lives together in ways that constitute arbitrary interference,” according to the BBC.
Sham married his partner in New York in 2013. He has gone to court in Hong Kong seeking recognition of his marriage but has been rejected twice. He has been jailed since 2021 for his pro-democracy activities, unrelated to his marriage case.
In 2019, a lower Hong Kong court, the Court of First Instance, ruled against marriage equality in a case brought by a woman identified only as MK, who said lack of access to marriage violated her constitutional rights. Said court disagreed, but recommended that the government establish a framework for recognition of same-sex relationships.
https://www.advocate.com/world/hong-kong-marriage...
Hong Kong’s highest court has again declined to rule in favor of marriage equality, but it has ordered the city to establish some form of legal recognition for same-sex couples as an alternate within 2 years. On 5 September 2023, the Court of Final Appeal dismissed an appeal from LGBTQ and democracy activist Jimmy Sham, who argued that he has a constitutional right to the recognition of his marriage to another man. But it “effectively gave the government two years to ensure that rights, such as access to hospitals and inheritance, could be protected for same-sex couples,” Reuters reports.
The justices wrote that there is a need “for access to an alternative legal framework in order to meet basic social requirements,” as quoted by Reuters. Justice Patrick Keane added, “The absence of legal recognition of [a same-sex couple’s] relationship is apt to disrupt and demean their private lives together in ways that constitute arbitrary interference,” according to the BBC.
Sham married his partner in New York in 2013. He has gone to court in Hong Kong seeking recognition of his marriage but has been rejected twice. He has been jailed since 2021 for his pro-democracy activities, unrelated to his marriage case.
In 2019, a lower Hong Kong court, the Court of First Instance, ruled against marriage equality in a case brought by a woman identified only as MK, who said lack of access to marriage violated her constitutional rights. Said court disagreed, but recommended that the government establish a framework for recognition of same-sex relationships.
https://www.advocate.com/world/hong-kong-marriage...
7 months ago @ Equality on Trial - 7/30 open thread · 0 replies · +2 points
Texas: Ban on Gender-Affirming Healthcare for Minors Now in Effect
As of 1 September 2023, Texas became the most populous state to ban gender-affirming healthcare for minors with gender dysphoria. On 31 August, the Texas Supreme Court denied a request for a temporary injunction to the state’s new law prohibiting gender-affirming healthcare for transgender youth, thus allowing the ban to take effect on the following day, CNN reports.
According to the new law, exceptions apply to intersex patients and to minors who began receiving gender-affirming care before 1 June. However, these patients will be required to stop taking their medications. Providers of such care who violate the law may lose their licenses.
A state district court judge had imposed a stay on the ban, a matter that was then blocked by the state's appeal of the decision. The state supreme court then decided not to reinstate the stay and not to address any of the arguments raised by advocacy groups seeking temporary injunctions.
There are now 22 contiguous states with bans on gender-affirming healthcare for minors: Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia.
https://www.advocate.com/news/texas-gender-affirm...
As of 1 September 2023, Texas became the most populous state to ban gender-affirming healthcare for minors with gender dysphoria. On 31 August, the Texas Supreme Court denied a request for a temporary injunction to the state’s new law prohibiting gender-affirming healthcare for transgender youth, thus allowing the ban to take effect on the following day, CNN reports.
According to the new law, exceptions apply to intersex patients and to minors who began receiving gender-affirming care before 1 June. However, these patients will be required to stop taking their medications. Providers of such care who violate the law may lose their licenses.
A state district court judge had imposed a stay on the ban, a matter that was then blocked by the state's appeal of the decision. The state supreme court then decided not to reinstate the stay and not to address any of the arguments raised by advocacy groups seeking temporary injunctions.
There are now 22 contiguous states with bans on gender-affirming healthcare for minors: Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia.
https://www.advocate.com/news/texas-gender-affirm...
7 months ago @ Equality on Trial - 7/30 open thread · 0 replies · +2 points
Japan: 3 More Prefectures to Offer Registries for Same-Sex Partnerships
Per LGBT Marriage News:
Starting tomorrow, 1 September 2023, Gifu Prefecture becomes the 14th prefecture (of 47) with an active registry for same-sex partners. While these registries are not legally binding, they can allow couples to access certain government services and housing. Two more prefectures, Shimane and Tottori, are set to begin registering couples in October.
https://news.yahoo.co.jp/articles/34c04021a61ec16...
Per LGBT Marriage News:
Starting tomorrow, 1 September 2023, Gifu Prefecture becomes the 14th prefecture (of 47) with an active registry for same-sex partners. While these registries are not legally binding, they can allow couples to access certain government services and housing. Two more prefectures, Shimane and Tottori, are set to begin registering couples in October.
https://news.yahoo.co.jp/articles/34c04021a61ec16...
7 months ago @ Equality on Trial - 7/30 open thread · 1 reply · +3 points
Texas: Judge Blocks Drag Ban from Taking Effect
On 31 August 2023, on the eve of the Texas drag ban’s implementation, a federal judge stepped in and temporarily halted the law’s enforcement. While the court deliberates regarding a permanent injunction, the judge temporarily blocked Senate Bill 12, the drag ban, from taking effect on 1 September.
On behalf of Abilene Pride Alliance, The Woodlands Pride, Extragrams, LLC, 360 Queen Entertainment LLC, and drag performer Brigitte Bandit, the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas filed a lawsuit earlier this month. According to the plaintiffs, SB 12 threatens their livelihoods, censors their freedom of expression, and vilifies an ancient art form.
The judge, US District Court Judge David Hittner, also wrote that he believed that the law was likely to be ruled unconstitutional. “The Court finds there is a substantial likelihood that SB 12 as drafted violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution under one or more of the legal theories put forward by the Plaintiffs,” Hittner wrote. “Regarding the irreparable harm element, the Court considers the impending infringement on the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights sufficient irreparable harm to warrant enjoining SB 12 while a final judgment is drafted.”
https://www.advocate.com/law/judge-blocks-texas-d...
On 31 August 2023, on the eve of the Texas drag ban’s implementation, a federal judge stepped in and temporarily halted the law’s enforcement. While the court deliberates regarding a permanent injunction, the judge temporarily blocked Senate Bill 12, the drag ban, from taking effect on 1 September.
On behalf of Abilene Pride Alliance, The Woodlands Pride, Extragrams, LLC, 360 Queen Entertainment LLC, and drag performer Brigitte Bandit, the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas filed a lawsuit earlier this month. According to the plaintiffs, SB 12 threatens their livelihoods, censors their freedom of expression, and vilifies an ancient art form.
The judge, US District Court Judge David Hittner, also wrote that he believed that the law was likely to be ruled unconstitutional. “The Court finds there is a substantial likelihood that SB 12 as drafted violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution under one or more of the legal theories put forward by the Plaintiffs,” Hittner wrote. “Regarding the irreparable harm element, the Court considers the impending infringement on the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights sufficient irreparable harm to warrant enjoining SB 12 while a final judgment is drafted.”
https://www.advocate.com/law/judge-blocks-texas-d...
Creation