photo by: Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector

Kansans rally in support of transgender rights May 5, 2023, at the Statehouse in Topeka.

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.”