UPDATE: A number of advocacy groups have sued to prevent the rule from going into effect, including the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) and Southampton Community Healthcare in St. Louis. The petition says “The Rule targets gender-affirming care with unprecedented and unique restrictions so onerous that it effectively prohibits the provision of this necessary, safe, and effective care for many, if not most, transgender people in Missouri.” The suit sought a stay on the order. After this blog post was written, St. Louis County Circuit Court Judge Ellen Ribaudo issued the stay of enforcement that would allow the court time to “review the briefing sufficiently.” Judge Ribaudo anticipated doing so by May 1. This changes the timeline on implementation. It does not change the substance of this blog entry.
I have been thinking more about Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey’s emergency order restricting access to gender affirming care. The order was scheduled to go into effect today, Thursday April 27 2023. While initially touted by Bailey as “protecting” kids, in fact it affects both minors and adults, and puts serious obstacles in the path of anyone seeking gender affirming care. Since Bailey made it clear adults will also be affected, he has been framing the emergency order as “protecting consumers” and supporting “informed consent” by making sure that “all patients” realize that these treatments are “experimental.” Bailey has in fact said, ““I am standing up to make sure that patients have the information they need to make informed health care decisions.” If this were true, medical ethicists would have to take note, and might even be manipulated into supporting such rules. However, it’s not. Experts from numerous medical associations have pushed back on the claim that these are experimental treatments, instead noting that they are considered standard of care with decades of evidence for effectiveness and are not experimental. And the St. Louis Department of Health has issued a statement condemning the order on these and further grounds (St. Louis is where most gender affirming care in Missouri, especially for trans youth, takes place). Other medical experts and health care institutions have noted that access to gender affirming care improves mental health for trans youth and adults, and reduces suicidality by as much as 73%, thus, making it harder to access gender affirming care is the opposite of protecting trans youth and trans adults. The order isn’t about informed consent, and it isn’t about protecting kids. Let’s explore this further.
Here are the criteria for accessing gender affirming care in the state of Missouri as of today, criteria that probably don’t affect people already receiving care but definitely affect trans youth and adults who are just establishing gender affirming care in Missouri. This handy summary of the criteria is taken from an article in the Springfield News-Leader by Susan Szuch:
- Assess at least annually whether the patient has gender dysphoria;
- Disclose a list of information potential negative side effects and information about gender dysphoria;
- Perform a full psychological/psychiatric assessment, including at least 15 hourly sessions over the span of at least 18 months, to identify whether the patient has any other mental health comorbidities;
- Treat and resolve existing mental health comorbidities;
- Track all adverse effects from any course of covered gender-affirming procedures for at least 15 years from the start of the intervention;
- Obtain and keep on file informed written consent;
- Ensure that the patient has a comprehensive screening to determine whether or not they have autism;
- Ensure at least annually that the patient’s gender identity is not the result of a “social contagion;”
- Ensure at least annually that minor patients are screened for “social media addiction or compulsion”
All of the criteria are quite troublesome in terms of putting in place nearly insurmountable barriers to accessing care. But the two that I want to single out are:
- that all other mental health conditions be not only treated but resolved before gender affirming care can begin, and
- that the person be assessed for social contagion and prove that their gender identity is not being influenced by others.