AUSTIN – A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction in a case against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HSS) regarding a law that would require Texas insurance companies to allow coverage for gender reassignment and abortions.
The lawsuit was filed by Franciscan Alliance, a Roman-Catholic based health care system that has hospitals in Indiana and Illinois and the Christian Medical & Dental Associations, which includes 17,000 health care professionals. The case was filed in the Wichita Falls Division of the Northern District of Texas following a new regulation made by HSS.
HSS changed a rule in July that changed the definition of sex from biological gender to "gender identity," meaning an "internal sense of gender, which may be male, female, neither, or a combination of male and female," according to a press release issued by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's office.
"HHS lacked congressional authority to do this," Marc Rylander, director of communications for the Office of the Texas Attorney General, told the Southeast Texas Record.
According to the press release, the new rule would force doctors to perform controversial and dangerous operations on patients. Paxton's office believes this in an overreach by the federal government and that medical decisions and regulations should be set by the state.
"The rule forces health care professionals to provide controversial gender transition procedures, regardless of whether the health care professionals believe this is in the best interest of the patient, and regardless of their religious and conscientious convictions to the contrary," Rylander said.
The case also said the operations can be done on children in some cases and that it is a violation for doctors to refer patients to other medical professionals because of religious reasons.
The rule not only requires doctors to perform abortions and gender reassignments but it also requires insurance companies to cover them. "The penalties for noncompliance are so severe as to make the regulation coercive," according to the case. Texas, as an example, faces the loss of more than $42.4 billion a year in health care funding to serve its most vulnerable citizens, the case states.
Paxton's office believes this rule is not only a financial burden on the taxpayers but puts health care professionals in an uncomfortable position.
The court granted the preliminary injunction stating the rule will affect how the plaintiffs' "communicate with patients, what insurance coverage they offer to their employees, and their hiring prospects."
"The injunction protects the doctor-patient relationship by preserving a doctor's ability to practice medicine according to his or her medical judgment and conscience," Rylander said. "It also ensure that states may continue to protect the religious liberty and conscience rights of doctors and other healthcare workers."
When asked if patients looking for gender reassignment or an abortion will be able to receive care from non-religious doctors if the rule is struck down, Rylander said, "The rule was an attempt by Washington bureaucrats to dictate how doctors should provide medical care. Thus, the win protects the rights of doctors and patients to decide what care is appropriate for the patient."
HHS has 60 days from the ruling to file an appeal or the plaintiffs can litigate the case in trial court.