Read on Twitter
COMING UP: Today we'll be in (virtual) court, arguing for a preliminary injunction to block the Trump administration's new anti-trans health care rule. Tune in here for highlights! #StopTheRule #ProtectTransHealth
Case is Whitman-Walker v. HHS, argued at US District Court for DC.
We're co-counsel with @SteptoeLLP, repping @whitmanwalker, @TransLatina_C & its members, @LALGBTCenter, @GLMA_LGBTHealth, @AglPsychiatry, Bradbury-Sullivan LGBT Center & 4 doctors.
More: https://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/cases/whitman-walker-clinic-v-hhs
We're co-counsel with @SteptoeLLP, repping @whitmanwalker, @TransLatina_C & its members, @LALGBTCenter, @GLMA_LGBTHealth, @AglPsychiatry, Bradbury-Sullivan LGBT Center & 4 doctors.
More: https://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/cases/whitman-walker-clinic-v-hhs
Q: What's at stake?
A: A LOT!
The rule seeks to exclude LGBTQ people and other vulnerable populations from protections under Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act. It is set to go into effect August 18, 2020.
Hear more from our clients: https://twitter.com/LambdaLegal/status/1284201236154085377?s=20
A: A LOT!
The rule seeks to exclude LGBTQ people and other vulnerable populations from protections under Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act. It is set to go into effect August 18, 2020.
Hear more from our clients: https://twitter.com/LambdaLegal/status/1284201236154085377?s=20
Senior Attorney and the Health Care Strategist at Lambda Legal @omargp is explaining our clients' standing.
The rule will have real costs for LGBTQ people, particularly transgender people.
The rule will have real costs for LGBTQ people, particularly transgender people.
. @omargp makes reference to our declaration from the @TrevorProject, which illustrates the fear expressed by young LGBTQ callers as a direct result of the rule's announcement.
Read it here: https://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/legal-docs/whitman_us_20200709_declaration_carrie-davis
Read it here: https://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/legal-docs/whitman_us_20200709_declaration_carrie-davis
Lambda Legal as represented by @omargp will handle claims regarding standing and constitutional claims in court today.
Laurie Edelstein from @SteptoeLLP Steptoe will handle the merits.
Laurie Edelstein from @SteptoeLLP Steptoe will handle the merits.
Court asks how new injunction could help here, referring to an existing injunction against a similar rollback.
@omargp says the 2016 injunction (Franciscan Alliance) only enjoined a "very limited" part of the rule. Recent decision in Bostock would override that.
@omargp says the 2016 injunction (Franciscan Alliance) only enjoined a "very limited" part of the rule. Recent decision in Bostock would override that.
Court asks @omargp to explain irreparable harm, citing difficulties, but needing more detail on how specifically that is irreparable.
Denial of health care is an irreparable harm. There is colossal risk to public health provided by doing so.
Denial of health care is an irreparable harm. There is colossal risk to public health provided by doing so.
. @omargp notes that the extension of additional resources to complement coverage is not recoverable by providers.
Patients unable to obtain medically necessary care -- that delay or denial of care is irreparable.
Patients unable to obtain medically necessary care -- that delay or denial of care is irreparable.
The fear of discrimination in the health care setting is well-noted and documented in countless studies on LGBTQ people and other marginalized groups. It leads directly to a lack of access to care. The newly-revised rule further drives this.
Court asks about the irreparable harm caused by allowing for religious exemptions. Why couldn't a patient effectively choose another provider?
Omar: First, not every hospital announces they are affiliated with a religious entity.
Omar: First, not every hospital announces they are affiliated with a religious entity.
The reality is that more than 1/6 hospital beds in the USA are found in Catholic-affiliated hospitals. We cannot allow 1/6 hospital beds to become potentially unavailable to LGBTQ people.
We would argue that this revised rule creates a massive problem, erecting a barrier to care. This is a flaw that permeates throughout the revised rule. Co-counsel will explain further arguing on the merits.
Omar refers to the AARP brief in our case, which speaks to the intersectional discrimination faced by elder LGBTQ people.
Read it here: https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/aarp_foundation/litigation/2020/whitman-walker-v-us-dept-hhs.pdf
Read it here: https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/aarp_foundation/litigation/2020/whitman-walker-v-us-dept-hhs.pdf
Laurie Edelstein is up from Steptoe, to argue on the merits.
Court asks about the language provided in the revised rule. They don't say you can discriminate on the basis of sex & gender identity, they just don't say anything about it.
Court asks about the language provided in the revised rule. They don't say you can discriminate on the basis of sex & gender identity, they just don't say anything about it.
