GLAD’s amicus brief submitted in Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Edge Fitness et al. argues the creation of an implied right to “gender privacy” that is not authorized by any statutory language will create a substantial risk of being utilized in other contexts to undermine the state’s nondiscrimination laws, including for transgender people.
GLAD has submitted an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in the Connecticut Supreme Court in Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Edge Fitness et al., a case in which a male customer at a gym sued to challenge a women-only workout area. GLAD filed the brief to ensure that the Court’s ruling does not inadvertently undermine Connecticut’s nondiscrimination law, including for transgender people.
Because current Connecticut law does not authorize sex-segregated gyms or workout areas, the trial court in this case created a new, vague, and ill-defined implied right to “gender privacy” to rule that a women-only workout area was lawful. GLAD’s brief argues that the creation of an implied right to “gender privacy” that is not authorized by any statutory language will create a substantial risk that it will be utilized in other contexts that will undermine the state’s nondiscrimination laws. Privacy has all too often been used as a guise to hide prejudice and discomfort with LGBTQ people. The invocation of “gender privacy,” for example, has been relied upon for decades as an unfounded justification of those who objected to the presence of transgender people in gender-separated spaces. It has also been used as a reason to exclude openly gay and lesbian servicemembers from the military. The creation of a new “gender privacy” right could even encourage the reassertion of gender segregation in previously male-dominated spaces.
GLAD recognizes the importance of workout spaces for women that are free from harassment and objectification. Any change to Connecticut law, however, must come from the legislature which can craft a narrow exception rather than through a broad new judicially-created right.
GLAD’s brief was submitted by attorneys Bennett Klein, Jennifer Levi, and Gary Buseck and Kenneth Bartschi of Horton, Dowd, Bartschi & Levesque, P.C. of Hartford. The brief was also joined by Lambda Legal and Connecticut TransAdvocacy Coalition.READ THE BRIEF
Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Edge Fitness et al.
Update: On January 25, 2022, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that Edge Fitness violated Connecticut’s nondiscrimination statute by maintaining a separate workout area for women. Read the ruling.
GLAD has submitted an amicus curiae brief in the Connecticut Supreme Court in Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Edge Fitness et al., a case in which a male customer at a gym sued to challenge a women-only workout area. GLAD filed the brief to ensure that the Court’s ruling does not inadvertently undermine Connecticut’s nondiscrimination law, including for transgender people.
Because current Connecticut law does not authorize sex-segregated gyms or workout areas, the trial court in this case created a new, vague, and ill-defined implied right to “gender privacy” to rule that a women-only workout area was lawful. GLAD’s brief argues that the creation of an implied right to “gender privacy” that is not authorized by any statutory language will create a substantial risk that it will be utilized in other contexts that will undermine the state’s nondiscrimination laws. Privacy has all too often been used as a guise to hide prejudice and discomfort with LGBTQ people. The invocation of “gender privacy,” for example, has been relied upon for decades as an unfounded justification of those who objected to the presence of transgender people in gender-separated spaces. It has also been used as a reason to exclude openly gay and lesbian servicemembers from the military. The creation of a new “gender privacy” right could even encourage the reassertion of gender segregation in previously male-dominated spaces.
GLAD recognizes the importance of workout spaces for women that are free from harassment and objectification. Any change to Connecticut law, however, must come from the legislature which can craft a narrow exception rather than through a broad new judicially-created right.
GLAD’s brief was submitted by attorneys Bennett Klein, Jennifer Levi, and Gary Buseck and Kenneth Bartschi of Horton, Dowd, Bartschi & Levesque, P.C. of Hartford. The brief was also joined by Lambda Legal and Connecticut TransAdvocacy Coalition.
With Overwhelming Bipartisan Support… CT Lawmakers Approve Historic Bill to Reform Outdated and Unconstitutional Parentage Laws The Connecticut Parentage Act—which extends protections to all CT children regardless of their parents’ marital status, gender, or sexual orientation—now heads to the House floor.
HARTFORD — On the heels of a powerful hearing earlier this month where CT families called on lawmakers to reform state parentage law, the Connecticut Judiciary Committee today passed the Connecticut Parentage Act (CPA) on consent out of committee. If approved by the full General Assembly, HB 6321 would overhaul existing state law to ensure that all CT children — regardless of the circumstances of their birth or the marital status, gender, or sexual orientation of their parents — have equal access to the security of a legal parent-child relationship.
“Today’s historic vote brings us one step closer to a Connecticut that recognizes all families are deserving of respect and dignity under the law,” said Professor Douglas NeJaime of Yale Law School, a Connecticut native and principal drafter of the bill. “Connecticut’s current parentage law denies protections to many LGBTQ families, and is outdated, discriminatory, and unconstitutional. We hope that the full General Assembly will act without delay and vote to approve the CPA.”
The CPA was introduced by a bipartisan group of lawmakers and enjoys broad support. The CPA would modernize Connecticut’s parentage law by ensuring access to legal parenthood for all children, including those with unmarried, same-sex, or non-biological parents. For example, it would extend the Acknowledgement of Parentage process to same-sex couples, a simple form already available to unmarried different-sex couples that allows a parent to establish a legal parent-child relationship at birth without court proceedings. The bill would also remove gender-specific language from the state’s parentage laws and provide protections for children conceived through assisted reproduction, which account for four percent of all Connecticut births.
“When it comes to paths for parents to establish a legal relationship to non-biological children, Connecticut falls far behind other New England states,” said Rep. Jeff Currey (East Hartford, Manchester, South Windsor), the lead sponsor of the bill. “Connecticut has the second highest rate of births through assisted reproduction in the country, and 37 percent of children in our state were born to unmarried parents. Yet our laws do not recognize a legal connection between parents and non-biological children, and actually create obstacles to parentage.”
At the public hearing before the Judiciary Committee on March 8, dozens of impacted families and legal and medical experts submitted oral and written testimony in support of the bill. The effort to pass the Connecticut Parentage Act is led by the WE Care Coalition, a coalition of Connecticut families, legal advocates, and community organizations and spearheaded by a Yale Law School clinic and GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders.
“When our amazing baby girl was born, my wife Denise and I were horrified to learn that Denise wouldn’t be legally recognized as her parent nationwide unless she went through the long and expensive process of adopting her own child,” testified Bridgeport resident Stephanie Ocasio-Gonzalez who with her wife Denise is raising both their toddler daughter and a teenage son. “I lie awake at night worrying about what would happen to my family if, God forbid, something were to happen to me—Denise could lose both her wife and her children. I urge you to pass this bill, and make Connecticut a state where all families are treated equally. Our children’s futures depend on it.”
“Exclusive parentage law sends a message that children like me do not belong,” testified Malina Simard-Halm,a first-year student at Yale Law School and a member of the We Care Coalition, who was born to her two fathers via surrogacy. “When I was growing up, laws like Connecticut’s gave authority to the schoolyard bullying and kindled my own insecurities; at times, it led me to feel ashamed of the people that loved me and fought for me the most.”
The CPA was adapted from model legislation by the Uniform Law Commission, a non-partisan body of state lawmakers, state judges, scholars, and lawyers that produces uniform laws on a wide range of state-law issues. Similar legislation has been passed in Maine, Washington, Vermont, California, and Rhode Island.
“Connecticut’s current parentage law raises serious constitutional concerns,” said Polly Crozier, GLAD Senior Staff Attorney. “It is high time that Connecticut passed this common-sense reform to protect all children, regardless of their parents’ marital status, gender, or sexual orientation. The Judiciary Committee’s vote today means that we are that much closer to a legal system that reflects and protects the diversity of Connecticut’s families.”
For more information or to be connected with impacted families and supporters of the legislation, contact Cara Newlon at cara.newlon@yale.edu or Amanda Johnston at ajohnston@glad.org.The We Care Coalition includes: the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Connecticut, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Center for Advanced Reproductive Services at UCONN, Center for Children’s Advocacy, Connecticut ACLU, COLAGE, Connecticut Gay & Lesbian Chamber, Connecticut Voices for Children, Connecticut Women’s Education and Legal Fund (CWEALF), The Ferrara Law Group, P.C., Fertility Within Reach , Freed Marcroft, GLAD (GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders), Gay Parents to Be at Reproductive Medicine Associates of Connecticut, Greater Hartford Legal Aid , National Association of Social Workers – CT Chapter, New England Fertility Society, New England Surrogacy, New Haven Pride Center, PFLAG Hartford, Planned Parenthood of Southern New England, Reproductive Medicine Associates of Connecticut, Resolve New England, Resolve: The National Infertility Association, Triangle Community Center, True Colors, Worldwide Surrogacy Specialists, LLC, Yale Child Study Center, Yale Fertility Center, Yale Medicine Greenwich Fertility, Dr. Sandra Carson, Chief of the Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Yale School of Medicine, Dr. Hugh Taylor, Chair of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Yale School of Medicine & President of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, and Yale Law students.
“Outdated, Discriminatory, Unconstitutional”A coalition of parents, community advocates, and scientific and legal experts delivered emotional testimony today in support of the Connecticut Parentage Act.
HARTFORD – In a powerful hearing before the Connecticut Judiciary Committee, families and community members called on assembly members to pass the Connecticut Parentage Act (CPA), state legislation that would ensure that all Connecticut children — regardless of the circumstances of their birth or the marital status, gender, or sexual orientation of their parents — have equal access to the security of a legal parent-child relationship. A recording of the testimony is available here.
While Connecticut historically has been a leader in LGBTQ equality, it still fails to extend parentage protections to different-sex and same-sex couples equally—leaving many parents in same-sex relationships legal strangers to their own children. The absence of a legal relationship can have a devastating impact on families, including by barring parents from making medical and educational decisions for their children, adding their children to their health insurance, or obtaining custody in the event of separation or death of a legal parent.
“When our amazing baby girl was born, my wife Denise and I were horrified to learn that Denise wouldn’t be legally recognized as her parent nationwide unless she went through the long and expensive process of adopting her own child,” said Bridgeport resident Stephanie Ocasio-Gonzalez who with her wife Denise is raising both their now-toddler daughter and a teenage son. “I lie awake at night worrying about what would happen to my family if, God forbid, something were to happen to me—Denise could lose both her wife and her children. Same-sex couples shouldn’t have to worry about death before we create new life.”
The CPA would modernize Connecticut’s parentage law by filling gaps in existing protections and ensuring access to legal parenthood for all children, including those with unmarried, same-sex, or non-biological parents. For example, the CPA would extend the Acknowledgement of Parentage process to same-sex couples, a simple form already available to unmarried different-sex couples that allows a parent to establish a legal parent-child relationship at birth without court proceedings. The bill would also remove gender-specific language from the state’s parentage laws, and it would provide protections for children born to unmarried parents through assisted reproduction—in a state where assisted reproduction accounts for about four percent of all births.
“For years, I’ve heard from residents about the nightmare of red tape and degrading obstacles that our current law presents to parents,” said Rep. Jeff Currey (East Hartford, Manchester, South Windsor), who introduced the legislation. “Our state’s law should reflect the reality of the lives of our state’s families—our children’s futures depend on it. The CPA will ensure that our state’s laws give LGBTQ parents and their children the dignity and security they deserve.”
Many impacted families and representatives, including submitted testimony at the hearing. The effort to pass the Connecticut Parentage Act is led by the We CARE Coalition, a coalition of Connecticut families, legal advocates, and community organizations and spearheaded by a Yale Law School clinic and GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders.
“As it stands, Connecticut’s parentage law is outdated, discriminatory, and unconstitutional,” said Professor Douglas NeJaime of Yale Law School, a Connecticut native and a principal drafter of the bill. “The day a child is born should be the happiest time of a parent’s life—not a time of legal uncertainty and worry. The Connecticut Parentage Act will treat families that have historically been excluded based on gender, sexual orientation, and marital status with the respect and recognition they deserve.”
Read Professor NeJaime’s written testimony
“Passing the Connecticut Parentage Act will protect vulnerable children and families and send a signal that Connecticut stands for equality and dignity for all under the law,” said Polly Crozier, Senior Staff Attorney at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders and a principal drafter of the legislation. “The bill is a commonsense measure that has been enacted in many states and has the bipartisan support of legislators and state and national legal and medical experts. Connecticut’s families cannot wait any longer for equal access to parentage—we hope the Assembly will act quickly to protect LGBTQ parents and their children.”
Read Polly Crozier’s written testimony
The Connecticut Parentage Act is adapted from model legislation by the Uniform Law Commission, a non-partisan body of state lawmakers, state judges, scholars, and lawyers that produces uniform laws on a wide range of state-law issues. The 2017 Uniform Parentage Act provides a model so that states meet their constitutional obligations to provide equal paths to parentage for nonmarital children and children of LGBTQ parents. Multiple states, including Maine, Washington, Vermont, California, and Rhode Island, have adopted similar legislation. In 2020, the CPA received strong bipartisan support in the Connecticut General Assembly, but the session was cut short due to COVID-19.
The CPA is supported by a broad range of experts and organizations, including child advocates, legal organizations, LGBTQ groups, and medical experts. Supporters include: the Center for Children’s Advocacy, Connecticut Voices for Children, the Connecticut ACLU, the Connecticut Women’s Education and Legal Fund, the Connecticut Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers, the Connecticut Gay & Lesbian Chamber, the New Haven Pride Center, PFLAG Hartford, the Triangle Community Center, COLAGE, Family Equality, the Connecticut Bar Association, the Academy of Adoption & Assisted Reproduction Attorneys, Resolve New England, Fertility Within Reach, New England Fertility Society, the Center for Advanced Reproductive Services, Reproductive Medicine Associates of Connecticut, and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.
A team of Yale Law students and faculty have worked for the past two years to coordinate legislative drafting and advocacy efforts with members of the General Assembly, judges of the family and probate courts, state agencies, state fertility clinics, child welfare groups, LGBTQ rights organizations, and the Connecticut Bar Association.
“As Connecticut residents and Connecticut voters, we are proud to support the CPA,” said Cara Newlon, a third-year law student who has worked on the bill from its inception. “For those of us anticipating careers in LGBTQ justice and gender equality, working on this bill has been an incredible opportunity to legislate our own rights—and those of past and future clients—into existence. We call on Connecticut lawmakers to build on the state’s legacy as a leader in LGBTQ rights to protect all families, regardless of how they are formed.”
To be connected with impacted families and supporters of the legislation, contact Cara Newlon at cara.newlon@yale.edu or Amanda Johnston at ajohnston@glad.org.
The Connecticut Parentage Act updates outdated parentage law so that it is clear, equitable, and provides legal protection for all children and families.
Victory! On June 1, 2021, Gov. Ned Lamont held a signing ceremony to celebrate the passage of the Connecticut Parentage Act. Read more here.
The Connecticut Parentage Act (CPA) updates state law to clarify who can be a parent and how to establish parentage. These critical reforms recognize the diversity of families in Connecticut and ensure that all children can have their legal parentage established, regardless of the circumstances of their birth. Current state parentage law is out-of-date and unconstitutional.
GLAD joined Douglas NeJaime of Yale Law School, Connecticut families, and other community organizations to form the We Care Coalition. We Care has worked together to build support for the CPA and get the legislation passed in the 2021 session. To learn more about the efforts to build support and read stories of families impacted by the state’s parentage laws, visit the We Care website.
Read the testimony from two leading organizations of We Care:
Thank you to everyone who participated in GLAD’s Justice for All Connecticut on April 25, 2021!
Missed the event? Want to re-watch the highlights? We’ve got you covered.
Watch Senior Attorney Polly Crozier’s update on GLAD’s critical LGBTQ+ work in Connecticut and throughout the nation – and how supporters like you can make a difference.
As part of the We Care Coalition, GLAD is working to pass Connecticut Parentage Act. The bill would protect children of LGBTQ parents and ensure every child born in Connecticut has equal access to the security of legal parentage.
This year, we were thrilled to honor Connecticut State Representative Jeff Currey for his profound dedication to the rights and equality of the LGBTQ community. Watch his moving remarks about the power of authenticity in his life and his work, and his call for each of us to take an active role in fighting for what’s right.
Together, we paid tribute to friend and trailblazer Jerimarie Liesegang, for her lifetime of work advocating for the transgender community in Connecticut and beyond. Her work impacted all of us, and we miss her dearly.
GLAD’s work is only possible because of your support. Thank you. If you made a pledge during the event – or want to make a gift now to keep the fight for justice moving forward – just click here to make your donation.
Visit glad.org/events to find more upcoming events and opportunities to connect with the GLAD community!
Co Chairs Anne Stanback & Charlotte Kinlock Meghan Freed & Kristen Marcroft Christiana N. Gianopulos Charlie Reed
Host Committee Linda Estabrook Beth Kerrigan & Jody Mock Brad & Flint Kleinerman-Gehre Shawn Lang Danny Livingston Robin & Holly McHaelen Rev. Aaron Miller & MCC Hartford Mark Ojakian & Jason Veretto Alice Pritchard & Dana Bugl Gretchen Raffa
As of April 25, 2021
For more information, please contact Chris Rainville at crainville@glad.org.
For nearly 50 years, Title IX has served as a bedrock for establishing fair and equal educational opportunities. Any move the Office of Civil Rights takes to wield Title IX as a weapon against transgender high school girls erodes the significance of this landmark civil rights law.
What happened?
On May 15, the United States Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) sent a letter to the Connecticut Intercollegiate Athletic Association (CIAC) and to 5 Connecticut school districts saying that the CIAC’s policy, which allows transgender girls to participate on girls sports teams, violates Title IX. The letter also threatened CIAC and the schools with denial of federal funds.
What led to this letter?
Last year, an extreme, conservative, right-wing organization, Alliance Defending Freedom, initiated a complaint with OCR challenging the continued participation of two transgender high school girls in school track events.
What is the effect of the letter?
The letter has no immediate effect. To be sure, OCR’s position that CIAC’s trans-inclusive policy violates Title IX is very alarming. It is also in the same vein of civil rights rollbacks and anti-LGBTQ policies we have seen emerge from the Trump administration since January 2017 However, the letter contains no authoritative legal analysis and its issuance has no immediate legal impact on CIAC or the schools to which it was addressed, much less any other schools, districts, or other statewide athletic associations. And, while it threatens the CIAC and the schools with loss of federal funds, OCR has no authority to deny these entities of federal funds by the issuance of this letter. It’s also important to note that in its entire history, OCR has never denied any entity federal funds for either alleged or demonstrated violations of Title IX.
Why doesn’t the letter have any immediate effect?
While the U.S. Department of Education is charged with enforcing the law, it does not have the ability to change the law or ultimately decide what the law means. The power to interpret the meaning of Title IX lies with the courts. There is a pending federal lawsuit in which CIAC and the five schools to which OCR’s letter is addressed are defending current Connecticut policy which authorizes transgender girls to participate in girls’ sports. Initially, ADF sought an accelerated determination by the federal court hearing the case. However, with the cancellation of the spring sports season due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the court has taken the case off any accelerated schedule. As a practical matter, any action taken by OCR, in follow up to the letter, will not be able to move more quickly than the pending lawsuit.
What is CIAC’s response to the letter?
The CIAC and the school districts named in the letter are vigorously defending the current sports policies that ensure full inclusion of transgender students in school athletics; and have publicly stated that they will continue to do so.
What does the law say?
Both state law and prior federal court decisions are on the side of fair and inclusive policies and support the CIAC policy. Connecticut has strong and clear non-discrimination laws as well as guidance from the state department of education that says transgender students must have equal access to school opportunities. That includes the ability of transgender girls to participate in girls’ school sports. There are multiple prior federal court decisions that have said that federal sex discrimination protections (including Title IX and others such as Title VII) apply to transgender people. In addition, the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, the state agency charged with enforcing the Connecticut non-discrimination laws, has intervened in the federal lawsuit and is also defending the CIAC policy.
Note on pending Supreme Court cases
The United States Supreme Court is considering a case in which an employer is seeking to reverse federal precedent that establishes protections for transgender people under federal employment law known as Title VII. The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision in that case before the end of June. The decision is likely to affect the arguments in the pending Connecticut Title IX lawsuit.
What can we do?
Speak out in support of trans-inclusive school sports policies.
Spread the word that the OCR letter has no practical impact, and is not a basis or reason for changing any existing policies that support and protect the inclusion of transgender athletes. Nothing is imminent, nothing has changed in terms of the law, and the CIAC policy remains intact.
If you are a student or parent, let your school district representatives and any school administrators, teachers, and staff know that you support sports policies that allow transgender athletes to participate. Those who oppose transgender athletes may be vocal in some communities, skewing the perceived degree of support for their views. School leadership needs to hear the full-throated voices of those who stand behind the current trans-inclusive policies.
Contact your federal legislators and urge them to support clear federal laws that ensure transgender students are protected in all areas of school and social life, including participation in sports.
Keep an eye out for state legislation aiming to ban transgender girls from participating in sports and speak out against it. Idaho recently passed such a law. Its passage marks the first time a state adopted a law designed to exclude transgender students from athletics. Fortunately, similar bills introduced in other states have not passed. But advocacy and legislative outreach remains essential to stopping such bills.
Contact GLAD at GLADAnswers.org We need to hear when transgender students are impacted negatively in any way. If you have questions or need more information, please reach out.
Connecticut CHRO Strikes Down All Exclusions for Transgender Healthcare
Today the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities issued a landmark ruling prohibiting all employers and insurers from denying coverage for transgender people’s health care needs relating to gender transition. This ruling follows a national trend of striking down discriminatory exclusions for gender affirming medical care.
The ruling states:
Insurance policies that categorically refuse to consider certain procedures for certain people on the basis of their race, sex, or sexual orientation are facially discriminatory. So too are such exclusions for transgender people on the basis of gender identity, a condition unique to them. Consequently, when the State or a municipality contracts for health insurance plans that contain categorical exclusions for treatments related to gender dysphoria – and especially when the same treatments are covered for treatment of other conditions – it commits a discriminatory practice, as does the insurer.
“We applaud the Commission for recognizing the critical healthcare needs of transgender people and calling out the discrimination inherent in health plans that deny care,” said Ben Klein, Senior Attorney at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders. “Exclusions that categorize doctor-prescribed procedures as “elective” or “cosmetic” contradict a robust body of scientific evidence and can only be explained by stereotypes and bias towards transgender people. This ruling will ensure that critical healthcare decisions can be made as they should be, between patients and their doctors, and will allow Connecticut residents access to life-saving care.”
GLAD filed a brief in conjunction with Professor Kevin Barry of Quinnipiac University School of Law on behalf of Connecticut resident Rylie Robillard, the Connecticut Women’s Education & Legal Fund, and the National Center for Transgender Equality. The brief was supported by expert testimony from Randi Ettner, PH.D, one of the nation’s preeminent experts on gender affirming medical care.
The Department of Justice has filed a statement of interest in Soule v. Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference, a case challenging the state’s longstanding policy ensuring equal inclusion of transgender girls in K-12 sports. The statement from Attorney General William Barr sides with anti-transgender activist groups, including the Alliance Defending Freedom which brought the case, in arguing that the protections of Title IX do not extend to transgender girls.
Jennifer Levi, Transgender Rights Project Director at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), issued the following statement in response:
For nearly 50 years, Title IX has served as a bedrock for establishing fair and equal educational opportunities for all students. With its recent filing in Soule v. CT Interscholastic Athletic Conference, the Department of Justice erodes the significance of this landmark civil rights law by arguing that transgender girls do not enjoy its protections.
Participation in sports is a critical component of healthy physical and social development, and for transgender students it can be lifesaving. Title IX is designed to ensure equal opportunities for girls – meaning all girls. The Department of Justice’s position distorts the text and the history of federal law.
The current administration has been attacking vulnerable transgender youth since President Trump first took office, and it’s no surprise that they are doing so again. What is surprising is the decision to prioritize this attack during a national public health emergency, when young people across the country are already struggling to cope with school shutdowns as well as cancellations of recreational activities, sports seasons, after-school jobs, graduation ceremonies, and more. During this moment of tremendous stress and anxiety, young people across the country, as well as school communities, are looking for support and guidance from our government, not polarizing and legally unfounded attacks on vulnerable kids and their families.
Challenging Insurance Exclusions for Gender Affirming Medical Care
Update April 23, 2020: Victory! The Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities issued a milestone ruling prohibiting all employers and insurers from denying coverage for any treatments related to gender transition. This ruling follows a national trend of striking down discriminatory exclusions for gender affirming medical care.
“We applaud the Commission for recognizing the critical healthcare needs of transgender people and calling out the discrimination inherent in health plans that deny care,” said Ben Klein, Senior Attorney at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders. “Exclusions that categorize doctor-prescribed procedures as “elective” or “cosmetic” contradict a robust body of scientific evidence and can only be explained by stereotypes and bias towards transgender people. This ruling will ensure that critical healthcare decisions can be made as they should be, between patients and their doctors, and will allow Connecticut residents access to life-saving care.”
GLAD filed a brief in conjunction with Professor Kevin Barry of Quinnipiac University School of Law on behalf of Connecticut resident Rylie Robillard, the Connecticut Women’s Education & Legal Fund, and the National Center for Transgender Equality. The brief was supported by expert testimony from Randi Ettner, PH.D, one of the nation’s preeminent experts on gender affirming medical care.
February 20, 2020: GLAD filed a petition in the State of Connecticut’s Commission on Human Rights and Opportunity, challenging health plans that categorically exclude facial feminization surgery and other procedures for people with gender dysphoria. The filing comes after Rylie Robillard, a transgender woman, was told her medical provider-recommended facial feminization surgery is considered cosmetic, and her procedure was denied. The brief argues that the categorical denial of this medical care discriminates on the basis of gender identity and expression, sex, and disability.
These coverage exclusions contradict a robust body of scientific evidence that can only be explained by stereotypes and bias towards transgender people. We are working to ensure that health insurers provide all medically-necessary gender affirming surgeries, so that critical health care decisions can be made between patients and doctors.
From the filing:
“Gender dysphoria is a serious medical condition that requires treatment. People with gender dysphoria, however, continue to be subjected to pernicious discrimination in access to vital healthcare. Many insurance and employer-sponsored health benefit plans, for example, continue to deny coverage for medically necessary and recognized treatments, most notably facial feminization surgeries, breast augmentation, and other treatments that bring the body into congruence with a person’s affirmed gender to eliminate gender dysphoria.
“The categorical exclusion of these procedures as per se cosmetic, and therefore never medically necessary, is wholly out-of-step with authoritative medical standards of care and the significant and well-designed body of research establishing their efficacy in alleviating or eliminating gender dysphoria.”
Español de México