By Mary Steurer | BISMARCK, ND. – A judge on Wednesday denied a request to halt enforcement of North Dakota’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors while a legal battle over the law plays out in court.

A group of North Dakota families and a pediatric endocrinologist sued the state over the ban and filed for a preliminary injunction in September, arguing that the law infringes on their personal autonomy and freedom to parent, is discriminatory toward transgender children and prevents them from accessing necessary medical treatment, and puts health care providers at risk of prosecution for good-faith medical decisions.

The state has countered that the health care law is needed to protect children, that it has regulatory authority over the medical field and that the ban doesn’t endanger medical practitioners who follow the law.

In an order, South Central Judicial District Judge Jackson Lofgren wrote that while the plaintiffs may eventually succeed on some points in the case, he did not find their arguments convincing enough to meet the standard necessary for a preliminary injunction.

Had Lofgren granted the motion, the preliminary injunction would have temporarily suspended the law until a final decision in the case is reached.

In a Thursday statement, Brittany Stewart — an attorney for Gender Justice, one of the groups representing the plaintiffs — said Gender Justice is “obviously disappointed” in Lofgren’s decision.

“The bottom line is that the longer this law is allowed to remain in effect, the more North Dakota kids and families will be harmed by the state’s unfair, unjust, and unconstitutional denial of the essential and life-saving health care they need,” Stewart said.

To meet the legal burden necessary for a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs would have had to convince the court that they are substantially likely to win on the merits of the case, and that allowing the law to stay in effect poses irreparable harm.

The measure, signed into law by Gov. Doug Burgum in 2023, makes it a crime for medical professionals to provide gender-affirming treatment to anyone under the age of 18. It carves out an exemption for adolescents who had been receiving gender-affirming care before the law took effect.

The plaintiffs argued in a January hearing that the ban is preventing all transgender children from receiving gender-affirming care in North Dakota — even those who were being treated for gender dysphoria before the ban — and that a lack of access to this treatment can cause irreversible health impacts.

They claimed the exemption in the law is worded too vaguely to enforce, and so minors who should qualify for it cannot find any in-state medical professionals willing to provide it. 

Dr. Luis Casas, a plaintiff and pediatric endocrinologist, testified during the hearing that he no longer provides gender-affirming care in North Dakota to any adolescents — even those who received treatment from him before the ban took effect — for fear of prosecution. He now has transgender adolescent patients who live in North Dakota travel to his Moorhead, Minnesota, clinic for care.

Lofgren wrote in his order that the law is not unconstitutionally vague. He said the law makes it clear minors who were treated for gender dysphoria before the ban “can receive any medical care for the treatment of gender dysphoria” available in North Dakota before the law went into effect.

In its Thursday statement, Gender Justice wrote that Lofgren’s order may help give health care providers more confidence they can legally administer gender-affirming treatment to adolescent patients who fit the exemption.

“However, many physicians already moved their gender-affirming care practices out of state, so access to care is likely to remain significantly impeded or blocked for North Dakota transgender and nonbinary youth,” Gender Justice said in the statement.

The plaintiffs also argued before Lofgren during the January hearing that the health care ban violates the equal protection clause of the North Dakota Constitution because it prevents transgender adolescents from accessing necessary medical treatment, even though the treatments are still available to other kids for other reasons.

Lofgren wrote in his order that transgender people don’t constitute a protected class under the North Dakota Constitution. He also said that, based on the evidence presented to him during the hearing, there isn’t enough of a medical consensus on the benefits of gender-affirming care to warrant suspending the health care law.

“As previously noted, while there are documented psychological benefits to gender affirming care, there are also potential risks,” Lofgren wrote. “There is also disagreement regarding the soundness of the research and data available and the potential for unforeseen consequences.”

In its statement, Gender Justice noted that major American medical groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association and American Medical Association endorse gender-affirming care as safe and effective treatment for gender dysphoria when administered along health guidelines.

The lawsuit is scheduled to go to trial in November.

North Dakota’s ban on gender-affirming care passed North Dakota’s Republican-dominated Legislature with more than two-thirds approval in each chamber. 

The law makes it a class A misdemeanor to administer gender-affirming treatments like puberty blockers or hormone therapy to a minor. Anyone found guilty of doing so could face up to 360 days in jail, fines of up to $3,000 or both. Medical professionals also fear a violation of the ban could jeopardize their medical licenses, according to court filings.

The law also makes it a class B felony to perform transition-related surgery on a minor. Anyone convicted of doing so could face up to 10 years in prison, a maximum $20,000 fine or both.  Experts testified before Lofgren in January that medical professionals do not perform such surgeries on minors in North Dakota.

******************************************************************************************

Mary Steurer is a reporter based in Bismarck. A native of St. Louis, Steurer most recently worked as the local government reporter for the Casper Star-Tribune newspaper in Wyoming.

******************************************************************************************

The preceding article was previously published by the North Dakota Monitor and is republished with permission.

North Dakota Monitor is a nonprofit, nonpartisan source for trusted news, commentary and insight into statewide policy and critical issues affecting the Peace Garden State.

We’re part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.

By Michael Achterling | FARGO, N.D. – A resolution to be considered by North Dakota Republican Party delegates at their upcoming convention would define life as beginning at fertilization and call for criminal penalties for “anyone who kills a pre-born human being.”

It’s one of 15 policy resolutions that will be advanced to NDGOP delegates during the convention April 5-6 in Fargo.

The resolution supporting equal protection for the unborn does not mention in vitro fertilization, but says the right to life should be protected “regardless of a human being’s size, stage of development, environment, degree of dependency, or circumstances surrounding conception.”

The Alabama Supreme Court recently ruled that frozen embryos outside the womb are children, causing uncertainty for IVF treatments in that state.

The proposed NDGOP resolution says anyone who kills “a pre-born human” should answer for a crime, including a “principal offender, accomplice, or co-conspirator.” North Dakota bans abortion, but the law does not have penalties for the mother.

John Trandem, first vice chair for the NDGOP, said resolutions must be passed by a two-thirds majority of delegates at the convention to be officially accepted by the party.

Andrew Nyhus, executive director for the NDGOP, said each resolution is not binding, but rather gauges where the party lines up on issues during an election cycle.

“Resolutions are just statements that the body chooses to make,” Nyhus said. “It’s statements that are separate and distinct from the platform that stand during this (election) cycle until the next convention.”

Other proposals include:

• A statement reaffirming the state’s constitutional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It also urges the state attorney general to oppose any attempt in court to restrict the religious freedom of people and organizations who hold sincere religious beliefs that marriage is between a man and a woman.
• A resolution opposing adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the Century Code as a protected class. It also “supports the restoration of gender dysphoric individuals, that they may embrace and be comfortable with their natural biological state.”
• A resolution supporting legislative efforts to eliminate property tax. The measure states “merely collecting these taxes is a waste of millions of dollars” and their “existence” is a chief complaint among North Dakota voters.
• A statement urging legislators to pass “universal school choice” containing protections for private, charter and home schools. The resolution also allows for taxpayer funds to follow students to the place that best fits their educational needs.
• A measure opposed to cronyism. The resolution states a government body that “takes money from some to give it to others for any reason whatsoever is distorting the market.” It says current policy grants special favors to the “politically well-connected” through “economic development” policy and the Department of Commerce. 
• A resolution that objects to COVID-19 vaccines and government-imposed mandates.
• A call for lawmakers to prohibit the use of state funds for programs and offices that promote diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

The resolutions were advanced to the convention from the North Dakota Republican state committee meeting on March 23 and are different from the party’s platform.

Trandem said delegates will be able to vote on the resolutions individually rather than as a block, which he called “unprecedented.”

“I’ve been to every convention since 2000 and we’ve never divided them all,” Trandem said.

He added, by separating the resolutions, it gives the delegates a chance to weigh in on specific issues without having to vote for an entire package that may have included items they don’t support.

Trandem said delegates will not be allowed to debate or change the resolutions from the floor.

In a letter from the NDGOP state resolutions committee, Sen. Bob Paulson, R-Minot, co-chair for the committee, said 43 resolutions were advanced for consideration before a subcommittee curated the final list to the 15 resolutions that were presented to the NDGOP state committee. The resolutions committee was made up of: Paulson, Rep. Jim Jonas, R-West Fargo, Rep. Karen Karls, R-Bismarck, Rep. Rose Christensen, R-Rogers, Rep. Donna Henderson, R-Calvin, Delvin Boehm, Amber Vibeto, Isaiah Deal, Dan Gwynn and Richard Glynn.

“Resolutions can serve as a policy tool,” Nyhus said. “If you are a policymaker, you’ll have to judge for yourself as to how much you care that two-thirds of the convention supports that statement.”

Sandi Sanford, chair of the NDGOP, agreed with Nyhus that no one should be held accountable for their support, or opposition, to each of the resolutions.

This year, state party officials are circulating the resolutions ahead of the convention so more delegates will have time to absorb them and be better prepared to vote on the measures.

“I think sometimes they can go through these and they fly through these and it’s just too quick,” Sanford said. 

About 1,600 delegates have registered for the convention, she said.

******************************************************************************************

Michael Achterling is a reporter based in Bismarck. He recently worked as digital editor and city government reporter for the Detroit Lakes Tribune in Minnesota and as news director for KDLM/KRCQ/KBOT, a part of Leighton Broadcasting.

North Dakota Monitor is part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.

******************************************************************************************

The preceding post was previously published by the North Dakota Monitor and is republished with permission.

North Dakota Monitor is a nonprofit, nonpartisan source for trusted news, commentary and insight into statewide policy and critical issues affecting the Peace Garden State.

We’re part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.

BISMARCK – Republican Governor Doug Burgum signed into law House Bill 1522 on Monday, legislation that would ban trans students from using the restrooms that match their gender identity.

The legislation also will force faculty and administrators to “out” a trans student to their parents, and prohibit schools and government entities from adopting policies that acknowledge the gender identity of their students or employees.

The law took effect immediately.

“It doesn’t infringe on anyone else’s rights to share spaces with those who are different. Like previous efforts to expel people of color, people with disabilities, and others from communal spaces, these arguments for privacy and safety just mask a fear of difference,” said ACLU of North Dakota’s advocacy manager Cody Schuler.

“By signing House Bill 1522, Gov. Burgum is forcing transgender students to make the impossible decision of breaking the law or revealing their private medical information – not to mention the obvious risk of harassment and violence that comes with forcing transgender students into the facilitates that do not match their gender identity. It is quite clear whose privacy and very lives are really at risk now that House Bill 1522 is law,” Schuler noted.

“Additionally, mandatory outing of a student’s trans identity violates their privacy rights at school – particularly for trans youth who cannot be safe at home. And creating a supportive working and learning environment also requires treating people with dignity and respect, including – at a minimum – calling them by the name and pronouns they want to use. These are both unlawful and discriminatory practices,” he said.

“The fight for trans rights is not about ‘special rights’ – it’s about fundamental rights. It’s about fairness and equality for all,” Schuler stressed.

Burgum had previously signed into law a veto-proof bill banning gender-affirming health care for transgender youth. The bill, House Bill 1254, restricts transgender health care in the state, immediately making it a crime to give gender-affirming care to people younger than 18.

That law also took effect immediately and allows prosecutors to charge a health care provider with a felony — up to 10 years in prison and $20,000 in fines — for performing sex reassignment surgery on a minor.

It also enables prosecutors to charge a provider with a misdemeanor — up to 360 days in prison and $3,000 in fines — for giving gender-affirming medication, like puberty blockers, to a trans child.

The Governor’s office released a statement Thursday saying the law is “aimed at protecting children from the life-altering ramifications of gender reassignment surgeries,” although the statement also noted that health care professionals have testified these surgeries are not being performed in the state.

“Going forward, thoughtful debate around these complex medical policies should demonstrate compassion and understanding for all North Dakota youth and their families,” he said.

BISMARCK – North Dakota Republican Gov. Doug Burgum signed into law Wednesday a veto-proof bill banning gender-affirming health care for transgender youth. The bill, House Bill 1254, restricts transgender health care in the state, immediately making it a crime to give gender-affirming care to people younger than 18.

PBS NewsHour reported the new law takes immediate effect and allows prosecutors to charge a health care provider with a felony — up to 10 years in prison and $20,000 in fines — for performing sex reassignment surgery on a minor.

It also enables prosecutors to charge a provider with a misdemeanor — up to 360 days in prison and $3,000 in fines — for giving gender-affirming medication, like puberty blockers, to a trans child.

The Governor’s office released a statement Thursday saying the law is “aimed at protecting children from the life-altering ramifications of gender reassignment surgeries,” although the statement also noted that health care professionals have testified these surgeries are not being performed in the state.

“Going forward, thoughtful debate around these complex medical policies should demonstrate compassion and understanding for all North Dakota youth and their families,” he said.

The law still allows medication treatment for early onset puberty and other rare circumstances with parental consent, and minors currently receiving gender-affirming care will still be able to receive treatment and not be forced to detransition.

The ACLU of North Dakota, which opposed HB 1254, said in a statement the bill represents vast government overreach that undermines the fundamental rights of parents, and by singling out gender-affirming care for categorical prohibition violates the constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process.

“By signing this bill into law, Gov. Burgum has put the government in charge of making vital decisions traditionally reserved for parents in North Dakota. This ban won’t stop North Dakotans from being trans, but it will deny them critical support that helps struggling transgender youth grow up to become thriving transgender adults,” said Cody Schuler, ACLU of North Dakota advocacy manager.

“Gov. Burgum and supporters of House Bill 1254 have chosen fearmongering, misrepresentations, intimidation and extremist politics over the rights of families and the lives of transgender youth in North Dakota. But this fight is far from over — we are determined to build a future where North Dakota is a safe place to raise every child. As our politicians continue to fail trans youth, it is up to each and every one of us to rise against their fear and ignorance and surround these young people with strength, safety and love.”

North Dakota now becomes the 14th state that has enacted laws restricting or banning gender-affirming care for minors.

BISMARCK, ND. – The North Dakota House Administrative Rules Committee voted 8-7 on Tuesday, June 8, to authorize the rule proposed by the North Dakota Board of Social Work Examiners, implementing new regulations prohibiting licensed social workers from subjecting LGBTQ youth to the widely discredited practice of conversion therapy.

The North Dakota Board of Social Work Examiners, which oversees licensing for social workers in the state, created the new rule which states that “it is an ethical violation for a social worker licensed by the board to engage in any practices or treatments that attempt to change or repair the sexual orientation or gender identity of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning individuals.”

The West Hollywood based Trevor Project, the world’s largest suicide prevention and crisis intervention organization for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer & questioning (LGBTQ) young people, had worked with Democratic House Minority Leader Rep. Josh Boschee, the National Association of Social Workers ND Chapter, the North Dakota Human Rights Coalition, and local advocates like Elizabeth Loos to advance these critical protections for LGBTQ youth.

 “This rule change will stop the vast majority of mental health providers in North Dakota from subjecting LGBTQ youth to the dangerous and discredited practice of conversion therapy. This practice is not therapy at all— it’s abusive and fraudulent,” said Troy Stevenson, Senior Advocacy Campaign Manager for The Trevor Project. “There is still more work to be done in North Dakota, but this bold action will help save young lives. The Trevor Project is committed to an every state strategy to protect LGBTQ youth from conversion therapy and North Dakota has proven that progress is possible anywhere.”

“Thank you to the North Dakota Board of Social Work Examiners for restricting licensed social workers in North Dakota from being able to practice conversion therapy! LGBT North Dakotans, especially youth, are safer now as you hold licensees responsible to the NASW Code of Ethics,” said Minority Leader Boschee. 

The proposed ban on therapist-administered conversion therapy in North Dakota was met with opposition by several of the committee’s most socially conservative members, the Grand Forks Herald reported.

Rep. Dan Ruby, R-Minot, told the paper that he worries the new prohibition is limiting because it would prevent people seeking “some kind of treatment” from getting help. Bell said the rule is written so clients who are LGBT or questioning their sexual orientation or gender identity are not inhibited from seeking care.

Rep. Bernie Satrom, R-Jamestown, said he’s concerned the rule would interfere with religious counseling, adding “there are some cases where people want to change.”

“There are licensed counselors that are also Christians, and basically my concern in all of this is that we’re telling the Christian counselors ‘you can be a licensed counselor, but you can’t practice your Christianity,'” Satrom said.

Satrom and West Fargo Republican Rep. Kim Koppelman said approving the social workers’ ban on conversion therapy is outside of the committee’s scope and ought to be scrutinized by the full Legislature.

Boschee, the North Dakota Legislature’s only openly gay member, told the Grand Forks Herald that he was disappointed in some of his colleagues for standing behind the “harmful” practice of conversion therapy and trying to muddy the conversation over what is a simple self-imposed rule for social workers. The Fargo Democrat said he was ultimately pleased that seven lawmakers joined him in upholding the proposed ban.

Research: 

• According to The Trevor Project’s 2021 National Survey on LGBTQ Youth Mental Health, 13% of LGBTQ youth reported being subjected to conversion therapy, with 83% reporting it occurred when they were under age 18. LGBTQ youth who were subjected to conversion therapy reported more than twice the rate of attempting suicide in the past year compared to those who were not.
• According to a peer-reviewed study by The Trevor Project published in the American Journal of Public Health, LGBTQ youth who underwent conversion therapy were more than twice as likely to report having attempted suicide and more than 2.5 times as likely to report multiple suicide attempts in the past year.

BISMARCK, ND. – The North Dakota Senate passed an anti-LGBTQ bill that would ban transgender girls from participating in school sports. The bill now heads to Republican Governor Doug Burgum’s desk for signature or veto and who hasn’t indicated whether he’ll sign it into law.

House Bill 1298, authored by Rep. Ben Koppelman, R-West Fargo, passed on a 27-20 Senate vote Thursday. The House on Wednesday had passed the bill 69-25.

The Bismarck Tribune reported the measure would prohibit public elementary and secondary schools from “knowingly” allowing a student to participate on a school-sponsored athletic team exclusively for their opposite sex.

The legislative fight to pass discriminatory anti-transgender legislation has been fast and furious, led by national groups aiming to stymie LGBTQ progress made on the national level and in many states.

There are so far 221 anti-LGBTQ bills under consideration in state legislatures across the country. Of those, 117 directly target transgender people and 64 of those would, like HB 1298, ban transgender girls from participating in sports consistent with their gender identity. 

“Legislators across the country have failed to provide examples of issues in their states to attempt to justify these attacks, laying bare the reality that these are attacks on transgender youth that are fueled by discrimination and not supported by fact,” Wyatt Ronan, a spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign said in a media statement.

Other states have enacted similar laws, while other governors, including Gov. Kristi Noem, R-S.D., have vetoed it, although Noem issued a series of anti-trans executive orders.

The North Dakota High School Activities Association already has a policy for transgender students mirroring the NCAA’s policies. If a student undergoes hormone therapy for a year, they may participate in the sport that doesn’t match the sex of their original birth certificate.

“We are incredibly disappointed in today’s vote and we will do everything in our power to push for a veto by Governor Burgum. There has been overwhelming opposition to HB 1298 from multiple sectors, including business, education, healthcare, and advocacy,” Brandi Hardy of the North Dakota Human Rights Coalition said in a statement.

Human Rights Campaign President Alphonso David issued the following statement in reaction: 

“By sending this dangerous and discriminatory anti-transgender sports ban bill to Governor Burgum’s desk, North Dakota legislators have targeted a group of students who already face high levels of discrimination. Governor Noem of South Dakota and Governor Cox of Utah have both expressed fears about the implications these kinds of bills would have in their state, and North Dakotans should have similar concerns about the economic harm and endless litigation that could stem from passing this bill.

Legislators have yet to cite any examples of the problem they claim to be legislating because they simply don’t exist. Instead this legislation is driven by fear rather than facts, science, or medical expertise. Transgender kids are kids, and denying them the opportunity to participate is dangerous and harmful. Targeting them rather than focusing on addressing COVID-19 and its economic impacts does not help solve the real issues North Dakota faces. Instead, it welcomes scrutiny and potential harm to the state. The governor should veto this discriminatory bill.”