Abstract
The current state of gender-affirming care in the United States hangs in a precarious balance. Though the medical community seems to agree that such care is critical in at least some cases, citizens’ perceptions of that necessity are far from unified. As of this publication, at least one case involving a state-sponsored ban on gender-affirming care for minors, United States v. Skrmetti, is pending before the United States Supreme Court. The arguments in that case have centered on whether denying hormonal treatments inconsistent with a child’s assigned sex, when the same treatments may be prescribed when consistent with a child’s assigned sex, creates an express gender classification deserving of heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
This note instead focuses on Missouri’s ban on gender-affirming care for individuals of any age receiving healthcare through MO HealthNet, Missouri’s Medicaid program. It first explores the history and underlying motives of discrimination against transgender individuals, followed by an examination of the current legislative landscape in the United States as it relates to transgender life as well. It then considers the current state of scientific research regarding medical best practices for transgender patients before analyzing some of the wide variety of approaches that state and federal courts have taken to determine a state’s ability to restrict access to gender-affirming care. Then it considers possible applications of these precedents in the case of Missouri’s gender-affirming care ban before finally suggesting steps that may be taken by advocates seeking to ensure that such care is made accessible to those who need it.
Recommended Citation
Tory Davidson,
“They Told Us We Were Safe”: An Analysis of the Constitutionality of Missouri’s Ban on Gender-Affirming Healthcare for Medicaid Recipients,
69
St. Louis U. L.J.
(2025).
Available at:
https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/lj/vol69/iss4/10