On Aug. 2, a federal judge ruled that West Virginia’s Medicaid program must cover gender-affirming surgical care for transgender patients.
U.S. District Court Judge Robert Chambers, of the Southern District of West Virginia, ruled that the insurance exclusion contained in the state’s Medicaid program — which prohibited coverage for gender confirmation surgery to treat gender dysphoria — discriminates against individuals on both their sex and their gender identity. He also issued an order prohibiting the state from attempting to enforce the exclusion by denying coverage to other transgender recipients.
In the case, known as Fain v. Crouch, Chambers found that such discrimination violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, anti-discrimination provisions contained in the Affordable Care Act, and provisions of the Medicaid Act that require Medicaid to cover medically necessary treatments and require that all Medicaid recipients receive access to the same type of coverage as other recipients.
“Defendants enacted a clear policy excluding coverage for surgical care of gender dysphoria with no exceptions. This caused an actual, concrete injury to plaintiffs by essentially constructing a discriminatory barrier between them and health insurance coverage,” Chambers wrote in his opinion. “This is not a hypothetical injury.
“Plaintiffs requesting coverage would have been futile due to the exceptionalness exclusion, and the law does not require Plaintiffs to take such futile acts,” Chambers added. “Defendants’ policy was clear — a request for coverage would have been denied under the exclusion. Thus, Plaintiffs have standing.”
The original plaintiffs in the lawsuit — Christopher Fain, a clothing store employee and Medicaid participant; and Brian McNemar, an accountant at a state hospital and his transgender spouse, student Zachary Martell — enlisted the help of Lambda Legal, the Employment Law Center, and the law firm Nicholas Kaster, PLLP, suing state officials in 2020 to challenge insurance exclusions in both West Virginia’s Medicaid program and its state employee health plans, as provided by the state’s Public Employee Insurance Agency.
In 2021, two additional plaintiffs, Shauntae Anderson, a warehouse worker and Medicaid recipient,, and Leanne James, a state employee, were successfully added to the lawsuit as plaintiffs. In 2022, a settlement with The Health Plan of West Virginia led to the removal of insurance exclusion on gender-affirming care in PEIA plans, with the remainder of claims regarding the PEIA being dismissed after James’ death in February 2022. The case continued, focusing on only the Medicaid exclusion.
The court also certified the lawsuit as a class action suit, meaning Judge Chambers’ findings apply to all transgender West Virginians who participate in the state’s Medicaid program, not just Anderson and Fain as individuals.
Fain and Anderson, as well as members of their legal team, praised Chambers’ ruling.
“We applaud Judge Chambers’ decision to remove the discriminatory barrier to accessing medically necessary, gender-confirming surgical care for all transgender West Virginia Medicaid participants,” Avatara Smith-Carrington, a staff attorney at Lambda Legal, said in a statement. “Protecting and advancing health care for transgender people is vital, sound, and just. Transgender West Virginia Medicaid participants deserve to have equal access to the same coverage for medically necessary healthcare that cisgender Medicaid participants receive as a matter of course.”
“I am excited to finally have access to the healthcare I deserve,” Anderson said in a statement. “The exclusion negatively affects my health and wellbeing as well as the health and wellbeing of other transgender Medicaid participants in our community. Gender-confirming care is healthcare, and it is lifesaving.”
“This is a victory not only for me but for other transgender Medicaid participants across West Virginia,” Fain noted. “This decision is validating, confirming that after years of fighting to prove that gender-confirming care is medically necessary, we should have access to the same services that West Virginia Medicaid already provides to cisgender participants. Transgender West Virginians should never feel as if our lives are worth less than others.”
Ad from anti-Trump Republican PAC seeks to defend Kamala Harris by pointing out Trump's hypocrisy and accusing the former president of "gaslighting" voters.
The Lincoln Project, a political action committee for anti-Trump Republicans, released an ad to counter former President Donald Trump's anti-transgender attacks on Vice President Kamala Harris.
In the past few weeks, the Trump campaign has leaned heavily into anti-transgender messaging in an attempt to cast Harris as out-of-step with Americans on social issues.
Many of the ads attack Harris over her support of gender-affirming care for incarcerated individuals, a stance she adopted in 2019 when she was running for the Democratic nomination for president.
"Kamala's for they/them," a narrator says in one of the ads. "President Trump is for you."
The first-of-its-kind lawsuit alleges that Dr. May Chi Lau illegally prescribed hormone treatments to 21 minors, in violation of a state ban on transition-related care.
In the first-of-its-kind lawsuit in the United States, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has sued a Dallas doctor, accusing her of violating Texas's law barring physicians from providing gender-affirming care to minors.
Paxton alleges that Dr. May Chi Lau, a specialist in adolescent medicine, prescribed and provided hormone treatments to 21 minors between October 2023 and August 2024 to assist the youth in transitioning genders.
Under the ban, which was passed last year and upheld by the Texas Supreme Court in June after being challenged in a lawsuit, doctors are prohibited from providing puberty blockers or hormone replacement therapy to minors and can have their license to practice medicine permanently revoked and be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The city council of Odessa, Texas, passed a "bathroom ban" that disallows transgender individuals from using restrooms in public buildings that don't match their assigned sex at birth.
The measure, approved by a 5-2 vote, expands a 1989 ordinance prohibiting individuals from entering restrooms of the opposite biological sex.
Under the updated ordinance, the city can seek fines of up to $500 against anyone violating the law. Those who enter facilities not designated for their assigned sex at birth will face misdemeanor trespassing charges, reported the Texas Tribune.
These are challenging times for news organizations. And yet it’s crucial we stay active and provide vital resources and information to both our local readers and the world. So won’t you please take a moment and consider supporting Metro Weekly with a membership? For as little as $5 a month, you can help ensure Metro Weekly magazine and MetroWeekly.com remain free, viable resources as we provide the best, most diverse, culturally-resonant LGBTQ coverage in both the D.C. region and around the world. Memberships come with exclusive perks and discounts, your own personal digital delivery of each week’s magazine (and an archive), access to our Member's Lounge when it launches this fall, and exclusive members-only items like Metro Weekly Membership Mugs and Tote Bags! Check out all our membership levels here and please join us today!
You must be logged in to post a comment.