ACLU Challenges Michigan Domestic Partner Health Care Ban
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
DETROIT – The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Michigan filed a lawsuit today asking a federal court to strike down a discriminatory and unjust new state law that bans many public entities from providing health care insurance to the domestic partners of their employees. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of school teachers, city and county workers and their domestic partners who will lose their health insurance as a result of the law.
“This is not about politics or ideology for us,” said Peter Ways, an Ann Arbor teacher whose partner will lose his benefits. “This is about real families who are facing the real consequences of discriminatory laws. Just like our colleagues whose families will continue to receive health insurance, we want to care for our families.”
The four couples named in the lawsuit are in long-term committed relationships. Several of the domestic partners need ongoing medical care for chronic conditions. Barbara Ramber, for instance, has glaucoma and arthritis and faces potential blindness if she cannot access care, and Gerardo Ascheri has high blood pressure and high cholesterol. The other couples also worry about finding comprehensive and affordable insurance coverage. Carol Kennedy anticipates having to pay $800 per month for comprehensive coverage because of a family history of breast cancer. Peter Ways and Joe Breakey are considering moving back to Washington because finding comprehensive coverage for Breakey would be extremely expensive for the couple.
“Although justified by the governor as a cost-cutting measure, the numbers don’t hold up,” said Kary L. Moss, executive director of the ACLU of Michigan. “The reality is that the legislation was intended to disenfranchise LGBT families. When a key policy priority has been to attract top talent and resources to the state, our elected officials have sent a clear message that Michigan is out of step with the kinds of public policies that attract talent and grow our economy.”
The lawsuit charges that the new law discriminates by categorically denying domestic partners access to benefits and violates the constitutional right to equal protection by forcing gay and lesbian employees in committed relationships to carry the financial hardship and anxiety of being uninsured, while allowing heterosexual couples to marry and receive family health protections. In addition, the law only bars domestic partners from receiving health care coverage, while allowing government employers to offer benefits to all other family members, including parents, siblings, uncles and cousins.
“It’s unconstitutional for the state of Michigan to deprive a small number of workers the means to take care of their loved ones when other similarly situated workers do have access to family coverage,” said Amanda C. Goad, staff attorney for the ACLU LGBT Project. “In an economic downturn, the state should be passing laws to make it easier for families to take care of each other, not to take protections away.”
Proponents point to the “high cost” of domestic partner health care coverage as the motivating force to enact such a law. However, an analysis of programs across the state proves these numbers to be wildly inaccurate. In fact, studies show such coverage, in addition to attracting and retaining the best employees, costs well under one percent of the health care budget of public employers who voluntarily provide these benefits. In addition, unlike married couples, domestic partners must pay taxes to the state on their health insurance benefits – revenue the state would lose under the new law.
The families are represented by Goad and John A. Knight of the ACLU LGBT Project, Moss, Michael J. Steinberg and Jay Kaplan of the ACLU of Michigan, and Amy E. Crawford and Bradley H. Weidenhammer of Kirkland & Ellis LLP.
For more information on this case, including photos and biographies of the clients, please visit: www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/bassett-et-al-v-snyder
LGBTQ Rights
Bassett et al. v. Snyder
LGBTQ Rights
Bassett et al. v. Snyder
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Montana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's LicensesMontana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's Licenses
HELENA, Mont. – A Montana court has granted a preliminary injunction preventing the state of Montana from enforcing policies that bar transgender people from obtaining accurate sex designations on their birth certificates and driver’s licenses. After a prior restriction on amendments of birth certificates was struck down by the courts, in early 2024 the state of Montana enacted a new rule that categorically bars transgender Montanans from correcting the sex designation on their birth certificates. Around the same time, the Montana Department of Justice adopted a policy similarly restricting amendment of driver’s licenses. The plaintiffs challenged these policies in state district court, arguing that they violate various constitutional provisions, including the right to equal protection of the law. In a recent Montana Supreme Court decision, two justices concluded that discrimination on the basis of transgender status – as the state is engaging in here – is a form of sex discrimination that violates the Montana Constitution’s equal protection clause. The plaintiffs, two transgender women, are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Montana, and Nixon Peabody LLP. Plaintiff Jessica Kalarchik, a veteran who served in the United States Army for 31 years, said: “After finally being able to live my life openly as the woman I know myself to be, I am frustrated that my birth state, Montana, wants me to carry around a birth certificate that incorrectly lists my sex as male. I live my life openly as a woman, I am treated as a woman in my daily life, and there is no reason I should be forced to carry a birth certificate that incorrectly identifies me as male. Fortunately, the court agrees that this ridiculous policy should not be in effect.” “Once again the State of Montana chose to adopt a draconian policy that is clearly intended to marginalize transgender Montanans, only for that discriminatory action to be blocked by the courts,” said Akilah Deernose, executive director for the ACLU of Montana. “Here in Montana we treasure our right to privacy and to live our lives free from governmental intrusion. The State of Montana clearly has not learned any lessons from the past few years, where courts have repeatedly struck down unconstitutional laws targeting transgender Montanans.” “Forcing anyone to carry documents that contradict their identity unjustly violates their rights to privacy, equal treatment, and not being compelled to convey a government message about their sex that they disagree with,” said Malita Picasso, staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “Such a policy marks transgender people for further mistreatment and discrimination, essentially requiring them to carry papers that out them as transgender any time they need to provide identity documents. Fortunately, the court has refused to allow the state of Montana to subvert the freedom of transgender Montanans to control their own identity as this case goes forward.” In granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the court held, “[i]f the challenged state actions discriminate against transgender individuals on the basis of their transgender status, they also necessarily discriminate the basis of sex.” The state has the option of appealing the district court’s ruling to the Montana Supreme Court, but the underlying case will proceed in district court. A trial has not yet been scheduled. -
FloridaDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Keohane v. DixonKeohane v. Dixon
On September 30, 2024, the Florida Department of Corrections rescinded its policy regarding treatment of gender dysphoria, which allowed for hormone therapy when deemed medically necessary, as well as access to clothing and grooming standards that accord with one’s gender identity. Under this new policy, grooming and clothing accommodations have been stripped away, and hormone therapy is not permitted unless an exception is deemed constitutionally required. The ACLU brought a class action challenging the policy. -
IdahoDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Robinson v. LabradorRobinson v. Labrador
Two incarcerated transgender women have sued the state of Idaho alleging that HB 688, a 2024 law barring state funding for gender-affirming medical care for transgender people, denies them access to the health care their doctors have prescribed for them and is a violation of their Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. They represent a class of all incarcerated folks within the state of Idaho who face the loss of hormone therapy due to HB 668. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
House Passes Defense Bill Including Attack on Military Families’ Transgender YouthHouse Passes Defense Bill Including Attack on Military Families’ Transgender Youth
WASHINGTON — The U.S. House of Representatives today passed a version of the National Defense Authorization Act that would ban coverage for gender-affirming care for transgender youth whose parents are active-duty military personnel. The American Civil Liberties Union is opposing final passage of the defense bill over the inclusion of this health care ban and scoring the vote. Section 708 of the NDAA would prohibit insurance coverage for “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria” such as hormone therapy and puberty-suppressant medications, which Speaker Mike Johnson says would “permanently ban transgender medical treatment for minors.” The same treatments would be covered by TRICARE for any medical purpose other than treating gender dysphoria, the clinical diagnosis for the psychological distress experienced by transgender people related to their gender identity. “It is shameful that a traditionally bipartisan, non-controversial bill would be turned into a targeted weapon against transgender youth and their parents in uniform,” said Mike Zamore, National Director of Policy & Government Affairs at the ACLU. “In the interests of scoring political points, this measure strips hundreds of young people of the health care they need, putting Members of Congress in between servicemembers, their children, and their doctors.. We strongly urge members of the Senate to pass a clean version of the NDAA and likewise urge President Biden to uphold his longstanding legacy of support for the LGBTQ community and the principle of keeping politics out of health care by vetoing it should it reach his desk.” If passed by the Democratic-controlled Senate and signed into law by President Biden, this health care ban would be the first new anti-LGBTQ provision enacted by Congress since the passage of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” in the 1990s. It is unknown how many transgender youth are currently enrolled in TRICARE or how many of those enrolled are currently receiving coverage for gender-affirming care. In one 2022 analysis, 2,500 minor patients sought care for gender dysphoria through TRICARE Prime insurance at military or civilian treatment facilities in 2017, and 900 received puberty-suppressants or gender-affirming hormones. That amounts to one tenth of one percent (or 0.1%) of the 918,000 youth aged 6 to 18 years who have at least one parent on active-duty or ready reserve military status. TRICARE has covered gender-affirming treatments for transgender youth since 2016. Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a landmark case brought by the ACLU, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump on behalf of three families and a medical provider challenging a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming hormonal therapies for transgender youth on the grounds the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.