Boise, Idaho – Idaho lawmakers are gearing up to vote on a contentious bill this week that would prohibit the use of any public funds for gender-affirming care, encompassing services for state employees utilizing workplace health insurance and for adults under Medicaid coverage. The proposed legislation garnered the approval of the House and awaits a majority Republican Senate green light before heading to Governor Brad Little’s desk for anticipated endorsement. Governor Little has consistently voiced opposition to the use of public funds for gender-affirming care.
Expected to be at least the 10th state to disallow Medicaid funding for gender-affirming care across all age brackets, Idaho’s stance adds fuel to the ongoing national discourse surrounding LGBTQ+ rights. Despite advocacy from the Movement Advancement Project, critics of the bill predict a looming federal lawsuit challenging the legality of denying essential care to transgender individuals within the state. Notably, Idaho has faced legal action multiple times over comparable issues with limited success in defending against lawsuits.
In a stand against the legislation, Boise attorney Howard Belodoff argued that the bill violates both the 14th Amendment equal protections clause and the federal Medicaid Act. Belodoff represents transgender adults who raised concerns over what they deem as discriminatory Medicaid policies excluding coverage for necessary gender-affirming procedures. Republican Representative Bruce Skaug, a proponent of the bill, cited previous lawsuits as the impetus behind the legislation, branding it as a safeguard for taxpayers to prevent potentially exorbitant state expenditures on gender-affirming care.
Critics of the bill emphasized potential far-reaching consequences that extend beyond the original intent, potentially hindering gender-affirming care access for privately insured individuals in remote areas reliant on state-funded medical facilities. Voices opposing the bill, including Idaho Department of Correction employee Isaac Craghtten, highlighted the restrictive nature of the legislation, warning against severe penalties for those merely seeking to manage their legally prescribed medication while at work.
As the debate unfolds, the bill’s sponsors and detractors clash over the broader implications of restricting gender-affirming care access, painting contrasting pictures of the potential repercussions for the LGBTQ+ community across Idaho. The proposed legislation not only reignites the ongoing battle over LGBTQ+ rights on a national scale but also highlights the complex interplay between state policy, healthcare access, and individual rights in addressing the needs of marginalized communities.