The Florida Board of Medicine and Florida Board of Osteopathic Medicine recently voted on a new standard of care banning gender-affirming treatments for new minor patients. The decision by the state’s medical boards prohibits Florida doctors from prescribing puberty blockers, cross-hormonal treatment, and gender-affirming surgeries to treat gender dysphoria in patients under 18 years old. Gender dysphoria is a term used to describe the “psychological distress that results from an incongruence between one’s sex assigned at birth and one’s gender identity.” The medical boards disagreed on the future of an exception to the ban moving forward: the Board of Medicine voted against the exception which allows the use of gender-affirming treatments on minors who agree to participate in clinical studies, while the Board of Osteopathic Medicine voted in favor of the exception. The ban will not be applied retroactively to adolescent patients who have already received gender-affirming care pre-ban, but it will nonetheless have rippling effects on Florida’s LGBTQ+ population.

The vote comes just days before the highly contentious General Election leaving many to wonder how influential the state’s governor and rumored potential presidential candidate, Ron DeSantis, was in the recent proposal. Nonetheless, this change follows a string of recent decisions revealing Florida’s opposition to these procedures. Against the opinion of national medical associations, the Florida Health Department advised against gender-affirming care to treat gender dysphoria for minors. Additionally, a federal judge upheld Florida’s Medicaid ban on coverage of gender-affirming procedures and treatments for all ages this October.

Ultimately, at the heart of this controversial decision is a debate over subjective morality and childrearing practices. This topic raises the question of whether such a life-changing decision should be an option for children who are still developing into their bodies and identities. Critics of the board’s vote fear this decision will increase mental health issues and suicide rates amongst transgender youth. On the other hand, supporters believe the ban is necessary to protect Florida’s youth from experimental procedures.

The ban on gender-affirming treatments to minors in Florida is still in the early stages of the rule-making process. The decision must be heard in additional public meetings before it can be finalized. Yet if the decision survives as is, could it be subjected to potential litigation? Considering all gender-affirming treatments required parental consent, there is a valid argument to consider regarding the effect this decision has on Florida parents’ fundamental rights over their children. Florida and the United States at large have afforded parents great latitude over their right to consent to medical treatments for their children. However, a parent’s right to consent to gender-affirming treatments without interference from the government has not been heavily litigated. Hence, it is uncertain whether or not this ban will survive constitutional muster.

A 2022 appellate decision in Texas may provide some insight into potential arguments that may be raised relevant to this issue. In Masters v. Voe, the court reinstated a temporary injunction enjoining the state from investigating families who consented to gender-affirming medical care for their minor children. This state investigation stems from a new rule which expanded the definition of child abuse to include the parental authorization of gender-affirming treatments for minors. The court recognized that this new rule would subject the appellants to irreparable injury during the pendency of their appeal by intruding on their right as parents to make medical decisions concerning their children. Although the viability of this ban is questionable, transgender youth and their families anxiously await their fate in Florida.