Queer Kid, Straight Mom
LightNews LightNews
banner
qksm.bsky.social
Queer Kid, Straight Mom
@qksm.bsky.social
4 followers 12 following 0 posts
Mom and adult child podcast. LGBTQ + issues, pop culture, politics, communication, family dynamics, allyship
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Queer Kid, Straight Mom
erininthemorning.com
1. Today, 81 Democrats voted for the NDAA, which pulls care from the trans kids of military service members, in what is seen as a betrayal of trans people by the Democratic party.

EITM has published a full, easy to read list of their names, and how to contact.
81 Democrats Voted To Pull Care From Service Member's Trans kids. Here Are The Names.
81 Democrats have voted for the NDAA bill, which has an anti-trans amendment pulling care from trans youth enrolled in TriCare, the first national anti-trans bill of the modern era.
www.erininthemorning.com
December 12, 2024 at 2:52 AM
Reposted by Queer Kid, Straight Mom
erininthemorning.com
Incredible news! Montana’s Supreme Court just affirmed that the state’s gender affirming care ban is likely unconstitutional.

This makes the state the first state Supreme Court to rule that trans medical care is protected.

This applies REGARDLESS of what the US Supreme Court does.
targets, the District Court reasonably concluded that the balance of the equities tips toward preliminary relief pending full consideration of the merits. Its analysis of the last two preliminary injunction factors was not arbitrary or unreasonable. The court did not manifestly abuse its discretion, and its injunction was not overbroad. 156 Finally, both parties have submitted notices of supplemental authority, citing recent cases considering challenges to various laws regarding gender-affirming care. Without exception, the additional authority pertains to claims grounded in the equal protection clause or otherwise based on alleged unlawful discrimination. Some of the authorities also reference new developments in research and evidence that was not part of the record presented to the District Court in the preliminary injunction proceedings. Because, on the record here, the District Court's conclusions on Montana's express privacy protections are sufficient to uphold its preliminary injunction, we affirm on that basis. The parties will have the opportunity during the merits proceeding for full development of the record, where their experts may offer insight on any new research, and for briefing on the current case law relative to their claims. CONCLUSION 157 The District Court made no error of law and did not manifestly abuse its discretion. We affirm its grant of a preliminary injunction on the basis of Plaintiffs' right to privacy claim. The case will proceed to trial, at which point the District Court will finally resolve the disputed facts and issue a final determination on the constitutional issues presented. /S/ BETH BAKER 32 We Concur: /S/ MIKE McGRATH /S/ LAURIE MCKINNON /S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON /S/ DIRK M. SANDEFUR /S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
December 11, 2024 at 6:36 PM