In a ruling that has drawn widespread attention and sparked fierce debate, the Nebraska Supreme Court on Friday upheld laws restricting both abortion access after 12 weeks and transgender medicine for minors. The decision followed a legal challenge arguing that the measure violated the state’s constitutional requirement that all bills must adhere to a single subject. Despite recognizing that abortion and transgender medicine are “distinct types of medical care,” the court concluded that the law combining regulations on both did not breach the single-subject rule because they both fall under the umbrella of healthcare.
Background of the Legislation
The controversial measures became entwined after Republican legislators failed to pass two separate bills—one limiting abortion after six weeks of pregnancy and the other restricting transgender hormone therapies for minors. Following a successful filibuster to block the six-week abortion bill, the legislature added the 12-week abortion provision to the existing transgender medicine bill. Governor Jim Pillen signed this combination health bill into law in May 2023.
This legislative maneuver led to a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), representing Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, challenging the law on the grounds that it violated the state’s single-subject requirement. A district judge dismissed the lawsuit in August 2023, prompting an appeal to the Nebraska Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Decision
In a majority opinion, the Nebraska Supreme Court upheld the combined law. Chief Justice Mike Heavican, writing for the majority, cited an 1895 ruling to support the broad interpretation of what constitutes a single subject under the state constitution. “If a bill has but one general object, no matter how broad that object may be, and contains no matter not germane thereto, and the title fairly expresses the subject of the bill, it does not violate the state constitution’s single-subject rule,” Heavican wrote.
The court’s ruling acknowledged that abortion and gender-affirming care are distinct forms of medical treatment but found that both fall under the general topic of medical care. This broad interpretation allowed the court to uphold the legislation, rejecting the arguments presented by ACLU attorneys.
Reactions to the Ruling
The decision has been met with mixed reactions, highlighting the deep divisions surrounding these issues. Opponents of the ruling, including ACLU Nebraska Executive Director Mindy Rush Chipman, have vowed to continue fighting for the rights of transgender individuals and access to abortion.
“This ruling will not be the final word on abortion access and the rights of trans youth and their families in Nebraska,” Chipman stated. Ruth Richardson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood North Central States, described the ruling as “heart-wrenching and infuriating,” emphasizing the detrimental impact on Nebraskans’ lives, particularly in rural areas, communities of color, and low-income groups.
On the other hand, Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen and the state’s Attorney General Mike Hilgers praised the ruling. Pillen highlighted the efforts to pass the combined bill, expressing gratitude for the court’s decision. “We worked overtime to bring that bill to my desk, and I give thanks to God that I had the privilege to sign it into law,” Pillen said.
Dissenting Opinion
Justice Lindsey Miller-Lerman, in a scathing dissent, accused the majority of applying different standards to legislative bills and voter referenda. She pointed to a 2020 ruling that blocked a ballot initiative seeking to legalize medical marijuana, arguing that the same strict interpretation should have been applied to the current case.
Miller-Lerman criticized the majority for granting undue leeway to the legislature. “It is not the role of this court to rescue legislative bills,” she wrote, emphasizing that the bill’s composition violated the constitutional requirement for single-subject legislation.
Implications for Transgender Rights
The upholding of restrictions on transgender medicine for minors has profound implications for transgender youth and their families. The law bans gender-confirming surgery and restricts the use of hormone treatments for minors, significantly impacting the availability of gender-affirming care. For many transgender minors and their families, this ruling represents a significant setback in their journey toward self-affirmation and acceptance.
The decision also underscores the broader national trend of increasing legislative restrictions on gender-affirming care. Currently, twenty-two states enforce restrictions on gender-affirming care for minors. These measures have sparked significant opposition from LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, medical professionals, and allies who argue that such restrictions undermine the health and well-being of transgender youth.
RELATED: Nebraska Legislature Rejects Transgender Sports and Facilities Bill
Looking Ahead
The battle over abortion access and transgender rights in Nebraska is far from over. Two competing questions related to abortion are expected to appear on the November ballot: one seeking to add a right to abortion to the state constitution and the other aiming to enshrine the current 12-week ban.
For transgender individuals and their families, the fight for access to gender-affirming care continues. Advocacy groups like the ACLU and Planned Parenthood remain committed to challenging restrictive laws and advocating for the rights of transgender youth.
The Bottom Line
The Nebraska Supreme Court’s ruling has reaffirmed the combined law restricting abortion and transgender medicine for minors, a decision with far-reaching consequences for the state’s healthcare landscape. The voices of those impacted by these limitations, especially transgender people and their families, will continue to be at the forefront of the fight for equality and access to necessary healthcare services as long as this debate lasts.
In the face of these challenges, it is crucial for the transgender community and its allies to stay informed, engaged, and resilient. The path to securing comprehensive healthcare rights may be arduous, but the fight for justice and equality is more important than ever.
