South Dakota's ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth is scheduled to go into effect on July 1.

But opponents are looking into what the future holds for the policy after a similar law in Arkansas suffered a legal defeat. This week, a federal judge issued a permanent injunction against the Arkansas law, the first state to ban such care. Earlier this year, South Dakota joined other conservative-led states in adopting their own bans.

Samantha Chapman, advocacy manager for the ACLU of South Dakota, said the court's decision is significant.

"This is officially setting a precedent for laws that have passed across the country," Chapman contended. "Similar to the one here in South Dakota."

Chapman pointed out many of the laws have similar language, due to the coordination of special-interest groups pushing Republican lawmakers to pass them. Opponents of gender-affirming care contend it is too risky for minors, arguing they might regret the decision. But several key medical groups say the care is essential.

The judge said Arkansas' ban violated the constitutional rights of transgender youth, and noted lawmakers who pushed for the passage of Arkansas' law relied on testimony "grounded in ideology and not science." Chapman feels the same can be said for what happened in South Dakota.

"Constituents should be asking their lawmakers why they passed this reckless and costly legislation," Chapman stressed.

She warned the legal bills for Arkansas have piled up since the state has been defending the law in court, noting the same could happen for South Dakota if a lawsuit is filed. The regional ACLU is still reviewing the decision, and said it cannot assess any potential action yet in South Dakota. Meanwhile, Arkansas officials say they plan to file an appeal.


get more stories like this via email

In a few months, North Dakota lawmakers will reconvene. LGBTQ advocates are still unpacking the fallout from the 2023 legislative session, when many controversial laws were adopted. That session saw the passage of nearly a dozen laws deemed hostile towards LGBTQ people, namely students. One high-profile policy allows teachers to ignore the preferred pronoun of a student.

Faye Seidler, a suicide prevention advocate for queer and transgender populations in North Dakota, suggested that it can be tricky measuring the harm based on the intent behind some of these laws, but added it's pretty clear they have amplified the perception that these youth feel unwelcome.

"That then translates into a suicide contagion where a lot of folks feel more dread, feel more scared, have heightened risk factors and are more susceptible to suicidal ideation," Seidler said.

She pointed to national data from the Trevor Project that show elevated demand for mental health crisis lines amid a wave of these laws pursued by conservative legislatures. Seidler said the inconsistent application of restrictive policies in school settings remains an underlying issue. The North Dakota Department of Public Instruction declined to comment.

Seidler said uneven approaches among school districts make it harder for educators and students to handle gender identity matters, potentially creating the risk of parents being notified when the child might not want that to happen.

"So, what ends up happening is a lot of these kids who aren't safe at home no longer are safe at school and mostly just have to sit with a lot of trauma," Seidler continued.

Despite the ripple effects, Seidler said there is more community-level support, including in rural areas, for LGBTQ youth than some might think - it's just a matter of creating awareness. She noted there was an increase in Pride events around North Dakota over the past year, even with the new laws. Survey data from the Trevor Project show that LGBTQ young people who reported living in accepting communities attempted suicide at lower rates than those living in unaccepting communities.


get more stories like this via email

As the new school year starts, Nebraska teachers will again be focusing on their students' emotional well-being and safety as well as academic success.

For some students who identify as LGBTQ+, it will be especially important. On the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's's 2023 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, the highest incidence of bullying, both at school and online, was reported by LGBTQ+ students.

Isabella Manhart, a member of the LGBTQ+ community and a teacher education student at the University of Nebraska-Omaha, who is researching the school experiences of transgender and nonbinary students, stressed the important role the classroom environment plays.

"Are there 'safe space' stickers? Are there ways for students to recognize that this is a place where they can feel safe and included?" Manhart asked. "Those things we can often overlook, because they feel very small, but they are really important for students to feel like they are safe in the classroom space."

Manhart emphasized schools also need to ensure mental health resources are available and accessible to students. Beginning last school year, Legislative Bill 852 requires every Nebraska school to have one or more "behavioral points of contact" familiar with community behavioral health resources available for students and families.

Manhart urged Nebraska teachers to be sensitive to the way state, local and district policies may be affecting their LGBTQ+ students and knowledgeable about the students' rights.

"Regarding privacy, regarding using their preferred name and pronouns, accessing bathrooms, dress codes, all those things," Manhart outlined. "Students have rights at schools that sometimes principals and district officials don't know."

The National Education Association encourages using correct names and pronouns, saying it increases trust and feelings of belonging.

Grant Friedman, legal fellow at the ACLU of Nebraska, agreed. He said schools should use a student's chosen name and pronouns wherever possible, such as on student IDs, class attendance rosters and yearbooks.

"A person's legal name should really only appear in their official file, and schools should be doing everything they can to support students," Friedman urged. "That includes using their chosen name and pronouns. But there is no law that requires a school to use a student's legal name."

The battle between social conservatives and Michigan libraries to remove certain books from the shelves is becoming increasingly political as the November elections draw near.

A Michigan Library Association poll shows more than three-quarters of Michiganders oppose censorship of library books but the public filed 47 complaints in 2023.

Debbie Mikula, executive director of the association, said in most cases, such bans would violate the First Amendment.

"When there's an effort to try to prohibit accessing information or a book because some individuals don't like the ideas contained in the book, the United States Supreme Court has held that's unconstitutional," Mikula pointed out.

One recent incident involved the Alpena County Library, where county commissioners removed the entire library board for "failing to act" on community members' demands to remove certain books. The community members vowed, but failed, to vote down the library's "millage" or operating fund.

A 2023 Michigan Library Association poll showed 71% of Michiganders have a positive opinion of the state's libraries. Two-thirds said books about sex, gender identity or sexual orientation should not be banned, while 30% said it is appropriate "sometimes" or "always."

Jay Kaplan, staff attorney for the ACLU of Michigan, said many wanting books removed are influenced by groups like Moms for Liberty or others who circulate book lists and demand their removal.

"Most of the books that they want to have removed usually deal with LGBTQ characters or situations," Kaplan noted. "Some of the book deal with racism. But for the most part, they're usually, it's usually LGBTQ subject matter."

Kaplan argued removing a book not meeting a library's published standards is possible but only when everything is done out in the open.

"As long as there's a very transparent process where a book is reviewed and is determined that this book is inappropriate for the library, that's one thing," Kaplan stressed. "But the idea when you try to remove a book because you don't like the ideas contained in the book, that raises constitutional issues."


get more stories like this via email