Legal Setback for Iowa Trans Folk In Battle for Medicaid Coverage

[Carolyn Marie]

https://www.press-citizen.com/story/news/health/2020/08/05/iowa-appeals-court-tosses-lawsuit-medicaid-transgender-iowans/3300317001/

 

 

Carolyn Marie

[Susan R]

Covington and Vasquez had not yet been denied coverage under that law, so "any dispute is speculative until a denial occurs."

 

So in other words...until they receive an insurance denial in Iowa that is found to be based on transgender discrimination, no party has actually been discriminated against (or hurt) thus no injured party exists which equals no valid lawsuit so the law is not affirmed. For crying out loud, save the trans residents the time, money, and hassle and affirm the law already!

 

We pay these people too..it’s amazing.
Susan R?

[VickySGV]

From my Law School days, this was actually predictable and for me not  surprising, although it is aggravating.  It is a centuries long principal of U.S. and most English Common Law (Britain, Canada, Australia etc.) systems that courts will not touch this stuff until an actual injury has occurred, and this court and the lower one simply restated that principal, its an open issue that can be litigated when they are denied the medical treatment.  As a Trans person I have the experience to know service is often denied and a preemptive crushing of the law would be nice, but >deep breath< we don't know for sure it will happen. 

There are a lot of insurance companies twigging on to the fact that Trans health care is good for their bottom line because treating us that way, keeps us off the much more expensive payouts for suicide attempts, other physical injury and mental health issues, and insurance is about money.  In California, this has solid figures behind the benefit to the insurers, and is why the industry did not seriously fight the State who said they must cover it here.  My own HMO here actually began performing GCS at its facilities because it was cost effective in the long run.  

[Lee H]

Courts will resolve an "actual case or controversy," but will not issue "advisory opinions." It's "black letter law." Translated away from the jargon, the value of this principle is easier to see. Courts don't exist to "create the law." They "apply" the law. Without a case or controversy to which to apply it, they would merely be stating what they think the law should be henceforth. In deciding a particular case, courts write rulings or opinions, explaining their reasoning as to how the preexisting law applies. They look to earlier opinions for guidance. Precedents. It's a convoluted and complicated system, but it's the best yet devised.

Whether or not the current occupant of the White House and his cronies accept it, we are "a country of laws, not men." Ie, the U.S. is a "Rule of Law" country.

And that's good. I don't want Brett Kavanaugh having the power to create the law of the U.S. in his own image by his mere fiat. We'd all be in danger of getting a visit from the Blue Meanies. 

Which law school, Vicky? Mine was UC Hastings, '74.

[VickySGV]

8 hours ago, Leah said:

Which law school, Vicky? Mine was UC Hastings, '74.

 

Southwestern University School Of Law, (Los Angeles)  also 1974.