Why is Idaho in a Missouri court? Defending its right to discriminate, of course | Opinion
Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador has signed on to a lawsuit filed by the attorney general of Missouri, along with five other states, seeking to have a federal judge throw out a rule that would penalize states that implement health care discrimination against transgender people, as Annelise Hanshaw of the Missouri Independent reported.
The rule, which was set to go into effect earlier this month, was blocked by a GOP-appointed judge in Missouri a few days prior. It would have barred insurers and providers from receiving federal health care funding if they engage in discrimination on the basis of gender identity.
It’s the latest example of the abuse of an increasingly activist federal judiciary.
Ask yourself: Why is Idaho a plaintiff in a federal lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Missouri? Why didn’t Labrador instead file his own lawsuit in the Idaho District?
It could have to do with the fact that the district’s chief judge is a Trump appointee who has made it clear he opposes same-sex marriage, as the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights noted? Could it be because the Eastern District of Missouri is part of the Eighth Circuit, which is composed of more than 90% Republican appointees, according to data from Balls and Strikes?
Obviously, yes. This is venue shopping.
And, though Idaho isn’t even part of the Eighth Circuit — so it’s possible Idaho could be outside the jurisdiction of an eventual ruling — the lawsuit seeks for a local federal judge to impose a national injunction preventing enforcement of the nondiscrimination rule. (This is the kind of thing Republicans are likely to regret when they next have power, as Democrats seek to have friendly judges issue nationwide injunctions blocking their policies.)
But worse than the abusive process used to pursue the lawsuit is its content, which amounts to a full-throated defense of discrimination against transgender people.
The lawsuit seeks, first of all, for the court to declare “unlawful, set aside, and vacate the rule to the extent it prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender identity.”
That is to say, it doesn’t make the argument that the states are not engaging in discrimination. Rather, it asks the court to specifically recognize a right to engage in discrimination on the basis of gender identity — one doesn’t exist for discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion and a number of other categories — while continuing to receive federal funding.
This is a bit like demanding your parents keep giving you an allowance no matter how many times you get caught bullying kids in school.
“I have a right to be a bully, now pay me,” is the basic argument.
Idaho lawmakers have determined to supplant the medical needs of children, the love of their parents and the wisdom of their doctors with government mandates banning the accepted standard of care — backed by the threat of long prison sentences. And now the state is complaining that the federal government is exceeding its authority by telling them to cut it out.
It is the height of childishness, cruelty and hypocrisy.