Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transsexual Rights
Outcome: Very favorable
Also under Civil Rights
IssueThe issue in this case was whether a Wisconsin law that prohibited prison doctors from using hormonal therapy or sex reassignment surgery to treat inmates with gender identity disorder (GID) caused the inmates to suffer cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment or deprived them of equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment.
AMA Interest
The AMA supports the provision of competent medical care for all patients, and it opposes limiting medical treatment options because of moral idiosyncrasies or social stigmas.
Case Summary
Persons suffering from GID feel that their physical sexual characteristics are the opposite of their internal sexual identity. Thus, a GID sufferer is a man trapped in a woman’s body or vice versa. In addition to feeling depressed and frustrated, a sufferer may attempt self-mutilation or suicide.
A Wisconsin law prohibited prison doctors from using hormonal therapy or sex reassignment surgery to treat inmates with GID, regardless of the medical necessity of such therapies and regardless of the resultant disruption or financial cost to the prison system from withholding the therapy. Several inmates in Wisconsin prisons sued to have the law declared facially unconstitutional. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court judge found that the law violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
The State of Wisconsin appealed to the Seventh Circuit. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that it would be cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, to withhold hormone therapy or sex reassignment surgery from prisoners with acute GID.
AMA Involvement
The AMA filed an amicus brief in the Seventh Circuit to support the prisoners.
Issue
The issue in this case is whether the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), 1 USC § 7, is constitutional.
AMA interest
The AMA opposes the stigmatization that arises from non-recognition of same-sex marriages.
Case summary
DOMA defines “marriage” as “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife,” to the exclusion of same sex marriages.
Three widowers and six married same-sex couples, who would otherwise have been otherwise have qualified for but were denied various federal benefits (i.e., Social Security survivor benefits, joint filing of taxes, tax exemption on spousal health insurance, federal employee health insurance) because of DOMA challenged the constitutionality of DOMA on equal protection grounds. They claimed there was no rational basis for the federal government to deny married same-sex couples the same legal benefits and protections available to other married couples.
While this case was proceeding, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts brought a similar suit. Massachusetts claimed that, as a state, it alone has the power to make marital status determinations and the federal government cannot simply override state determinations of which it disapproves. It also claimed that it was forced to discriminate against its own married citizens with respect to joint state-federal programs, such as Medicaid coverage for nursing home care.
In both cases, the United States District Court found DOMA unconstitutional and entered judgment for the plaintiffs. The United States appealed both decisions, and the cases were then consolidated. However, before the appellate briefing was completed the Department of Justice announced that it would no longer prosecute the appeal, as it itself considered DOMA to be unconstitutional. The U.S. House of Representatives therefore intervened to defend DOMA’s constitutionality on appeal.
The First Circuit found DOMA unconstitutional. The House of Representative has petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari.
AMA involvement
The AMA, along with several other health care organizations, filed an amicus brief in the First Circuit. The brief, which opposes DOMA, presents scientific information on the nature of sexual orientation, the comparability of committed same-sex and different-sex adult relationships, and the factors affecting child welfare. It concludes that there is no scientific basis for finding heterosexual relationships to be meaningfully superior to homosexual relationships.
Issue
The issue in this case is whether the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, (“DOMA”), 1 USC § 7, is constitutional.
AMA interest
The AMA opposes the stigmatization that arises from non-recognition of same-sex marriages.
Case summary
A federal employee was married to another woman under the laws of California, her state of residence. She claimed marital benefits from the federal government for her spouse, but the Office of Personnel Management denied her claims under DOMA. The trial court held in favor of the employee, based on the right to equal protection implied under the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.
The United States Department of Justice declined to appeal, as it had itself determined that DOMA is unconstitutional. Accordingly, a committee of the United States House of Representatives appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit.
AMA involvement
The AMA, along with several other health care organizations, filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit. The brief, which opposes DOMA, presented scientific information on the nature of sexual orientation, the comparability of committed same-sex and different-sex adult relationships, and the factors affecting child welfare. It concludes that there is no scientific basis for finding heterosexual relationships to be meaningfully superior to homosexual relationships.
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit briefIssue
The issue in this case is whether California’s “Proposition 8,” which amends the California Constitution to delegitimize same-sex marriages, violates the United States Constitution.
AMA interest
The AMA believes that, from a medical viewpoint, same-sex marriages are as stable and as suitable for raising children as are opposite-sex marriages.
Case summary
As a result of a citizen initiative, the State of California amended its constitution to prohibit same-sex marriages. The trial court and the United States Court of Appeals held that the amendment violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as it discriminated against homosexual couples without a legitimate reason for doing so. The case is now on appeal to the Supreme Court.
AMA involvement
The AMA, along with the California Medical Association and several other health care organizations, filed an amicus brief to oppose Proposition 8. The brief presented scientific information on the nature of sexual orientation, the comparability of committed same-sex and different-sex adult relationships, and the factors affecting child welfare. It argued that there is no scientific basis for finding heterosexual relationships to be meaningfully superior to homosexual relationships.
Issue
The issue in this case is whether the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 USC § 7 (“DOMA”), violates the right of equal protection guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment.
AMA interest
The AMA believes that, from a medical viewpoint, same-sex marriages are as stable and as suitable for raising children as are opposite-sex marriages.
Case summary
DOMA defines “marriage,” for purposes of federal law, as “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife,” to the exclusion of same-sex marriages. By virtue of the law, same-sex spouses of federal employees are denied government employment benefits available to spouses of heterosexual marriages. This case, originally brought in the United States District Court in New York, challenges the constitutionality of DOMA. The legal issue in this case is identical with the legal issue in Gill (item V(5)(c) below) and Golinski (item V(5)(d) below), in each of which the AMA joined an amicus brief supporting the claim of unconstitutionality.
AMA involvement
The AMA, along with the California Medical Association and several other health care organizations, filed an amicus brief to oppose DOMA. The brief presented scientific information on the nature of sexual orientation, the comparability of committed same-sex and different-sex adult relationships, and the factors affecting child welfare. It argued that there is no scientific basis for finding heterosexual relationships to be meaningfully superior to homosexual relationships.
