According to Texas Governor Gregg Abbott, “subjecting” Texas children to procedures or drugs that aid in “gender transitioning” constitutes “child abuse.” He directed the state’s Family and Protective Services Agency (DFPS) to investigate any family that aids its children in medical transitioning. A Texas judge issued a temporary injunction against Abbott’s order in response to a lawsuit filed by the parents and the psychologist of one minor child.

The ruling was issued by Judge Amy Clark Meachum of the 201^st District Court on March 3 in response to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Texas, Lambda Legal, the LGBTQ advocacy group, and Baker Botts, a Houston law firm. In the suit, plaintiffs were identified as Jane and John Doe, parents of 16-year old Mary Doe.

Meachum said she believed plaintiffs would succeed after a trial on the merits and ordered a hearing to begin in July. She said Abbott’s order “changed the status quo for transgender children.” It also exceeded his authority and caused DFPS to investigate child abuse in new ways. “The governor’s directive was given the effect of new law or a new agency rule despite no new legislation, regulation or even stated agency policy,” she said.

The gender-affirming care at the center of the case has been described as that which supports a child’s gender identity and social transition and includes giving children the right to choose their own clothes or names. As they grow older, drug treatment or surgery can be prescribed and delivered.

Plaintiff’s petition argued that Abbott’s order “attempted to legislate by press release,” after the Texas legislature “failed to pass legislation criminalizing well-established and medically necessary treatment for adolescents with gender dysphoria.” They charged Abbott with creating a “new definition of child abuse that singles out a subset of loving parents for scrutiny, investigation, and potential family separation.”

Last year, the Texas legislature considered, but failed to enact, two bills that would have specifically banned gender-confirming surgery as well as hormone and puberty suppression treatment. After the bill’s defeat, Abbott appeared on the Mark Davis radio show, where he touted his “solution.” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton just had to determine that medical treatments such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy could legally constitute child abuse under Texas law.

Paxton issued a non-binding legal opinion to that effect on February 21. According to a press release from his office, “certain procedures done on minors such as castration, fabrication of a ‘penis’ using tissue from other body parts, fabrication of a ‘vagina’ involving the removal of male sex organs, prescription of puberty-suppressors and infertility-inducers and the like are all ‘abuse’ under section 261.001 of the Texas Family Code.”

At the seven-hour hearing that preceded Meachum’s ruling, a Texas assistant attorney general argued that the court is not able to prevent a state agency from acting within its statutory authority. She also said the plaintiffs lacked standing because DFPS hasn’t done anything yet except interview a few families.

Plaintiff Jane Doe, an employee of DFPS, is one of those who have been interviewed. Her transgender daughter’s pediatrician diagnosed and has been treating her for gender dysphoria. The day after Abbott issued his order to DFPS, Jane Doe was placed on leave. A child protective services investigator interviewed both her and her husband two days later. Court documents say the family is “now living in constant fear,” while Mary is experiencing signs of mental distress and trauma. Medical experts cite evidence that gender-affirming care can improve a child’s mental health and reduce suicide.

Mary’s Houston-based psychologist, co-plaintiff Megan A. Mooney, also testified about the difficulty the Governor’s new order causes for her and her clients. She said it “puts her in an untenable situation.” Legally, she must report her clients or lose her license. But reporting them would cause “more damaging personal and professional consequences.”

Plaintiff’s petition argued that Abbott’s “unfounded child abuse investigation” order deprived children and their families of their constitutional rights and could cause vulnerable children to lose critical medical care. Many experts agree. The American Academy of Pediatrics, for example, issued a “policy statement” in 2018 that urges parents to support the “identity expressed by their child.” It also provided guidance for treatment.

As a result, several county and district attorneys have publicly stated that they will not enforce the order, which relies on “ordinary Texans” to report suspected violations. In addition, teachers and doctors must report what Paxton now considers to be child abuse.

The new laws against transgender youths are the latest conservative cause and election strategy. They argue that children are too young to make their own decisions about sexuality and must be protected from what they term “life-altering treatments.” Numerous conservative groups such as the Heritage Foundation, Family Policy Alliance, Alliance Defending Freedom, and a new group, the American Principles Project (APP), are advocating laws and orders similar to Abbott’s. The APP spent more than $600,000 on cable ads during the Republican primary that accused Abbott of not doing enough to protect children.

Texas is not the only state to jump on the new conservative cause bandwagon. In early March, the Idaho House passed a law that criminalizes medical treatments for transgender youth, making them a felony punishable by life in prison. It would also be a felony to give minors permission to receive treatment or to permit them to travel out of state to get them. The House vote was along party lines, with the single Democratic vote coming from a doctor.

President Biden has called Abbott’s order “government overreach at its worst. He said that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will “take new actions to help transgender youth and their families.”

As mid-term elections approach, the new hot-button issue of “gender-affirming care” is sure to share center stage with other hard-line conservative concerns, such as the teaching of critical race theory, abortion rights, so-called “election integrity,” and what the New York Times has called the other “cultural grievances” recently discussed at the Conservative Political Action Conference.