For Immediate Release:
January 11, 2024
For press inquiries only, contact:
Amanda Priest (334) 322-5694
Cameron Mixon (334) 242-7491
(Montgomery) – Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall issued a statement following the order by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit staying the district court’s preliminary injunction, which had blocked enforcement of the Alabama Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act. In August 2023, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that the district court had erroneously enjoined state officials from enforcing the Act, which prohibits the administration of sex-modification procedures to minors. In November, the State also asked the Eleventh Circuit to stay enforcement of the district court’s preliminary injunction so that the law could be enforced pending any further review of the appellate court’s decision. Today, the Eleventh Circuit granted that request. That decision clears the way for the State to enforce its prohibition on the administration of sex-modification procedures to minors.*
“The physical and psychological safety of our children can now be better protected from these untested and life-altering chemical and surgical procedures through the implementation of the Alabama Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act,” said Attorney General Steve Marshall. “This is a significant victory for our country, for children, and for common sense.”
Attorney General Marshall has been successful in leading this legal battle across the nation, providing support to other states as they defend similar laws to protect children from sterilizing medical interventions pushed by medical interest groups driven by profit and radical ideology. Last month, Marshall led 23 states in a brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in support of Oklahoma’s law. The brief highlighted the dishonesty of advocacy groups like the World Professional Association for Transgender Health and the American Academy of Pediatrics, both of which have pushed using sex-modification procedures for minors while trying to silence doctors and researchers calling for a more cautious approach to treating kids.
*Throughout this litigation, the State’s position has been that the Act does not prohibit a physician from weaning a minor off of a drug that had been used as a transitioning treatment because such weaning is not done ‘for the purpose of’ transitioning the child. The law thus allows for a reasonable weaning-off period to protect the child from further harm.
-30-
