by Ben Solis, Alabama Reflector
August 4, 2025

This story is a collaboration between Michigan Advance in collaboration with Wisconsin Examiner. 

A coalition of 15 state attorneys general have filed a multistate lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s effort to restrict access to medically-necessary care for transgender, intersex and nonbinary youth.

The lawsuit challenges recent federal action to deter doctors and medical providers from offering gender affirming care to youth under the age of 19 years old, including states like Michigan where that care is legal and protected.

Joining the suit are the attorneys general of Michigan, New York, California, Massachusetts, Illinois, and Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia, as well as Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro.

“The Trump administration shouldn’t be interfering with the provision of health care,” said Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul in a statement Friday. “The administration should be respecting individual liberty and equal rights, not shamefully targeting transgender people.”

The attorneys general have asserted that President Donald Trump’s White House is overstepping its authority, using threats of criminal prosecution and federal investigations to pressure health care providers.

“The Trump Administration is attempting to strip away lawful, essential healthcare from vulnerable youth. These orders are illegal and dangerous and have no medical or scientific basis,” said Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel in a statement. “I will continue to protect families, defend doctors, and stop politicians from putting our kids’ lives at risk.”

Trump in the beginning of his second administration signed an executive order stating that the U.S. would only recognize two sexes, and called for an end to what Trump labeled “gender ideology.” A second order focused on medical restrictions, directing the U.S. Department of Justice to pursue enforcement actions related to that care.

Since then, Nessel’s office said the Department of Justice has issued subpoenas to providers under the guise of criminal law enforcement, but the attorneys general filing the lawsuit Friday argue those efforts lack legal standing and are intended only to intimidate.

“Health care decisions for kids should be made by parents and doctors, not by politicians,” said Erin Knott, executive director of Equality Michigan, a LGBTQ+ advocacy group, in a statement. “The federal government is using funding as a weapon to force providers to abandon their patients and override parents’ rights to make health care decisions for their own children.”

Patricia Wells, a doctor and the medical director of The Corner Health Center in Ypsilanti, Michigan, said in a statement that she and her colleagues are distressed by new punitive changes to funding and regulations, which threaten to dismantle essential care.

“These policies do not protect children; they endanger them,” Wells said. “They undermine trust in the medical system and place affirming providers in an impossible position, forcing hospitals to close clinics and providers to stop offering the very care that helps young people survive and thrive. The loss of these services would not simply be a policy failure; it would be a moral one.”

Wells said the nation must do better.

“These young people deserve our compassion, our evidence-based care, and our unwavering commitment to their well-being,” she said. “I applaud the leadership of the state of Michigan for protecting transgender and gender nonconforming youth, their families, and the caregivers who are saving lives every day.”

Erik Gunn of Wisconsin Examiner contributed to this report.

Michigan Advance is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Michigan Advance maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jon King for questions: info@michiganadvance.com.

Wisconsin Examiner is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Wisconsin Examiner maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Ruth Conniff for questions: info@wisconsinexaminer.com.

Alabama Reflector is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Alabama Reflector maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Brian Lyman for questions: info@alabamareflector.com.

The post AGs from 15 states sue to block attacks on medically necessary care for transgender youth appeared first on alabamareflector.com

Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Left-Leaning

This article clearly advocates for transgender rights and criticizes the Trump administration’s policies restricting gender-affirming care for youth. The language used is sympathetic toward transgender individuals and emphasizes medical and scientific consensus supporting such care. It highlights legal actions taken by Democratic attorneys general and frames the federal government’s enforcement efforts as overreach and intimidation. While the piece reports facts about the lawsuit and quotes officials and advocates, its framing and selection of sources indicate a perspective aligned with progressive values on LGBTQ+ rights and healthcare access.

SUMMARY: A flood watch remains in effect in Alabama, especially east of the I-65 corridor, including counties like Blount, Jefferson, Shelby, and others, until 7 a.m. Sunday due to lingering storms and heavy rain. Flash flood warnings and advisories persist in several central and northeastern areas, with some locations receiving over two inches of rain. Drivers are urged to “turn around, don’t drown” and avoid roadways. Cooler, drier air and a cold front are expected to bring showers and thunderstorms early Sunday, followed by cooler and cloudier conditions into the workweek with highs near 80°F, marking a significant weather shift.

Flood Watch for Alabama: Storms linger overnight, with cooler weather in the forecast

Subscribe to WVTM on YouTube now for more: https://bit.ly/2jvAaUD

Get more Birmingham news: http://www.wvtm13.com
Like us: https://www.facebook.com/WVTM13/
Follow us: https://twitter.com/WVTM13
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/wvtm13/

Source

by Anna Barrett, Alabama Reflector
August 2, 2025

The Alabama Republican Party Saturday approved a new rule that would allow the party to disqualify an elected GOP official if they appoint a Democrat to a position during their term.

About 83% of the attendants at the GOP Summer Meeting in Montgomery voted for the rule that prohibits elected partisan officials from appointing people other than Republicans. Suzelle Josey, a former candidate for Senate District 30 in 2014, wrote the rule change.

Josey said in an interview after the meeting that the rule is meant to send a message to Republicans to keep Republicans in office.

“If you are Republican, if you have taken Republican support, if you have depended upon people to get out there and knock on doors for you, taking money, their time, their treasure, once you have the opportunity and the privilege of being elected as a Republican, then we certainly would expect you to be appointing Republicans when you have the opportunity,” Josey said. “We hope this bylaw change will send a message to elected Republican officials that we have new expectations.”

In the chairman’s report, John Wahl claimed that Democrats do not listen to opposing views or debate, but said that the new rule would allow Republicans to be in the room in areas that are typically Democratic. 

“You would never see a Democrat appoint a Republican,” Wahl said in an interview. “I want to see Republicans taking seriously the fact that we want the opportunity to debate. The open debate here is actually giving Republican appointees the chance to go out and talk to their community, explain their values that they may never have the chance to do if they weren’t appointed to these positions.”

The Alabama Democratic Party’s bylaws do not have a similar rule.

Wahl also gave the 287 attendants an update on the congressional redistricting litigation. The court ordered the state to draw a new congressional map in 2023 after nearly two years of litigation with two appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. The panel determined that voting in Alabama is racially polarized, with white voters tending to support Republicans and Black voters tending to support Democrats. With that determination, the judges ruled that the Legislature-approved map did not give Black voters the ability to choose their preferred leaders, and ordered a majority-minority congressional district and a district with a near-majority of Black voters to be drawn. 

After a trial earlier this year, the court ruled in May that Alabama had intentionally discriminated against Black voters by approving a map in 2023 that initially only had one majority-Black district. The judges are considering sanctions, which could include requiring court approval of any future congressional maps, a process known as preclearance.

Wahl said that the litigation is not fair because California Gov. Gavin Newsom wants to redraw the state’s congressional districts to include more Democratic seats. Texas Republicans on Wednesday drafted a map that would flip five Democratic-held districts.

“California and New York redistricted based on a political basis, without any repercussions from federal courts,” Wahl said. “Now I’m not arguing that anyone should be unrepresented, but I’m going to tell you double standards are not okay.”

Wahl said that majority-minority districts were inherently racist because not all members of minority groups vote for Democratic candidates.

“It shouldn’t matter what the color of your skin is. And if that’s the case, then if any district is drawn based on the color of someone’s skin, it is racist by the nature of that decision,” Wahl said. “I do not think this should be a political or or racial decision. This should be based on communities of interest and traditional lines.”

The party also established qualifying dates for the 2026 midterms. State and county GOP candidates must file their candidacy between Jan. 5 at 8:30 a.m. and Jan. 23 at 5 p.m. with the party’s chairman, according to the resolution that passed at the meeting. The resolution was amended from the qualifying period for statewide candidates only starting on Jan. 12 with 69% of the party’s support. 

“I think it’s confusing to have two different dates there as a former county party chair,” said Michael Hoyt, former Baldwin County GOP chair. “I think it’s helpful to have uniform dates across the board. I think a lot of the 11 day period is far too short.”

Wahl said the original 11 day period was due to the primary election being moved from May 26 to May 19, and the qualifying period could not start sooner because of winter holidays.

“Originally it was at three weeks for county parties and two weeks for the state party. Members felt that they would like to have the dates consistent,” Wahl said in an interview after the meeting.

Alabama Reflector is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Alabama Reflector maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Brian Lyman for questions: info@alabamareflector.com.

The post Alabama Republican Party votes to disqualify GOP officials who appoint Democrats appeared first on alabamareflector.com

Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Right

The article reports on actions and statements from the Alabama Republican Party, presenting their internal rule changes and views on political appointments and redistricting challenges. The coverage largely reflects the party’s perspective, emphasizing the importance of party loyalty and critiquing court-ordered redistricting measures as unfair or racially divisive. The language is factual but aligns with Republican viewpoints, highlighting concerns about racial considerations in districting and advocating for traditional lines and community interests. The article does not explicitly endorse these views but gives prominence to conservative framing and responses, positioning it as center-right in tone and focus.