ReportWire

Tag: state regulation

  • Supreme Court hears arguments on whether states can ban conversion therapy for LBGTQ+ kids

    [ad_1]

    The Supreme Court will hear arguments in its latest LGBTQ+ rights case Tuesday, weighing the constitutionality of bans passed by nearly half of U.S. states on the practice known as conversion therapy for children.The justices are hearing a lawsuit from a Christian counselor challenging a Colorado law that prohibits therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation or gender identity. Kaley Chiles, with support from President Donald Trump’s Republican administration, argues the law violates her freedom of speech by barring her from offering voluntary, faith-based therapy for kids.Colorado, on the other hand, says the measure simply regulates licensed therapists by barring a practice that’s been scientifically discredited and linked to serious harm.The arguments come months after the Supreme Court’s conservative majority found states can ban transition-related health care for transgender youths, a setback for LGBTQ rights. The justices are also expected to hear a case about sports participation by transgender players this term.State says therapy is health care and subject to regulationColorado has not sanctioned anyone under the 2019 law, which exempts religious ministries. State attorneys say it still allows any therapist to have wide-ranging, faith-based conversations with young patients about gender and sexuality.“The only thing that the law prohibits therapists from doing is performing a treatment that seeks the predetermined outcome of changing a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity because that treatment is unsafe and ineffective,” Colorado state attorneys wrote.Therapy isn’t just speech, they said — it’s health care that governments have a responsibility to regulate. Violating the law carries potential fines of $5,000 and license suspension or even revocation.Linda Robertson is a Christian mom of four from Washington state whose son Ryan underwent therapy that promised to change his sexual orientation after he came out to her at age 12. The techniques led him to blame himself when it didn’t work, leaving him ashamed and depressed. He died in 2009, after multiple suicide attempts and a drug overdose at age 20.“What happened in conversion therapy, it devastated Ryan’s bond with me and my husband,” she said. “And it absolutely destroyed his confidence he could ever be loved or accepted by God.”Chiles contends her approach is different from the kind of conversion therapy once associated with practices like shock therapy decades ago. She said she believes “people flourish when they live consistently with God’s design, including their biological sex,” and she argues evidence of harm from her approach is lacking.Chiles says Colorado is discriminating because it allows counselors to affirm minors coming out as gay or identifying as transgender but bans counseling like hers for young patients who may want to change their behavior or feelings. “We’re not saying this counseling should be mandatory, but if someone wants the counseling they should be able to get it,” said one of her attorneys, Jonathan Scruggs.The Trump administration said there are First Amendment issues with Colorado’s law that should make the law subject to a higher legal standard that few measures pass.Similar laws also face court challengesChiles is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal organization that has appeared frequently at the court in recent years. The group also represented a Christian website designer who doesn’t want to work with same-sex couples and successfully challenged a Colorado anti-discrimination law in 2023.The group’s argument in the conversion therapy case also builds on another victory from 2018: A Supreme Court decision found California could not force state-licensed anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers to provide information about abortion. Chiles should also be free from that kind of state regulation, the group argued.Still, the Supreme Court has also found that regulations that only “incidentally” burden speech are permissible, and the state argues that striking down its law against conversion therapy would undercut states’ ability to regulate discredited health care of all kinds.The high court agreed to hear the case after the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver upheld the law. Another appeals court, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, has struck down similar bans in Florida.Legal wrangling has continued elsewhere as well. In Wisconsin, the state’s highest court recently cleared the way for the state to enforce its ban. Virginia officials, by contrast, have agreed to scale back the enforcement of its law as part of an agreement with a faith-based conservative group that sued.

    The Supreme Court will hear arguments in its latest LGBTQ+ rights case Tuesday, weighing the constitutionality of bans passed by nearly half of U.S. states on the practice known as conversion therapy for children.

    The justices are hearing a lawsuit from a Christian counselor challenging a Colorado law that prohibits therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation or gender identity. Kaley Chiles, with support from President Donald Trump’s Republican administration, argues the law violates her freedom of speech by barring her from offering voluntary, faith-based therapy for kids.

    Colorado, on the other hand, says the measure simply regulates licensed therapists by barring a practice that’s been scientifically discredited and linked to serious harm.

    The arguments come months after the Supreme Court’s conservative majority found states can ban transition-related health care for transgender youths, a setback for LGBTQ rights. The justices are also expected to hear a case about sports participation by transgender players this term.

    State says therapy is health care and subject to regulation

    Colorado has not sanctioned anyone under the 2019 law, which exempts religious ministries. State attorneys say it still allows any therapist to have wide-ranging, faith-based conversations with young patients about gender and sexuality.

    “The only thing that the law prohibits therapists from doing is performing a treatment that seeks the predetermined outcome of changing a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity because that treatment is unsafe and ineffective,” Colorado state attorneys wrote.

    Therapy isn’t just speech, they said — it’s health care that governments have a responsibility to regulate. Violating the law carries potential fines of $5,000 and license suspension or even revocation.

    Linda Robertson is a Christian mom of four from Washington state whose son Ryan underwent therapy that promised to change his sexual orientation after he came out to her at age 12. The techniques led him to blame himself when it didn’t work, leaving him ashamed and depressed. He died in 2009, after multiple suicide attempts and a drug overdose at age 20.

    “What happened in conversion therapy, it devastated Ryan’s bond with me and my husband,” she said. “And it absolutely destroyed his confidence he could ever be loved or accepted by God.”

    Chiles contends her approach is different from the kind of conversion therapy once associated with practices like shock therapy decades ago. She said she believes “people flourish when they live consistently with God’s design, including their biological sex,” and she argues evidence of harm from her approach is lacking.

    Chiles says Colorado is discriminating because it allows counselors to affirm minors coming out as gay or identifying as transgender but bans counseling like hers for young patients who may want to change their behavior or feelings. “We’re not saying this counseling should be mandatory, but if someone wants the counseling they should be able to get it,” said one of her attorneys, Jonathan Scruggs.

    The Trump administration said there are First Amendment issues with Colorado’s law that should make the law subject to a higher legal standard that few measures pass.

    Similar laws also face court challenges

    Chiles is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal organization that has appeared frequently at the court in recent years. The group also represented a Christian website designer who doesn’t want to work with same-sex couples and successfully challenged a Colorado anti-discrimination law in 2023.

    The group’s argument in the conversion therapy case also builds on another victory from 2018: A Supreme Court decision found California could not force state-licensed anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers to provide information about abortion. Chiles should also be free from that kind of state regulation, the group argued.

    Still, the Supreme Court has also found that regulations that only “incidentally” burden speech are permissible, and the state argues that striking down its law against conversion therapy would undercut states’ ability to regulate discredited health care of all kinds.

    The high court agreed to hear the case after the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver upheld the law. Another appeals court, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, has struck down similar bans in Florida.

    Legal wrangling has continued elsewhere as well. In Wisconsin, the state’s highest court recently cleared the way for the state to enforce its ban. Virginia officials, by contrast, have agreed to scale back the enforcement of its law as part of an agreement with a faith-based conservative group that sued.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • State insurance commissioner says companies are delaying policies, denying discounts

    State insurance commissioner says companies are delaying policies, denying discounts

    [ad_1]

    Responding to consumer complaints about auto insurance coverage, the state insurance commissioner said Thursday that insurers could face penalties for creating unlawful barriers for California drivers.

    Ricardo Lara issued a bulletin to auto insurers, reminding them that they cannot change their policies’ terms and rates without formally filing for state review and approval. The bulletin also reminded companies that they must offer coverage to all motorists in California who meet the state’s legal definition of “Good Drivers.”

    “These alleged passive-aggressive tactics by insurance companies to slow down drivers’ access to coverage are unacceptable, dangerous, and will not be tolerated,” Lara said in a statement. “I am taking action today to ensure these insurance companies are acting according to the law and giving drivers the coverage they are paying for at the rate they qualify for. We will continue to monitor the situation and take any and all steps necessary to protect California consumers.”

    The commissioner acted in response to numerous complaints the department received about insurers imposing requirements that are not allowed by state law, including Proposition 103, the 1988 ballot measure that regulated property and casualty insurance sold in California. Issuing the bulletin, the department said, makes the legal requirements clear to insurers and “sets the stage for future enforcement actions, if warranted.”

    Frustrated by state regulations, a number of insurers have limited the new policies their agents can sell in California. And for California drivers who already have policies, the challenge for many has been a sharp increase in premiums when they renew.

    California drivers are now running into speed bumps to coverage because insurers say they were hurt by Lara’s pandemic-related orders, including those requiring partial refunds to policyholders who were driving less and denying approval for rate increases through most of 2022.

    Big-name insurers have been saying for months that they “can’t get the rates they need from the state Department of Insurance,” said Mike D’Arelli, executive director of American Agents Alliance, a national association of independent insurance agents and brokers.

    The companies complained they were losing money despite being profitable as recently as 2022, according to Department of Insurance market share data.

    The complaints that reached Lara’s desk include claims that some auto insurers may not be offering “Good Driver” discounts to those who qualify. According to the department, California law requires insurers to offer a policy with such a discount to any driver who’s held a license for the last three years, has no more than one point on their driving record and was not principally at fault in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in bodily injury or death.

    Consumers also have complained about “having to complete unnecessarily lengthy and/or confusing questionnaires, verify employment or school information, respond to physically mailed questionnaires despite applicants electing to receive documents electronically, provide information regarding excluded drivers living at the same address, and/or submit copies of applicants’ utility bills, vehicle registrations, and/or photos of driver’s licenses or vehicles, among other examples,” the department said Thursday.

    These barriers in many cases “discourage, inhibit or delay” motorists from completing an application for insurance, especially in a timely manner, the department said.

    In addition to the requirement to offer coverage to good drivers, the bulletin issued by Lara highlights the limits on what insurers can demand from applicants. “The Insurance Commissioner may initiate administrative enforcement actions and/or seek penalties against any and all insurers failing to offer and sell automobile insurance to all qualified Good Drivers,” the bulletin states.

    The bulletin also reiterates that, under Proposition 103, auto insurers in California are required to submit complete rate applications to the insurance commissioner for review and approval “any time they seek to implement new, or changes to existing, programs, coverages, rates, rating factors, underwriting guidelines, rating rules, forms, and fees, or make any other changes that may have a rate impact,” even if they think there won’t be any impact, according to the Department of Insurance.

    “An insurer’s failure to file proposed underwriting guidelines prior to implementing the proposed guideline may result in an administrative enforcement action against the insurer leading to restitution and/or penalties,” the bulletin says.

    Proposition 103 gave the insurance commissioner the power to review property and casualty insurance premiums before they go into effect, known as a “prior approval” system. It also sharply limited the factors insurers could consider when setting rates, requiring that they show data connecting each factor to their risk of loss. The goal was to prevent insurers from setting discriminatory premiums that didn’t reflect a driver’s potential for claims. Prior to the law, insurance companies weren’t regulated.

    If a requested premium increase exceeds 7%, the commissioner makes an independent determination of the allowable rate change based on data provided by the insurance company. Proposition 103 also allows consumer advocates and other third parties to intervene with their own analyses and arguments.

    [ad_2]

    Karen Garcia

    Source link