Alberta government defends transgender youth health law in court

Alberta’s transgender law returned to court Tuesday, with government lawyers arguing the legislation is grounded in science and keeps children safe.

The law bars youth under 16 from receiving hormone therapy and puberty blockers. It is being challenged from groups representing transgender youth who are asking the courts to temporarily suspend the law pending a hearing on its constitutionality.

The groups argue the law violates the Charter because it denies medical care.

Government lawyer David Madsen told court that is not the case, stating hormone therapy is not considered medically necessary.

“This Charter challenge will fail,” Madsen told Justice Allison Kuntz. He argued that the province is protecting at-risk youth from making life-altering decisions at a vulnerable stage of their lives.

“The polarized atmosphere surrounding this topic is exactly why Alberta has elected to follow the science, and all the more reason to show deference to the legislation,” Madsen said.

Premier Danielle Smith’s government passed the law last year, but it has yet to be fully proclaimed to put it into legal effect. A prohibition halting gender-affirming “top” surgeries for minors came into effect in December. 

Alberta became the first Canadian province to enact the legislation that prohibits LGBTQ+ youth from receiving gender-affirming medical care.

Two LGBTQ+ advocacy groups are seeking the court injunction and have called the government’s action unprecedented, saying it’s unconstitutional to deny medical care on the basis of being gender diverse.

Lawyers for those groups and five unnamed transgender children ages six to 11 years old presented their arguments on Monday.

The law in question is one of three affecting transgender people that were passed in Alberta last year. The second, which is not being challenged in court, requires children under 16 to have parental consent if they wish to change their names or pronouns in school. 

The third bans transgender athletes from competing in female amateur sports and requires schools and organizations to report eligibility complaints. 

Smith has said she’s confident the new restrictions fall within the Charter and would withstand a legal challenge.

But if the challenge is successful, Smith has said she would use the Charter’s notwithstanding clause to shield the laws from legal challenge. The clause allows governments to override certain Charter rights for up to five years.

“I hope it wouldn’t come to that, but for sure, we would,” Smith said on her radio show in December.