Nebraska GOP Tries To Break Trans Filibuster With Abortion Ban

Nebraska's Republican Party has decided to try to ban abortion in the same bill as the gender affirming care ban. The bill, already controversial in the state, will be debated this evening.

In a calculated move, Nebraska Republicans are attempting to break a Democratic filibuster that's been stalling a bill that would ban gender-affirming care for trans youth. They're doing this by attaching an abortion ban to the bill. Senators Machaela Cavanaugh and Megan Hunt have led a three-month filibuster against LB574, effectively stalling the Nebraska legislature so that no bills can pass.

Now, Republican Senator Ben Hansen, sensing a way to push the bill through, is trying to amend the bill to not only ban abortions after 10 weeks but also give authority to the state’s Chief Medical Officer, a Republican appointee, to set all rules on care for transgender youth. While some may label this as a compromise, it feels like a more radical turn. It underlines the unsettling truth that the battles over gender-affirming care and abortion rights are not separate, but rather two faces of the same coin, driven by the same factions, using the same justifications to limit access to vital care.

The proposed amendment introduces two significant alterations to the current bill, which currently seeks to ban all gender-affirming care for transgender youth under 19 years.

Firstly, the amendment would shift the explicitly stated ban away from hormone therapy and puberty blockers, focusing exclusively on surgeries. This may appear as a concession, potentially allowing trans youth to access some forms of care.

However, a second provision has set off alarm bells for those opposing the bill. This provision would delegate full authority to Nebraska's Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Timothy Tesmer, to establish all regulations regarding gender-affirming care for trans youth, making it obligatory for his office to do so. Here's the provision:

Rule making power granted to the Chief Medical Officer.

The reason that this provision has raised alarm bells is because Republican medical appointees in other states such as Florida and Missouri have used their powers to ban gender affirming care for transgender youth and even some adults. Though this may seem like a compromise, it is easy to envision a world where the Republican party manages to get a bill through while selling it as a compromise when in reality, the end result for trans youth may be a more severe set of restrictions on gender affirming care than even the original bill had. This fear was confirmed when Republican Senator Tom Briese stated that “it is possible that some of the criteria that will be put in place may be more stringent than some would hope for.”

The second addition in this amendment is a ban on abortion care after 10 weeks. Although the bill specifically states that the ban would be on abortions after 12 weeks, it counts the gestational age from the last missed period rather than from fertilization. The ban also does not have any exceptions for fetal abnormalities, even for severe abnormalities that would threaten viability. This comes after a 6 week abortion ban failed to pass earlier in the year.

Few observers of anti-trans legislation are shocked by the Republican strategy of bundling an anti-abortion bill with an anti-trans bill, seeking passage with a single vote. Groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom have been instrumental in crafting, lobbying, and advocating for these bills, with their members even contributing to the original drafts, as revealed by a leaked email collection published earlier this year. These very organizations are also responsible for the lawsuit that led to the ban on the abortion drug mifepristone in Texas.

The tactics employed to target transgender care and abortion care bear striking resemblances. The shrinking gestational age limits in abortion bans parallel the rising age restrictions for gender-affirming care. Targeted restrictions on abortion providers (TRAP Laws), such as mandatory waiting periods and burdensome medical guidelines, also emerge in this bill, this time aimed at gender-affirming care. The struggle for bodily autonomy spans across gender-affirming care, abortion care, reproductive healthcare, and all other areas where assaults on bodily autonomy reinforce patriarchal power structures.

Last year, a Republican Lawmaker in Idaho made the point explicitly. State representative Elizabeth Coleman stated of a gender affirming care ban there, “I see this conversation as an extension of the pro-life argument. We are not talking about the life of the child, but we are talking about the potential to give life to another generation.”

In mere hours, LB574 will undergo a debate. Should the amendment pass, it is likely that the bill will need to go back to a second reading before it progresses to third reading and full passage. Should the plan to amend the bill fail, it may either be immediately pushed for passage or could be held for the remainder of the year. Meanwhile, Democrats may continue to filibuster on the bill and could break out new attempts to slow the debate so that the legislature adjourns before the bill can be passed.