On Tuesday, a second federal judge issued a preliminary injunction–this time nationwide–blocking enforcement of sections of the Trump administration’s executive orders relating to the federal funding of “gender ideology,” and “affirming care” for persons under 19. Judge Brendan A. Hurson, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, previously issued a temporary restraining order blocking enforcement of the EOs, however, that order was set to expire on March 5th. With the new ruling, however, enforcement is blocked indefinitely nationwide. In his ruling, Judge Hurson determined that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of all three of their claims pertaining to violations of separation of powers, the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, and conflicts with statutory law.
Last Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Lauren King issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of multiple sections of executive orders relating to the federal funding of gender ideology and medicine. Specifically, King blocked enforcement of Section 4 of EO 14187 and Section 3e and g of EO 14168, arguing that they violate the spending and equal protection clauses of the Constitution. Section 4 of EO14187 prohibits federal funds from going to institutions that provide sex-trait modification procedures, while sections 3e and g of EO 14168 prohibit federal agencies from promoting and funding “gender ideology.” The injunction is limited in scope to the plaintiffs, in this case to Washington, Colorado, Minnesota and Oregon.
On Wednesday, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a press release announcing that they had alerted health providers about their obligations to prevent gender dysphoric children from being harmed by irreversible medical interventions. The press release also draws attention to the low-quality evidence in support of “affirming care,” as well as evidence for the harms of the off-label use of puberty blockers, including negative impacts on growth spurts, bone growth, bone density, fertility and neurodevelopment. CMS plans to issue additional policies and regulations in the future to better align with the state of the science.
On Monday, Senate Democrats blocked the advancement of the "Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act," which would prohibit federal funds from going to education programs that allow trans-identified boys and men to compete on girls’ and women’s sports teams. Needing 60 votes to advance, the measure fell short with a 51-45 vote. While Republicans control 53 seats in the upper chamber, they would still need seven Democrats to break ranks if all members were present.
In a striking reversal, California Gov. Gavin Newsom broke ranks with Democrats on the issue of trans-identified males participating in women's and girls' sports. In the debut episode of his new podcast, Newsom agreed with Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk that allowing boys and men to compete against girls and women is fundamentally unfair. “It is an issue of fairness — it’s deeply unfair…I am not wrestling with the fairness issue. I totally agree with you” Newsom told Kirk. Newsom went on to concede that rallying around the right of trans-identified males to compete on women’s sports teams has been a losing proposition for Democrats, adding that they were “getting crushed on it. Crushed. Crushed.” Until presumably sensing a change in the political winds, Newsom has been a staunch supporter of civil rights based on “gender identity,” having signed into law bills which make California a sanctuary state for “affirming care,” and that prohibit school officials from informing parents about changes in their child’s “gender identity” without their explicit consent.
A new paper in the Journal of Sexual Medicine found an association between undergoing gender “affirming” surgery and elevated risk for depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, body-dysmorphic disorder and substance use. Moreover, natal females who underwent surgery had higher rates of depression and anxiety than natal males who underwent surgery. The researchers looked at the medical records of adults with dysphoria diagnoses who received gender-transition surgeries but did not have other psychiatric diagnoses prior to surgery and then looked at the proportion who had psychiatric diagnoses in their chart years after surgery. Cohorts that underwent surgery were compared to cohorts that did not undergo surgery, and were matched on demographic characteristics like age, race and ethnicity. It does not appear that the authors controlled for baseline levels of psychopathology, however, which raises questions about the study’s findings. Given the cross-sectional study design, no causal claims about the direction of associations can be made, although the association between “affirming” surgery and poor psychiatric outcomes tentatively builds on the research literature suggesting that “affirming care” fails to produce the positive clinical outcomes often promised by activists.
Texas Rep. Brent Money has filed a bill in the Texas House which would expand the scope of the state’s existing ban on sex-trait modification procedures to adults by modifying the language of the state’s ban on youth gender medicine. Specifically, the bill would change the wording of the current law by replacing “child” with “person.” The bill includes surgery exceptions for individuals with disorders of sexual development, however, Texans currently taking puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones for the purpose of medically transitioning would be required by law to ultimately wean off the medication. According to Fox, Texas has 93,000 trans-identified adults, the third largest population behind California and Florida.
Last Friday, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed a bill into law which removes “gender identity” as a protected category from the state’s civil rights law, a day after the bill passed the Iowa Senate and House. “We all agree that every Iowan, without exception, deserves respect and dignity…What this bill does accomplish is to strengthen protections for women and girls, and I believe that it is the right thing to do” Gov. Reynolds said in a statement.
The Times has come out forcefully against NHS England’s planned £10.7 million clinical trial looking into the effects of puberty blockers on gender dysphoric youth. As the Times notes, the Cass Review determined that the clinical rationale for the use of puberty blockers was “unclear,” and the evidence-base of the long-term impact on trans-identified youth also remains “remarkably weak.” The Times argues that a trial is unlikely to find benefits, and the harms are likely to be considerable. “Puberty is not an optional extra in a healthy human being’s biological life plan. It is an extended physiological process involving a range of fundamental cognitive and psychological changes. Suppressing it is a disaster for the individual concerned. The notion that an ethical trial should be undertaken to establish the possible downsides of chemically sterilizing children is as macabre as it is irrational” the Times Staff concludes.
Joseph Figliolia
Policy Analyst
News
