- All articles

All articles

- 9th Circuit Court Temporarily Blocks Lower Court Forced Outing Ruling In California

- HHS Sec. Kennedy Attempts To Stop Trans Youth Care In Hospitals Nationwide—Before New Federal Rules Take Effect

- ACLU Pledges To Challenge Trump Admin In Court Over National Trans Youth Care Ban Rule

- Trans Youth Emergency Project Offers Families Guidance To Help Keep Getting Care After New Trump Anti-Trans Rule

- “I will not let this administration come for you”: NY AG Letitia James Vows to Protect Trans Kids

- Nationwide Trans Youth Care Ban Incoming As Trump Admin Announces "Nuclear Option" Federal Rule

- Victory in New Zealand, For Now—Injunction Brings Puberty Blocker Ban to a Screeching Halt

- MTG's Felony National Youth Trans Ban Passes House; 3 Dems Vote For It, 4 GOP Vote Against It

- “They Are Obsessed With Trans People:” Rep. Sarah McBride Rails Against GOP’s Upcoming Anti-Trans Votes

- Families Bring Legal Challenge Against Yale, CCMC For Capitulating To Trump On Trans Youth Care

- Anti-Trans Alaskan State Medical Board Doctor Charged With CSAM, Home Goes Up In Flames

- Dan Crenshaw's Trans Youth Medicaid Ban Added To This Week's Congressional Calendar

9th Circuit Court Temporarily Blocks Lower Court Forced Outing Ruling In California

ERIN REED | DEC 28, 2025, 12:54 PM EST | SOURCE

A lower court ruling would have required schools to allow teachers to out transgender students to their parents.

9th Circuit // Ron Coleman // Creative Commons

Last week, a federal judge known for conservative decisions, Judge Roger Benitez, ruled that California must allow schools and teachers to forcibly out transgender students to their parents—a decision that directly threatened to overturn California law protecting student privacy for LGBTQ+ students and prohibiting such mandatory disclosures that have been passed in a handful of school districts in the state. Now, just days later, the Ninth Circuit has stepped in. A panel composed of Chief Judge Mary Murguia and Judges Andrew Hurwitz and Salvador Mendoza—all Democratic appointees—has issued an initial order temporarily blocking the lower court’s ruling, preserving the status quo while the case proceeds.

Judge Benitez’s ruling will be blocked for at least the next week, according to the San Francisco Times. The ruling was issued on behalf of the Thomas More Society, a Roman Catholic conservative nonprofit representing parents in the Escondido School District, which had adopted a forced-outing policy. While the lower court judge ruled that the district must allow schools to forcibly out students to their parents when a student is transgender, that decision is now paused as the state of California presents its case before the court of appeals.

“Judge Benitez’s dangerous ruling goes far beyond the SAFETY Act and broadly targets numerous California laws and protections for transgender and gender-nonconforming students—attempting to invalidate critical safeguards that prevent forced outing and allow educators to respect a student’s affirmed name and pronouns at school. These protections exist for one reason: to keep students safe and ensure schools remain places where young people can learn and thrive without fear,” said Equality California in a statement following the initial ruling.

Forced outing is a harmful practice. The Trevor Project reports that LGBTQ+ youth in schools with forced outing and other anti-trans policies report significantly higher rates of anxiety, depression, and suicide attempts. Another study by UConn reports, “The team found that respondents who were outed (about 30%) to their parents were more likely to experience elevated depressive symptoms and lower LGBTQ family support compared to those who were not. Parents who affirmed and supported their child’s identity could potentially mitigate depressive symptoms from the stress of being outed.” Importantly, not every family is supportive, and forced outing often leads to transgender youth being forced outside of their home or abused.

The block, however, is only temporary as the case moves forward. Still, the composition of the appellate panel offers transgender students a measure of relief: all three judges were appointed by Democratic presidents, increasing the likelihood that California’s protections against forced outing will remain in place for now. That relief may be short-lived. Given the Supreme Court’s repeated willingness to intervene in cases involving transgender rights, especially to revive policies advanced by conservative judges, further review is likely. Regardless of the outcome, this case is poised to reach far beyond California, shaping the future of whether states can protect transgender students from being forcibly outed by their schools.

This article was downloaded from https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/9th-circuit-court-temporarily-blocks at Dec 29, 2025 at 7:20 AM EST.

HHS Sec. Kennedy Attempts To Stop Trans Youth Care In Hospitals Nationwide—Before New Federal Rules Take Effect

S. BAUM | DEC 23, 2025, 10:05 AM EST | SOURCE

Like many of the Trump regime&#8217;s attempted powergrabs, this kind of piecemeal and disheveled rulemaking is enforced at least in part by fear and sheer uncertainty.

Gage Skidmore // Creative commons

The Trump Administration is once again beating its chest in its latest attempt to get providers of legal, evidence-based, gender-affirming care to bend the knee at his whim.

As Erin in the Morning previously reported, the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) hosted a press conference last week to unveil another wave of attacks targeting gender-affirming care and even clothing for transgender people. Much of the reporting focused on the long-awaited proposal from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). That effort conjured up a new right-wing buzzword, “sex-rejecting procedures,” and inserted it into proposed federal regulations.

The rules, which are currently undergoing a 60-day public comment and review period, declare that a hospital “must not perform sex-rejecting procedures on any child” in order to participate in Medicaid at all.

As the media frenzy fixated on the fallout, another document was also released by the HHS, which in tandem with the CMS proposal, appears to be an attempt to subvert checks and balances altogether when it comes to regulating medical care.

Titled “Safety, Effectiveness, and Professional Standards of Care for Sex-Rejecting Procedures on Children and Adolescents,” the 12-page memo purports to construct a legal and scientific basis for undermining trans people’s health care. It further threatens to withdraw federal funds from hospitals that potentially offer young trans people such treatments, including hormone replacement therapy and puberty blockers.

Moreover, the government-issued standards of care takes aim at medical organizations like the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) and the Endocrine Society, both of which endorse the gold standards of evidence-based interventions for treating young people with gender dysphoria. This stands in stark contrast to Trump’s standards of care, which rely on pseudoscientific treatises like the Cass Review and Trump’s HHS Report on gender-affirming care for trans youth. (Neither WPATH nor the Endocrine Society replied to requests for comment from Erin in the Morning.)

In other words, the HHS memo is mobilizing the troops—but there are still ways to go before anyone can pull the trigger. Hospitals concerned about losing funding might capitulate anyways, as overcompliance with RFK’s conspiratorial and dangerous medical crazes have become a regular fixture of life under a medical surveillance state. (So too has institutional resistance—see, for example, Boston Children’s Hospital.)

If the new HHS initiative advances, it could become a formal notice of exclusion—a designation often called the “death penalty” for health care providers, usually reserved for institutions found to have committed serious crimes, such as Medicaid fraud or the illegal distribution of controlled substances.

“[A]lthough most providers can survive monetary penalties, a provider cannot survive if excluded from participating in the federal health programs of Medicare and Medicaid,” one industry compliance guide reads.

There is no federal law banning gender-affirming care for transgender youth. Like many of the Trump regime’s attempted powergrabs, this kind of piecemeal and disheveled rulemaking is enforced at least in part by fear and sheer uncertainty. Legal, medical, and advocacy groups are struggling to navigate these blows in real time.

“This declaration is an abuse of a policy document that is widely known to be intended for national public health emergencies and other crises that deem a coordinated, federal response,” said Khadijah M. Silver, JD/MPH, a Supervising Attorney for Civil Rights at Lawyers for Good Government. “Providers performing standard-of-care medicine that their patients need is not such an emergency—whether Sec. Kennedy agrees with it, personally, or not.”

A section from the “declaration” by the HHS on Dec. 18, 2025.

There are still hurdles that the Trump regime would have to clear in order to make this destruction of care a reality. Lawsuits can and likely will be filed across the country. Hospitals can choose to keep their doors open and fight the HHS in court. State attorneys general and civil rights groups can add this to their multiple ongoing legal battles against the regime on behalf of trans Americans and their doctors.

And even if the rule comes to pass, there will still be wholly private providers—although this will further segregate access to care, allowing it only for those who can afford it out-of-pocket. These rules could also be overturned by a subsequent president.

For now, however, RFK continues to round out the year with a full frontal assault on trans kids. The federal health official also recently made headlines for sending obscene and anatomically dubious poetry to a reporter forty years his junior; this is to say nothing of his bold and creative decision to take his grandkids swimming in sewer water.

“Doctors assume a solemn obligation to protect children,” RFK told the press conference last week. “We’re done with junk science driven by ideological pursuits.”

This article was downloaded from https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/hhs-sec-kennedy-attempts-to-stop at Dec 29, 2025 at 7:20 AM EST.

ACLU Pledges To Challenge Trump Admin In Court Over National Trans Youth Care Ban Rule

ERIN REED | DEC 22, 2025, 11:06 AM EST | SOURCE

The rule must undergo a 60 day comment period, whereupon the government must generally respond before it may be put into effect.

Wikimedia Commons

Last week, the Trump administration made headlines by pledging to ban gender-affirming care for transgender youth through a rulemaking process—sidestepping Congress and the legislative process entirely. The proposed rule, RIN 0938-AV87, would bar any hospital system that participates in Medicaid or Medicare from offering gender-affirming care to transgender youth, regardless of whether that care is paid for with federal funds or privately. If enacted, it would represent the most sweeping executive overreach yet by the administration in its campaign against transgender people, and appears to be advancing precisely because similar measures—though passed by the U.S. House—face steep odds in the Senate. Now, in response, the American Civil Liberties Union has pledged to take the administration to court if the rule is finalized, vowing to challenge its implementation.

“These gratuitous proposals are cruel and unconstitutional attacks on the rights of transgender youth and their families,” said Chase Strangio, Co-Director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Rights Project. “By attempting to strip away essential healthcare, the administration is not 'protecting' anyone; it is weaponizing the federal government to target a vulnerable population for political gain. Healthcare decisions belong to families and their doctors, not politicians. The latest proposals from the administration would force doctors to choose between their ethical obligations to their patients and the threat of losing federal funding. It would uproot families who have already fled state-level bans, leaving them with nowhere to turn for the care they need to survive and thrive.”

“We have seen the devastating consequences of similar policies at the state level, and we have fought them every step of the way. Let us be clear: If this administration moves forward with this attempt to enact a national ban on our medical care through coercion, the ACLU will see them in court. We will not rest until the rights of transgender youth to live authentically and access the care they need are fully protected,” said the ACLU in a press release in the aftermath of the rule proposal.

The new rule is vast in scope. It contains no exceptions for patients already receiving care, meaning transgender youth who have remained in treatment—even in some states with existing bans that carved out limited exceptions—would see that care abruptly cut off. According to the administration’s own estimates, most transgender youth receive care through hospital-based systems, and the rule would result in roughly 87 percent of transgender youth losing access to treatment. The proposal also introduces new definitions of sex designed to exclude transgender people and explicitly attempts to preempt state shield laws that were enacted to protect access to gender-affirming care for residents in those states.

The ACLU has multiple grounds on which to challenge the rule. For instance, Section 1801 of the Social Security Act explicitly bars the federal government from using Medicaid to “exercise any supervision or control over the practice of medicine.” To sidestep that prohibition, the administration has asserted that gender-affirming care does not constitute the practice of medicine at all. Even after the Supreme Court’s recent Skrmetti decision, which allowed states to ban gender-affirming care for transgender youth, it will be difficult for the federal government to argue that it can impose a nationwide ban in direct contradiction of a statute that expressly forbids it from doing so. Nevertheless, several federal circuits have shown a willingness to stretch legal interpretations to accommodate nearly any theory advanced by the Trump administration, no matter how tenuous, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly used its shadow docket to swiftly overturn rulings that stand in the administration’s way.

In the meantime, parents, families, and allies are not powerless. The Trans Youth Emergency Project has confirmed it has the capacity to connect transgender youth who may be cut off from hospital-based care with private doctors who are less vulnerable to these incoming regulations. That work may prove lifesaving if the administration follows through. At the same time, the public comment period matters. Every comment forces the administration to justify its actions on the record, slowing the process and strengthening the case against it in court. The strongest comments are specific, grounded in facts or lived experience, make good arguments, and make clear the real harm this rule would cause. The window to act is now. Over the next 60 days, this rule can still be challenged, delayed, and fought—if people show up and refuse to let it move forward quietly.

You can leave a public comment here. Note that public comments are just that—public—and so take steps to protect your anonymity if it is something that matters to you.

This article was downloaded from https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/aclu-pledges-to-challenge-trump-admin at Dec 29, 2025 at 7:20 AM EST.

Trans Youth Emergency Project Offers Families Guidance To Help Keep Getting Care After New Trump Anti-Trans Rule

ERIN REED | DEC 20, 2025, 1:14 PM EST | SOURCE

The organization tells EITM that they are prepared to scale up for further shutdown of care, and can offer most families places to continue getting care.

TYEP - Used With Permission

Over the last several years, many red states have banned gender-affirming care for transgender youth. Since Trump returned to power, that campaign has shifted to blue states, with the administration threatening hospitals and healthcare systems with the loss of federal funding unless they stopped providing care. This week, those threats escalated sharply: a new federal rule, now in its public comment period, would bar any hospital that provides transgender healthcare from receiving Medicaid funds—a move that would effectively force most major hospital systems to end that care altogether. In response, an organization that has already helped families navigate care bans in red states is stepping in again. The Trans Youth Emergency Project (TYEP), spun up by leaders at the Campaign for Southern Equality, says it has capacity to help parents of transgender youth locate independent clinics that may be less vulnerable to the administration’s current and incoming policies and can provide, in some cases, travel assistance.

TYEP’s latest outreach follows the release of a sweeping new federal rule that would bar any hospital system—and any clinic affiliated with those systems—from providing gender-affirming care if they accept Medicaid. The rule contains no carveouts for patients already receiving care, meaning many transgender youth would be forced into abrupt medical detransition unless they can quickly secure alternative providers, should the rule take effect. It explicitly claims to preempt state shield laws in places like California, Minnesota, and New York. The proposed rule further destabilizes an already fragile healthcare landscape for transgender youth, as hospitals and clinics continue to shutter services in preemptive compliance with the administration’s escalating threats.

The rule does leave one narrow avenue for transgender youth to continue accessing care: private, independent clinics and physicians who do not accept Medicaid. Earlier this year, as hospital systems began shutting down services, advocates spoke about spinning up independent clinics to meet the need. Massachusetts advanced a measure intended to funnel funding toward that kind of care, and in New York City, mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani pledged millions to help preserve treatment capacity. But for many families, the talk of these clinics have felt like vaporware—plans discussed publicly that have yet to translate into accessible appointments. There may, however, be a quieter reality beneath the surface: clinicians and small practices that are not advertising openly but remain prepared to provide care. That is where TYEP steps in, working behind the scenes to connect patients with providers who are still able and willing to treat them.

When asked whether TYEP has the capacity to absorb a surge of families seeking alternatives in the wake of the new rule, organizers said unequivocally that they do. They noted that the organization has repeatedly scaled up during previous waves of clinic and hospital closures without issue. Adam Polaski explained, “At every turn, we have been able to pivot and scale up and show people the reason that this is important. Folks have stepped up with their dollars, and also folks have requested support and spread the word. So right now, I don’t want folks to feel like they shouldn’t reach out because they ‘don’t really need it’ or someone else ‘needs it more than them.’ Everyone needs the support right now, and it’s ok. We have the capacity to take it on.”

Polaski compared what the group is doing to efforts that spun up for abortion access in the wake of recent restrictions and bans. “A lot of folks are recognizing that this kind of, you know, practical support network that the abortion access movement has crafted so powerfully is going to be necessary for trans folks.”

The group is likely to face real stress testing in the coming weeks. While the rule change has not yet taken effect—the process will include a 60-day public comment period, additional time for the administration to review comments and finalize the rule, and near-certain litigation that could delay or block implementation entirely—we have already seen that the mere threat of new anti-trans rules is often enough to prompt hospital systems to fold. Even now, EITM is aware of hospital systems actively discussing the proposed rule and weighing preemptive closures in anticipation of compliance pressures. That means independent clinics may begin seeing an influx of patients well before any rule is finalized. In that environment, organizations like the Trans Youth Emergency Project will be essential in helping families navigate a rapidly shrinking and increasingly opaque care landscape.

Families wishing to contact the TYEP about their situation can do so here by filling out their intake form. The national project offers family navigation through one-on-one phone calls to help identify providers unimpacted by restrictions, as well as travel grants of $500.

This article was downloaded from https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/trans-youth-emergency-project-offers at Dec 29, 2025 at 7:20 AM EST.

“I will not let this administration come for you”: NY AG Letitia James Vows to Protect Trans Kids

S. BAUM | DEC 18, 2025, 5:44 PM EST | SOURCE

&#8220;Your healthcare is still legal and protected, and your doctors cannot cut off your access to gender affirming care based on the administration's reckless proposal.&#8221;

Letita James // Social Media Video

New York’s political powerhouse of an Attorney General, Letitia James, has issued a scathing rebuttal to the Trump Administration’s boldest attack on transgender youth yet.

A proposed rule by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) this week, if finalized, would eliminate all Medicaid funding for any hospital that provides gender-affirming hormone therapies, puberty blockers, or surgeries to trans people under the age of 18. However, it would continue to allow many of these same treatments and procedures to be performed on cisgender youth. Private clinics unaffiliated with hospitals should also remain untouched, meaning gender-affirming care will remain accessible, but only to the affluent.

“I know this latest proposal from this administration to cut access to gender affirming care for many youth is frightening,” James said in a video, posted to social media on Dec. 18.

“Whether you live in Brooklyn, Binghamton, Buffalo, or anywhere else in New York, and even if you don’t live in New York, I will not let this administration come for you, your doctors, or your lifesaving healthcare.”

“As of now, nothing has changed,” she continued. “Your healthcare is still legal and protected, and your doctors cannot cut off your access to gender affirming care based on the administration’s reckless proposal. And most importantly, I want you to know that you’re not alone.”

You can see the full video here.

On the same day James posted her video, the ACLU announced they are suing over those Trump proposals. “These gratuitous proposals are cruel and unconstitutional attacks on the rights of transgender youth and their families,” said Chase Strangio, Co-Director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Rights Project, in a press release. “By attempting to strip away essential healthcare, the administration is not ‘protecting’ anyone; it is weaponizing the federal government to target a vulnerable population for political gain.”

This also comes after Republican congresswoman and former Trump acolyte Marjorie Taylor Greene successfully pushed a bill through the House that would classify providing gender-affirming care for trans youth as a felony, imposing prison sentences of up to 10 years on providers. It is not expected to pass the Senate to become law, but concerned citizens may still opt to reach out to their representatives and apply pressure to hold the line.

Earlier this year, AG James was among the most vocal supporters of trans patients who faced care stoppages after New York City hospitals capitulated to Trump’s unlawful and anti-trans threats. Withholding care for transgender patients would violate state anti-discrimination policies, James said in a letter sent to providers across the state.

“Regardless of the availability of federal funding, we write to further remind you of your obligations to comply with New York State laws, including those that prohibit discrimination against individuals based on their membership in a protected class,” she wrote.

“Electing to refuse services to a class of individuals based on their protected status, such as withholding the availability of services from transgender individuals based on their gender identity or their diagnosis of gender dysphoria, while offering such services to cisgender individuals, is discrimination under New York law.”

Following this letter, pressure from community activists, and talks with local lawmakers, at least one hospital that had paused youth gender care ultimately reversed course, Assigned Media reported at the time.

Only time will tell whether James will make good on her promises. Attorneys General are on the front lines of institutional resistance to many anti-trans federal attacks. Hoards of them banded together to sue the Trump Administration over his unlawful intimidation of gender-affirming care providers and his unconstitutional bid to hold public school funds hostage over gendered bathroom policies. (James is part of both cohorts.)

However, as Erin in the Morning has reported prior, the federal government is not the only pressure point. Attorneys General can investigate civil complaints filed against individual hospitals who overcomply or comply in advance, too. It appears James has yet to follow through on this front—in the meantime, the fate of America’s trans children hangs in the balance.

This article was downloaded from https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/i-will-not-let-this-administration at Dec 29, 2025 at 7:20 AM EST.

Nationwide Trans Youth Care Ban Incoming As Trump Admin Announces "Nuclear Option" Federal Rule

ERIN REED | DEC 18, 2025, 11:51 AM EST | SOURCE

The new federal rule formalizes previous threats to hospitals to pull Medicaid funding, and represents a significant legal stretch by this administration. Most trans youth care would be impacted.

Photo by Suzy Brooks on Unsplash

On Thursday, the Trump administration’s Department of Health and Human Services, under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., released a new proposed rule that represents the single most aggressive attack on transgender healthcare in U.S. history. The rule—effectively a “nuclear option” from the administration—relies on expansive and legally dubious authority to restrict Medicaid funding through what are known as “conditions of participation.” Rather than directly banning Medicaid reimbursement for transgender care, the rule would bar any hospital that accepts Medicaid funding from providing gender-affirming care for trans youth at all, regardless of whether that care is paid for by Medicaid. By making this a baseline condition for participation in the program, the administration appears to be weaponizing Medicaid itself to enact a de facto national ban on transgender youth care, following the passage of Marjorie Taylor Greene’s bill in the U.S. House and its likely inability to advance in the Senate.

The rule, document 2025-23465, is sweeping in scope. It introduces a new regulatory term, “sex-rejecting procedures,” defined as any medication or surgical procedure that “attempts to align an individual’s physical appearance or body with an asserted identity that differs from the individual’s sex.” Under the proposal, a hospital “must not perform sex-rejecting procedures on any child” in order to participate in Medicaid. This goes far beyond a simple ban on Medicaid reimbursement for transgender youth care. Instead, it functions as a direct threat to any hospital that continues to offer such care at all, regardless of funding source, and its adoption would likely force every hospital and major clinic that relies on Medicaid to immediately cease providing transgender youth care.

The new rule contains no exceptions for patients already receiving care, meaning transgender youth who have remained in treatment even under some red-state bans would immediately see that care cut off. For many, this would amount to forced medical detransition, particularly for those unable to find another provider—an almost impossible task given that no hospital accepting Medicaid could continue offering care under the rule. The document itself openly acknowledges this choice, stating, “In developing this proposed rule, we considered aligning our requirements with those States that already have restrictions on SRPs but with a variety of exceptions they provide as outlined in Section 1.B of this proposed rule. For example, we could have allowed those currently receiving these procedures to continue receiving them. Ultimately, however, we have decided to adopt the proposed provisions with fewer exceptions than are allowed in these States to maximize health and safety for all children.”

This rule appears to violate multiple U.S. statutes and constitutional limits on federal authority. Most notably, Section 1801 of the Social Security Act explicitly bars the federal government from using Medicaid regulations to exercise direct supervision or control over the practice of medicine. The statute states: “Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize any Federal officer or employee to exercise any supervision or control over the practice of medicine or the manner in which medical services are provided, or over the selection, tenure, or compensation of any officer or employee of any institution, agency, or person providing health services; or to exercise any supervision or control over the administration or operation of any such institution, agency, or person.” By conditioning all Medicare participation on the cessation of a specific clinical practice, CMS is exercising direct ‘supervision and control’ over the practice of medicine.

The government attempts to get around this by stating that gender affirming care is not part of “the practice of medicine.” In a section dedicated to this anticipated challenge, the new rule states: “Under Section 1801 of the Act, CMS may not “exercise any supervision or control over the practice of medicine or the manner in which medical services are provided, (42 U.S.C. 1395). However, we believe that providing the SRPs for children is not healthcare and hence are not subsumed under the term of “the practice of medicine.” Therefore, the proposed rule would not regulate the practice of medicine".”

Practice of medicine exception

The rule also likely violates the Constitution in two fundamental ways. First, it disregards the separation of powers. The executive branch cannot simply create a de facto nationwide healthcare ban through regulation when Congress has never authorized such a ban in statute. Agencies are empowered to implement laws, not to invent sweeping new prohibitions that Congress itself has declined to enact. Second, the rule represents a direct assault on states’ rights under the Tenth Amendment. By threatening to strip Medicaid participation from hospitals that comply with state laws requiring the provision of care, the administration would effectively coerce states into abandoning their own democratically enacted protections—or face the collapse of large portions of their healthcare systems.

The proposed rule nevertheless asserts that these guidelines would preempt state laws, placing a direct target on the “shield laws” enacted by states like California, Minnesota, and New York. The text is explicit in its intent to override state sovereignty, declaring that any state statute requiring hospitals to provide gender-affirming care—or protecting the providers who do—would be superseded by this federal regulation. In effect, the administration is claiming that a bureaucratic rule change has the power to nullify the democratically enacted protections of “safe” states, attempting to shatter the legal firewalls these states have built to protect transgender youth and their families from persecution and to ensure that care could be continued to be provided.

Federal preemption of shield laws assertion

“These draft rules comprise a dangerous and unconstitutional attempt to undermine the longstanding right of states to ensure the health and well-being of their residents, the right of parents and caregivers to support and love trans and nonbinary young people, and the guidance of doctors and medical organizations on the well-established standard of care. This draft rule is based on a biased “report” written by anti-trans authors that distorts existing evidence and ignores decades of rigorous research supporting the safety and necessity of gender-affirming care for transgender and nonbinary youth,” says Khadijah M. Silver, JD/MPH, Supervising Attorney for Civil Rights at Lawyers for Good Government.

The ban would leave only a narrow window for transgender youth to access care from providers not affected by the rule. The only entities that could continue offering treatment would be private doctors or clinics that do not accept Medicaid at all. While there has been some discussion about establishing such clinics to fill the gap, those efforts have largely failed to materialize. As a result, most transgender youth would be left without any realistic alternative provider for their care.

The full federal rule can be read in this document. An unpublished version is available here, with the official published version expected to appear Friday. Once published, the rule will enter a 60-day public comment period, during which members of the public can submit feedback. After that period closes, the government is required to review and respond to those comments before the regulation can take effect, a process that can take an unspecified amount of time. Court challenges are all but certain, but if the rule is ultimately allowed to go into force, it would likely spell the end of most transgender youth care in the United States.

Editor’s update: The Trans Youth Emergency Project and the Campaign for Southern Equality have contacted me to let readers know that they are actively assisting families with contingency planning for continuity of care as we await this rule be implemented and as people fight to delay its implementation. Transgender youth and their families who need help navigating alternative options are encouraged to reach out to these organizations for support.

This article was downloaded from https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/nationwide-trans-youth-care-ban-imminent at Dec 29, 2025 at 7:20 AM EST.

Victory in New Zealand, For Now—Injunction Brings Puberty Blocker Ban to a Screeching Halt

S. BAUM | DEC 18, 2025, 12:35 AM EST | SOURCE

The High Court asserted that, contrary to wild speculation by anti-trans establishments, puberty blockers are largely safe and reversible.

NZ Ministry of Health // Pleayo Tovaranonte

Just in the nick of time, New Zealand’s trans youth—and the people who love them and care for them—can breathe a sigh of relief. The country’s indefinite ban on prescribing puberty blockers for trans youth was inching towards a reality come Dec. 19. But the High Court has issued an injunction, declaring that puberty blockers are essentially safe; that the ban was likely enacted unlawfully, without time for ample public input; and that, until judicial proceedings are finalized, authorities must “take no steps to enforce the regulations pending the judicial review being determined.”

“My conclusion is fortified by my finding that the timing of the regulations coupled with the lack of notice that a ban was contemplated had the effect of taking PATHA and the whole transgender community by surprise,” a High Court justice wrote.

The High Court asserted that, contrary to wild speculation by anti-trans establishments, puberty blockers are largely safe and reversible. But the sudden withdrawal of life-saving medical treatments for transgender youth could have catastrophic mental health ramifications that are of “immediate concern.”

CAPTION: An excerpt from the High Court’s Dec. 17 judgement.

The emergency ruling comes after the Professional Association for Transgender Health Aotearoa (PATHA) filed a lawsuit against the government earlier this month. (Aotearoa is a pre-colonial name, derived from indigenous Māori peoples, for the land otherwise known as New Zealand.) As Erin in the Morning reported at the time, a right-wing talking head shocked the nation when he announced an impending, indefinite ban on prescribing puberty blockers for transgender people—before the country’s own health minister broke the news, and seemingly before any medical providers who offer this kind of care were informed of this devastating and controversial blow to the patients in their care.

PATHA’s president, Jennifer Shields, testified that the group was given no notification or prior warning of the decision announced on 19 November 2025. PATHA was not consulted about the proposed regulations, nor informed that draft regulations were being developed.

“PATHA is not aware of any other health professional or expert in this field who was notified or consulted,” court documents read. “PATHA was only made aware that there had been a decision made about puberty blockers from an X post on the morning of 19 November 2025.”

So if it wasn’t expert input that led to the ban—what did? To find that answer, one would have to look all the way on the other side of the globe. There lies a cluster of islands, nestled in the North Sea, known as “the United Kingdom.”

In this remote land, an ideological polemic (that self-identifies as a scientific paper) called “the Cass Review” triggered a similar nationwide ban on puberty blockers for trans minors, while posing no such challenge for the use of puberty blockers for cisgender children. The creation of the hotly-contested document was steered by a doctor with no clinical expertise in treating trans children and stacked with renowned anti-trans voices. As the UK-based nonprofit TransActual wrote, “Underpinning this report is the idea that being trans is an undesirable outcome rather than a natural facet of human diversity.”

Now, only a fraction of young people in the United Kingdom who need puberty blockers to alleviate gender dysphoria are able to access them. And if they even get that far, they and their parents are coerced into being subjects of government testing on the matter, or else they will be denied life-saving medical care.

This was the benchmark for New Zealand’s own puberty blocker ban, which, if enacted, would remain in effect until the conclusion of this study, which is expected to be finalized in 2031 as per Radio New Zealand.

Today’s news means that trans youth in the country can continue with their care, at least for now.

“This is a win for trans young people, their whānau, and the health professionals who care for them,” said PATHA’s Jennifer Shields in a recent press release. “The High Court has recognised the harm this ban will cause, and the significant issues in the decision Cabinet made to restrict access to this life-saving care.”

You can read the full document from the High Court here.

This article was downloaded from https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/victory-in-new-zealand-for-nowinjunction at Dec 29, 2025 at 7:20 AM EST.

MTG's Felony National Youth Trans Ban Passes House; 3 Dems Vote For It, 4 GOP Vote Against It

ERIN REED | DEC 17, 2025, 6:59 PM EST | SOURCE

The bill is not expected to pass the Senate, but marks the first time a national trans youth care ban has passed a chamber of Congress.

The U.S. House on Tuesday passed a bill that would enact a nationwide felony ban on gender-affirming healthcare for transgender youth, imposing prison sentences of up to 10 years on providers. The legislation, introduced by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, advanced as a high-stakes messaging vote amid a broader Republican push targeting transgender healthcare, even as Congress faces looming deadlines on expiring Affordable Care Act tax credits that affect millions of Americans. The bill is not expected to pass the Senate, where Democrats retain filibuster power, but its passage marks the first time a national felony trans youth care ban has cleared a full House vote.

The vote featured defections from both parties. Three Democrats—Henry Cuellar (TX), Vicente Gonzalez (TX), and Don Davis (NC)—crossed party lines to vote in favor of the felony ban, siding with Republicans to criminalize providers and potentially parents involved in transgender youth care. Four Republicans—Brian Fitzpatrick (PA), Gabe Evans (CO), Michael Lawler (NY), and Mike Kennedy (UT)—voted against the bill. Three lawmakers from each party voted “present” or did not vote. The bill would have failed were it not for the Democratic defections across the aisle, but instead, it passed 216-211.

While the Senate is expected to block the measure, advocates warn the House vote will still have consequences—normalizing criminal penalties for standard medical care and setting the stage for further federal and administrative efforts to restrict transgender healthcare nationwide. Furthermore, many people will view the defection of Democrats on the bill as a major betrayal. However, the defection of multiple Republicans in the other direction is noteworthy, and shows there could be some level of resistance to national bans among some in the party who are facing tough elections.

EITM will continue covering this developing story, where another vote, a Medicaid ban, is expected tomorrow. You can contact your representative here to let them know how you feel about their vote on this bill, and to encourage them on tomorrow’s bill pushed forward by Rep. Dan Crenshaw.

This article was downloaded from https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/breaking-mtgs-felony-national-youth at Dec 29, 2025 at 7:20 AM EST.

“They Are Obsessed With Trans People:” Rep. Sarah McBride Rails Against GOP’s Upcoming Anti-Trans Votes

ERIN REED | DEC 17, 2025, 1:21 PM EST | SOURCE

Rep. McBride joined Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Rep. Johnson in a speech against a felony national trans youth healthcare ban expected to be heard in Congress today.

As major anti-transgender bills loom and Congress prepares to vote on sweeping restrictions on transgender healthcare over the next two days, Representative Sarah McBride gathered with reporters outside the Capitol to denounce what she called the Republican Party’s “obsession” with transgender people. McBride was joined by Representatives Ocasio-Cortez and Johnson for the press scrum, which comes at a critical moment: two high-profile bills—one proposing a national felony ban on trans youth healthcare and another seeking to bar Medicaid coverage—are expected to receive floor action, alongside anticipated moves by the Trump administration to pressure hospitals nationwide through Medicaid restrictions.

“So, we are two legislative days away from the Affordable Care Act tax credits expiring, when millions of people will see their healthcare premiums skyrocket, And GOP leadership, with that deadline fast approaching, has decided to schedule two votes on anti-trans bills and precisely zero votes on extending the Affordable Care Act tax credits,” started McBride, before turning to Republican obsession on transgender people.

“They would rather have us focus in and debate a misunderstood and vulnerable one percent of the population instead of focusing in on the fact that they are raiding everyone’s healthcare in order to pay for tax breaks for the wealthiest one percent. All Republican politicians care about is making the rich richer and attacking trans people. They are obsessed with trans people. I actually think they think more about trans people than trans people think about trans people. They are consumed with this and they are extreme on it.”

McBride’s comments come as Congress weighs two major anti-transgender bills. The first, introduced by Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, is expected to be heard today. The bill would enact a nationwide ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth, imposing penalties of up to 10 years in prison on those who provide such care. With amendments expected, the bill could extend its reach beyond doctors to parents as well, a move that would be devastating for transgender healthcare nationwide. While the bill is not expected to survive the Senate, it will function as a high-stakes messaging vote—particularly for Democrats facing pressure from political consultants to shift right on transgender issues, and for Republicans representing more moderate districts. Notably, Democrats recently secured major electoral victories in races where transgender rights featured prominently, a political reality that may give some Republicans pause before embracing the measure.

The second bill, introduced by Representative Dan Crenshaw, would ban Medicaid from covering gender-affirming care nationwide. The proposal is expected to be framed as a more “moderate” alternative to Greene’s felony ban—an apparent effort to peel off support from centrist Republicans and potentially even some Democrats. Like many recent Republican proposals, Crenshaw’s bill also embeds a rigid definition of sex, legally grounding it in reproductive capacity, language the party has increasingly attempted to codify across federal legislation related to gender.

McBride focused on the extreme nature of the bills, including the parental jailing provisions, stating, “They are bringing forward a bill that would put parents and providers at risk of being jailed—literally jailed—for affirming their transgender child and following medical best practices. t is already hard enough to raise a family today. It is already hard enough to be a kid today. And families with transgender young people are navigating complicated and complex situations, making deeply personal healthcare decisions. And regardless of what decision you might make as a parent, government should never insert itself into the personal healthcare decisions of patients, parents, and providers. That is a basic principle and a basic right that should be afforded to all Americans, including transgender people and their families.”

The language marked some of the harshest criticism McBride has leveled at Republicans to date over their targeting of transgender people. She has herself been the subject of Republican attacks, including a bathroom ban advanced earlier this year by Rep. Nancy Mace that appeared aimed directly at her. While McBride has faced criticism since her election—over interviews and statements on transgender rights, including from myself—her forceful posture and visible pushback against this legislation are likely to be received as a welcome sign by transgender people who want to see Democrats in Congress meet these attacks with more than quiet resistance.

You can contact your representatives today to urge them to vote against the anti-transgender provisions. At least one Democrat has expressed uncertainty on how she will vote, Representative Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (WA), and several other Democrats have voted for anti-trans provisions this year, including: Henry Cuellar (TX), Donald G. Davis (NC), Cleo Fields (LA), Shomari Figures (AL), Laura Gillen (NY), Jared F. Golden (ME), Vicente Gonzalez (TX), Adam Gray (CA), Susie Lee (NV), John W. Mannion (NY), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (WA), Kim Schrier (WA), and Thomas R. Suozzi (NY).

This article was downloaded from https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/they-are-obsessed-with-trans-people at Dec 29, 2025 at 7:20 AM EST.

Families Bring Legal Challenge Against Yale, CCMC For Capitulating To Trump On Trans Youth Care

ERIN REED | DEC 17, 2025, 12:22 PM EST | SOURCE

Yale New Haven Health and Connecticut Children's Medical Center abruptly ended care for transgender people earlier this year.

Yale New Haven Hospital, obtained from newhaven.edu

On Wednesday, GLAD Law, a major LGBTQ+ legal advocacy group in New England, filed a formal complaint with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities over the decision by Yale New Haven Health and Connecticut Children’s Medical Center to end gender-affirming care for transgender youth. Both hospital systems halted care following threats from the Trump administration, based on an executive order asserting that such care would be banned. Critically, no law in the United States currently bans gender-affirming care for transgender youth, meaning the hospitals cannot credibly claim federal preemption of state law. Instead, the cessation of care appears to be driven solely by fear of retaliation from the Trump administration. This is particularly significant in Connecticut, which—like several other states where hospitals have dropped care—has strong statutory protections for transgender people, raising the possibility that these decisions violate state civil rights law, a question GLAD is now seeking to resolve.

The challenge is brought on behalf of 10 people whose care has been directly impacted by the decision of Yale New Haven Health and Connecticut Children’s Medical Center to acquiesce to Trump’s threats. One of the families involved moved to Connecticut specifically because of the state’s strong civil rights protections, only to see their child’s care abruptly cut off. Another challenger is an 18-year-old—legally an adult—who lost access to his healthcare as a result of the policy change. Collectively, the challengers argue that the hospital systems are violating state law by banning gender-affirming care for transgender youth while continuing to provide the same medications to cisgender youth for other medical conditions.

“The families we represent are living through a nightmare, being told with no warning their trusted doctors can no longer provide the care that has stopped their children’s suffering and allowed them to thrive,” said Hannah Hussey, GLAD Law Staff Attorney. “These families have been forced to scramble for a new place to get the care their kids need, which means navigating issues such as delayed care, risks to their physical and mental health, new health care costs and time-intensive travel, and having to start all over to establish relationships with new providers – if they can find them.”

This is the second attempt to file a formal complaint against hospitals that have complied with the Trump administration’s purported ban on transgender care. In September, the Women’s Law Project filed a discrimination complaint against the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), the largest healthcare provider in Western Pennsylvania. In both cases, the complaints were filed with the respective state human rights commissions. This approach is common in healthcare-related civil rights challenges, with the National Women’s Law Center noting that pursuing a complaint through a state commission is often a prerequisite before a case can proceed to state court.

The legal challenge comes in an especially fraught week for transgender healthcare nationwide. Two congressional bills are expected to be heard today and tomorrow targeting trans youth care: one from Marjorie Taylor Greene that would enact a national felony ban on transgender healthcare for minors, and another from Dan Crenshaw that would ban Medicaid coverage for trans youth care. At the same time, further action is expected from the Trump administration aimed at pressuring hospitals to end care through renewed threats to Medicaid funding. Importantly, neither bill is likely to pass the Senate. Nevertheless, the administration continues to push forward with these efforts, showing little regard for the actual limits of federal law when it comes to transgender healthcare.

As of late December, at least 20 major hospital systems have ended gender-affirming care for transgender youth. While a handful of providers have attempted to absorb displaced patients, many families have been left without appointments, continuity of care, or any clear path forward. Talk of smaller, independent clinics stepping in to shield large hospital systems from Trump’s threats has largely failed to materialize, leaving patients to shoulder the consequences of institutional fear. At the same time, some hospitals have chosen a different path—challenging the administration in court and winning. Lawsuits like this one change the legal calculus. They make clear that discrimination is not the risk-free option hospitals hoped it would be, and that transgender patients will not quietly disappear when care is taken from them. Institutions that chose capitulation may soon learn that abandoning their patients was neither the safest nor the easiest choice after all.

This article was downloaded from https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/families-bring-legal-challenge-against at Dec 29, 2025 at 7:20 AM EST.

Anti-Trans Alaskan State Medical Board Doctor Charged With CSAM, Home Goes Up In Flames

S. BAUM | DEC 15, 2025, 8:07 PM EST | SOURCE

Last week Dr. Ryan McDonough was arrested on ten counts of possession of child sexual abuse material. Over the weekend, his family home went up in flames.

Dr. Ryan McDonough of Alaska Heart and Vascular Institute // Michael Dinneen 2019

After unanimously voting in favor of a policy that would have effectively banned the provision of gender-affirming care to trans minors, the Alaska Medical Board’s anti-trans crusade stalled. Board vacancies and a series of mysterious absences from one of its members resulted in a prolonged break of quorum.

Now, we might know one reason why.

Last week, board member Dr. Ryan McDonough, a 46-year-old cardiologist based in Wasilla, was arrested on ten counts of possession of child pornography. Law enforcement reportedly found numerous videos on McDonough’s devices and accounts that depicted sexual abuse of children, including infants.

Then, over the weekend, just one day after McDonough was released on bail, his family home went up in flames. Charred human remains were found in the rubble, but the police have yet to conclusively identify the body or the cause of the fire. McDonough is still classified as “unaccounted for,” the local ABC affiliate reports. The home’s other occupants made it out of the blaze safely.

McDonough was appointed by Alaska’s Republican Governor Mike Dunleavy in August 2025. He attended just two board meetings—in August and September—where one of his few actions was voting to advance anti-trans medical policies, which would have given the board broad discretionary powers to discipline medical providers for rendering gender-affirming care to minors. This could include fines and loss of licensure, but the rule was otherwise vague. It did not restrict the use of any such treatments for cisgender children.

The following two months, McDonough was absent from proceedings. This, in conjunction with unfilled seats, left the board’s initiatives stranded indefinitely.

McDonough’s name was removed from the board roster last month, Anchorage Daily News reports. A gubernatorial spokesperson told the outlet that McDonough had resigned, but that he did not provide a reason.

The spokesperson said the Dunleavy Administration only found out about the charges against McDonough this past Friday, and that they were “never aware of any criminal investigation against him” at the time of his appointment.

Due to the stagnation, the anti-trans policy never advanced to the public comment portion, and furthermore never went into effect. But it still could; Governor Dunleavy retains the power to appoint new board members. And the board, under the direction of podiatrist Dr. Matt Heilala, has taken an activist stance against evidence-based care for trans youth, going as far as urging the state legislature to take on the cause.

When lawmakers refused, the board stepped in to try to limit Alaskans’ health care, sparking widespread backlash from physicians, clinicians, trans people, and parents of transgender kids, who asserted that the board was overstepping.

“What I see is a very small number of political appointees who happen to be physicians, going against the consensus of the professions they’re supposed to represent and regulate,” said Dr. Kevin Tarlow, a psychologist and assistant professor at the University of Alaska Anchorage, in an August interview with Erin in the Morning.

According to Identity Inc., an Alaska organization serving trans youth, fewer than 100 children in the entire state receive the kind of care the board has been targeting.

This article was downloaded from https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/anti-trans-alaskan-state-medical at Dec 29, 2025 at 7:20 AM EST.

Dan Crenshaw's Trans Youth Medicaid Ban Added To This Week's Congressional Calendar

ERIN REED | DEC 15, 2025, 12:06 PM EST | SOURCE

The bill from Republican Dan Crenshaw was announced to come on the same day as Marjorie Taylor Greene's felony trans youth healthcare ban.

Dan Crenshaw // Wikimedia Commosn // Gage Skidmore

After news broke that Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s bill banning gender-affirming care for transgender youth nationwide would receive a full vote in Congress on Dec. 17, another anti-transgender bill was scheduled for the same day. That measure, introduced by Rep. Dan Crenshaw of Texas, would ban Medicaid from covering gender-affirming care for transgender youth. Taken together, the two bills mark a significant escalation in Republican attacks on transgender people. For the first time, Congress is preparing to openly debate and vote on national bans targeting transgender youth health care—placing itself squarely in the same posture as many Republican-controlled states over the past several years, where legislative floor time has increasingly been consumed by efforts to single out transgender people for restriction and punishment.

Crenshaw’s bill, titled the “Do No Harm in Medicaid Act,” appears designed to function as a more “palatable” alternative to Marjorie Taylor Greene’s sweeping national ban on transgender health care. Rather than criminalizing providers outright, the bill focuses on Medicaid, barring all Medicaid coverage of gender-affirming care for transgender youth. The narrower framing is likely intentional: an effort to unify Republicans around a single restriction on trans youth care, while also creating a measure that could tempt Democrats who are being urged by certain political consulting groups to give ground on transgender people. Until recently, only a small handful of Democrats had broken rank on votes targeting transgender rights. That number has begun to creep upward, however, following a transgender sports ban vote earlier this year—making bills like Crenshaw’s especially important markers of where members ultimately draw their lines.

The bill relies on standardized language that has appeared in many other anti-transgender health care bans and likely draws from the same model legislation promoted by far-right groups such as the Alliance Defending Freedom and the Family Policy Alliance. It applies broadly, covering puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgical care for anyone under the age of 18, while explicitly allowing cisgender people to receive the same medications for other medical purposes while denying them to transgender youth. The bill also includes a definition of sex that Republicans have increasingly attempted to insert into legislation touching gender issues, defining female based on reproductive capacity as someone who “has, had, will have, or would have, but for a developmental or genetic anomaly or historical accident, the reproductive system that at some point produces, transports, and utilizes eggs for fertilization.”

This is not the first time Republicans have attempted to target Medicaid coverage for transgender people. Earlier this year, a similar provision banning Medicaid coverage for transgender people of all ages was stripped from Trump’s sweeping tax and spending bill after Democrats fought to have it removed. Likewise, during the recent budget fight, the House Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education package included multiple anti-transgender provisions, including a total federal funding ban that could devastate transgender health care nationwide. Republicans have also attempted to attach anti-trans health care restrictions to other major legislation, including during recent votes over ACA subsidies, where caucus-backed proposals like the Crapo-Cassidy bill pushed similar policies before ultimately failing. Now, it appears Republicans are advancing this proposal as a standalone bill, an effort to force members of Congress on the record about their position on banning health care for transgender youth.

When asked about the bills, Democratic Representative from Delaware Sarah McBride told Erin In The Morning, “Once again, Republicans in Congress are prioritizing attacks on trans people and their families over addressing the cost of health care, housing, or energy. When it comes to health care decisions, government has no place inserting itself between patients, providers, and parents to prevent health care that has been deemed necessary. A person being transgender doesn’t change that basic principle. Republican politicians are obsessed with trans people, and as this week demonstrates, they are extreme, scheduling a bill that could imprison parents and health care professionals for affirming their trans child. I continue to engage with colleagues to guarantee that they understand the seriousness of these bills and the harm they could inflict on their own constituents.”

The bill is slated to be heard on the same day as Marjorie Taylor Greene’s “Protect Children’s Innocence Act,” which Greene announced would receive a House floor vote after she traded her vote on the NDAA for a commitment from congressional leadership. Greene’s bill would enact a nationwide felony ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth, explicitly defining such care as “mutilation.” Neither bill is expected to advance in the Senate, but both are likely to function as important messaging votes, forcing members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to publicly stake out their positions on one of the most contentious transgender-related issues now before lawmakers. Previously, a handful of House Democrats have shown support for other anti-LGBTQ+ provisions primarily centering on transgender people: Henry Cuellar (TX), Donald G. Davis (NC), Cleo Fields (LA), Shomari Figures (AL), Laura Gillen (NY), Jared F. Golden (ME), Vicente Gonzalez (TX), Adam Gray (CA), Susie Lee (NV), John W. Mannion (NY), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (WA), Kim Schrier (WA), and Thomas R. Suozzi (NY).

You can contact your representative and encourage them to vote against the bill here.

This article was downloaded from https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/dan-crenshaws-trans-youth-medicaid at Dec 29, 2025 at 7:20 AM EST.

Table of Contents

Erin in the Morning: 2025 Dec 28

All articles

9th Circuit Court Temporarily Blocks Lower Court Forced Outing Ruling In California

HHS Sec. Kennedy Attempts To Stop Trans Youth Care In Hospitals Nationwide—Before New Federal Rules Take Effect

ACLU Pledges To Challenge Trump Admin In Court Over National Trans Youth Care Ban Rule

Trans Youth Emergency Project Offers Families Guidance To Help Keep Getting Care After New Trump Anti-Trans Rule

“I will not let this administration come for you”: NY AG Letitia James Vows to Protect Trans Kids

Nationwide Trans Youth Care Ban Incoming As Trump Admin Announces "Nuclear Option" Federal Rule

Victory in New Zealand, For Now—Injunction Brings Puberty Blocker Ban to a Screeching Halt

MTG's Felony National Youth Trans Ban Passes House; 3 Dems Vote For It, 4 GOP Vote Against It

“They Are Obsessed With Trans People:” Rep. Sarah McBride Rails Against GOP’s Upcoming Anti-Trans Votes

Families Bring Legal Challenge Against Yale, CCMC For Capitulating To Trump On Trans Youth Care

Anti-Trans Alaskan State Medical Board Doctor Charged With CSAM, Home Goes Up In Flames

Dan Crenshaw's Trans Youth Medicaid Ban Added To This Week's Congressional Calendar