Category: healthcare

Aetna to Cover IVF Treatments for Same-Sex Couples After $2M National Settlement

Read more at GayE.

When Mara Berton and June Higginbotham imagined their future, it always included children. What they did not imagine was a $45,000 bill standing between them and the family they dreamed of building.

The Santa Clara County couple, both lesbians, discovered that while their heterosexual colleagues’ fertility treatments were largely covered by insurance, they were excluded from the same benefits. To conceive, they were forced to pay entirely out of pocket, a financial burden that reshaped their timeline, their choices and their emotional well-being.

Last week, that inequity cracked open.

In a landmark national settlement approved by U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr., Aetna agreed to cover fertility treatments such as artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization for same-sex couples on the same terms as heterosexual couples. The agreement applies nationwide across all Aetna plans, making it the first case to require a major insurer to implement such a policy uniformly.

An estimated 2.8 million LGBTQ members will benefit, including about 91,000 Californians. The settlement also requires Aetna to pay at least $2 million in damages to eligible California-based members, who must submit claims by June 29, 2026.

“We knew it wasn’t right,” Berton said in an interview with CalMatters. “What we’re fighting for is about family building and having kids. It was really important to both of us that other couples not have to do this.”

Before the settlement, Aetna’s policy required enrollees to engage in six to 12 months of “unprotected heterosexual sexual intercourse” before qualifying for fertility benefits, according to the class action complaint. Women without male partners could only access coverage after undergoing six to 12 unsuccessful cycles of artificial insemination, depending on age, a requirement medical experts say is excessive and clinically unnecessary.

The policy, attorneys argued, treated LGBTQ members fundamentally differently and effectively denied them a benefit that can be prohibitively expensive.

“This was an issue of inequality,” said Alison Tanner, senior litigation counsel for reproductive rights and health at the National Women’s Law Center, which supported the litigation. “Folks in same-sex relationships were being treated differently.”

In an email, Aetna spokesperson Phillip Blando said the insurer is committed to equal access to infertility and reproductive health coverage and will continue working to improve access for all members.

For Berton, the policy felt personal and dehumanizing. After consulting with a fertility clinic and deciding to move forward with donor sperm, she was told by Aetna that she did not meet the definition of infertility. Multiple appeals were denied. Insurance required her to attempt 12 rounds of artificial insemination,even though her doctors recommended no more than four.

Sean Tipton, chief advocacy and policy director for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, said policies like that are designed to discourage people from using their benefits. While many doctors recommend three to four cycles of insemination before IVF, studies also show it can be more efficient and cost-effective to move directly to IVF.

In 2023, the society updated its medical definition of infertility to explicitly include LGBTQ people and individuals without partners, a shift aimed at preventing insurers from denying claims like Berton’s.

“It takes two kinds of gametes to have kids,” Tipton said. “Regardless of the cause of that absence, you have to have access to care.”

The settlement comes as California prepares to expand fertility coverage further. A new state law taking effect in January will require most state-regulated health plans to cover fertility care for same-sex couples and single people by broadening the definition of infertility. While that law does not apply to Aetna’s national plans, advocates say the momentum is unmistakable.

And it could not come at a more urgent time.

As LGBTQ rights are increasingly rolled back across the country, from bans on gender-affirming care to restrictions on queer families in schools and public life, access to reproductive health care has become another contested frontier. Who is allowed to build a family, and under what conditions, is no longer just a medical question but a political one. This settlement affirms that queer families are not exceptions to be managed but lives to be supported.

Berton and Higginbotham ultimately moved forward without coverage, pulling together money from family and enduring the physical and emotional toll of fertility treatments, including a miscarriage. Today, they are raising twin girls who love the swings and pulling every book off the shelf for story time.

They built their family before the lawsuit concluded. Still, Higginbotham said the victory matters deeply.

“I know people who don’t have children because this isn’t covered,” she said. “The settlement is such a huge step forward that is really righting a huge wrong.”

In a moment when so much is being taken, the ruling stands as a reminder; equality is not abstract. Sometimes, it looks like a family finally being allowed to exist.

0

Trans inmates win right to gender-affirming care as judge calls it “a serious medical need”

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

A federal judge has blocked a gender-affirming care ban for trans inmates in Georgia that has been in effect for several months. Judge Victoria Calvert agreed with the plaintiffs that the blanket ban violated the Eighth Amendment, which bars cruel and unusual punishment.

“The Court finds that there is no genuine dispute of fact that gender dysphoria is a serious medical need,” Judge Calvert wrote in her opinion. “Plaintiffs, through their experts, have presented evidence that a blanket ban on hormone therapy constitutes grossly inadequate care for gender dysphoria and risks imminent injury.”

Georgia Senate Bill 185 was signed into law in May by Governor Brian Kemp (R). The bill prohibited state funds and resources from being used to provide gender-affirming care to inmates in Georgia prisons. That included hormone replacement therapy (HRT), as well as “sex reassignment surgeries or any other surgical procedures that are performed for the purpose of altering primary or secondary sexual characteristics,” and even “cosmetic procedures or prosthetics intended to alter the appearance of primary or secondary sexual characteristics.”

The bill took effect in July, and five plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against it in August. In addition to arguing that SB 185 constituted cruel and unusual punishment, the lawsuit also claimed that it violated the Equal Protection Clause. HRT and other gender-affirming care treatments were not banned under the bill for all inmates, only for those who were trans. The bill also prohibited trans inmates from paying for the care themselves while incarcerated.

“We would never allow a state to decide that people in prison with diabetes should be cut off of insulin just because the state didn’t want to pay for it anymore,” said Celine Zhu, a Staff Attorney for the Center for Constitutional Rights, which is representing the plaintiffs. “So why would we allow Georgia to cut off medically required care for people with a similarly serious diagnosis of gender dysphoria?”

SB 185 was a blanket ban that overruled the opinions of judges, doctors, and the Georgia Department of Corrections, all of whom have previously acknowledged that gender-affirming care is medically necessary for incarcerated trans people.

While the judge’s ruling makes it clear that not every inmate is entitled to gender-affirming care, it puts those decisions back in the hands of medical professionals and the patients rather than having the legislature make medical decisions for trans people.

“The Court requires healthcare decisions for prisoners to be made dispassionately, by physicians, based on individual determinations of medical need, and for reasons beyond the fact that the prisoners are prisoners,” the judge said in her ruling.

Current estimates suggest that there are around 300 out trans people incarcerated in Georgia state prisons.

After the ruling, the Department of Corrections filed a notice of appeal with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

This sort of case has been litigated for over twenty years now. In 2005, Wisconsin introduced a ban on doctors providing trans inmates with gender-affirming care, affecting inmates who had been on hormones since the early 90s. The law was overturned by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court declined to hear the state’s appeal in 2011.

The decision in the Georgia case comes as the Department of Justice has instructed inspectors to stop reviewing prison standards aimed at preventing sexual assault against transgender, intersex, and gender-nonconforming people.

0

New Zealand bans puberty blockers for trans youth as far-right party claims victory in “war on woke”

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

A far-right party in New Zealand that is hostile to trans rights preempted a government announcement on Wednesday that the country will indefinitely ban the use of puberty blockers by trans youth.

The New Zealand First party, a minority member of Parliament’s coalition government, made the announcement three hours ahead of the government’s own health ministry, declaring a victory in its “war on woke,” Erin in the Morning reports.

“Today, sanity won another battle in the war on woke,” the surprise announcement read. “After years of dangerous ideological experimentation pushed by radical activists and rubber-stamped by weak politicians, the New Zealand Government has officially banned puberty blockers for children. This is what happens when you back a party that actually delivers.”

“While other parties can’t even define what a woman is, we’ve stood up for families, for truth, and for children.”

The preemptive declaration was one more indication of the politicization of healthcare for trans youth in New Zealand and around the world, and a clue to the party’s intimate involvement in crafting the government’s policy. The change adds New Zealand to a growing list of countries and U.S. states banning gender-affirming care for trans youth.     

The government’s own announcement described the decision as “a precautionary approach” to gender-affirming care for transgender youth.

There is a lack of “high-quality evidence that demonstrates the benefits or risks” of puberty-blocking drugs for trans youth, Health Minister Simeon Brown said.

113 patients in New Zealand were using puberty blockers in 2023, according to the health ministry.

While the policy announcement didn’t mention the widely criticized Cass Report, the controversial document claiming a lack of evidence supporting gender-affirming care for young people that was released in the UK last year, it’s the basis of the UK’s own indefinite ban on puberty blockers, which New Zealand is following.

Both countries say they’ll wait for the results of a UK government-sponsored clinical trial on the efficacy of puberty blockers for trans youth before making a final determination on their use. The prohibition won’t affect trans kids currently taking the drugs.

“By pinning the resumption of prescribing to a UK trial result expected in 2031, the Government has effectively sacrificed a generation of trans youth,” said New Zealand civil rights organization Rights Aotearoa. “They are demanding a level of evidence for trans healthcare that they do not demand for hundreds of other treatments routinely used in pediatrics.”  

Both bans make an exception for children experiencing early-onset puberty and other conditions, raising equal protection questions.

“This will undoubtedly end up in court – very quickly as the subject of a Judicial Review,” Rights Aotearoa’s Paul Thistoll posted after news of the decision. He called it a “blatant violation” of New Zealand’s Human Rights Act.

New Zealand’s ban takes effect on December 19.

0

Federal court rejects Trump Justice Department’s effort to access trans kids’ medical records

Read more at the Advocate.

Transgender youth in Pennsylvania and their families are celebrating a significant legal victory. A federal court in Philadelphia has rebuffed the Department of Justice’s sweeping attempt to obtain highly personal medical records from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia about children receiving gender-affirming care.

On Friday, federal district Judge Mark A. Kearney in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued an order quashing DOJ subpoena demands for names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, home addresses, and clinical notes covering minors treated since January 2020. The court found the government “lacks statutory authority for a rambling exploration of the Hospital’s files to learn the names and medical treatment of children.”

Families in Pennsylvania had filed separate motions to quash subpoenas issued by the Trump administration in July that alleged fraud in gender-affirming care. As The Advocate reported, the subpoenas demanded exhaustive data on minors, including “intake forms, consent paperwork, and parental authorizations for puberty blockers and hormone therapy.”

Kearney’s decision reaffirms that the records in question concern lawful medical treatment governed under Pennsylvania law, and that children’s and families’ constitutional privacy interests “far outweigh” the government’s asserted investigative needs. The ruling also criticizes the DOJ’s shifting justifications, noting that at one point the government “replaced” and reminding that “false statements may be subject to a perjury investigation.”

The ruling arrives amid a broader national crackdown on gender-affirming care by the Trump administration, which in July announced more than 20 subpoenas to clinics and hospitals across multiple states. The American Medical Association and other major professional organizations had already pushed back, affirming such treatments as evidence-based and lifesaving.

For advocates and legal counsel representing the children, the decision is a vindication of long-held concerns about governmental overreach. “This is a critical win for everyone who believes healthcare decisions should be made in doctors’ offices, not the White House,” Mimi McKenzie of the Public Interest Law Center said in a press release. Attorney Jill Steinberg of the law firm Ballard Spahr added that the decision signals to transgender youth and their families that they “do not have to fight these battles alone.”

0

Judge nixes Justice Department subpoena of telehealth trans health care provider

Read more at The Advocate.

A federal judge has quashed the Department of Justice’s subpoena for the records of QueerDoc, a telehealth service that prescribes medications and offers consulting for gender-affirming care in 10 states.

The DOJ subpoenaed QueerDoc June 11, requesting personnel information, documents identifying patients, patients’ medical records, billing records, insurance claims, communications with drugmakers, and more. It was among more than 20 such subpoenas issued.

The same day, the DOJ’s Civil Division issued a memo saying it would “prioritize investigations of doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and other appropriate entities” for “possible violations of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and other laws” regarding medications used in gender-affirming care and False Claims Act violations by health care providers who “evade state bans on gender dysphoria treatments by knowingly submitting claims to Medicaid with false diagnosis codes.”

These investigations derived from Donald Trump’s executive order recognizing only male and female sexes as assigned at birth and another denouncing gender-affirming care for minors as “a stain on our Nation’s history” that “must end” and threatening federal funding that provide such care. He also directed the DOJ to investigate providers. In April, Attorney General Pam Bondi released a memo saying the DOJ would “act decisively to protect our children and hold accountable those who mutilate them under the guise of care.” She used the same language about mutilation in a later press release. That a day after QueerDoc filed motions with a U.S. District Court in Washington State to quash the subpoena and seal the court proceedings, according to the court.

“DOJ issued its inflammatory press release declaring that medical professionals have ‘mutilated children in the service of a warped ideology,’ one day after QueerDoc filed these motions, effectively destroying any claim to investigative confidentiality while attempting to sway public sentiment against healthcare providers like QueerDoc,” Judge Jamal Whitehead wrote in his ruling, which came out Monday. “Such conduct appears calculated to intimidate rather than investigate.”

“The question before the Court is whether DOJ may use its administrative subpoena power to achieve what the Administration cannot accomplish through legislation: the elimination of medical care that Washington and other states explicitly protect. The answer is no,” he continued. He noted that gender-affirming care is supported by major medical groups and many courts.

Whitehead added, “When a federal agency issues a subpoena not to investigate legal violations but to intimidate and coerce providers into abandoning lawful medical care, it exceeds its legitimate authority and abuses the judicial process.”

He denied the motion to seal the proceedings “because, despite legitimate safety concerns, transparency in judicial proceedings remains paramount when challenging executive power,” he wrote.

QueerDoc welcomed the ruling. “The court affirmed that government power cannot be used to intimidate providers or breach the confidentiality of patients seeking medically necessary care,” the organization said in a statement on its website. “This is a win not just for QueerDoc, but for every clinician and patient fighting for the right to safe, private healthcare.”

The subpoena was “a calculated attempt by the Trump administration and Attorney General Pam Bondi to weaponize the Department of Justice against transgender people and the clinicians who care for them,” the statement noted. QueerDoc did not surrender any patient information to the DOJ, and care was not disrupted, the group said.

A federal judge in Massachusetts quashed a similar DOJ subpoena to Boston Children’s Hospital in September, and the department is appealing, Politico reports. The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center are in court fighting DOJ subpoenas on gender-affirming care as well.

Asked by Politico for comment on the QueerDoc ruling, the DOJ issued this statement: “As Attorney General Bondi has made clear, this Department of Justice will use every legal and law enforcement tool available to protect innocent children from being mutilated under the guise of ‘care.’”

0

Trump seeks to kill all medical care for trans youth by defunding hospitals that provide it

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) seeks to end all Medicaid and Medicare funding for young people’s gender-affirming care (GAC), according to newly proposed rules shared by NPR. A trans activist said the rules would amount to a “de facto national ban” on GAC.

The proposed rules would prohibit all federal Medicaid and Medicare funding — as well as funding through the federal Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) — for any services at hospitals that provide GAC for trans youth.

“These would be proposals that would go out for public comment, it would take months for the Trump administration to issue a final rule, and then, if past is prologue, we would see litigation over whatever the final rules are,” Katie Keith, director of the Center for Health Policy and the Law at Georgetown University, told NPR.

Terry Schilling, president of the American Principles Project, a right-wing think tank that has pushed national transphobia as an effective Republican political strategy, said of the proposed rules, “I think these restrictions are very good. It’s going to change the entire transgender industry, and it’s going to take away a lot of their funding streams.”

“This would be a de facto national ban,” wrote trans activist and civil rights attorney Alejandra Caraballo via Bluesky. “There would still be providers in blue states that don’t take federal funding but the large interdisciplinary teams of just a few years ago would be nearly impossible to maintain. The result is that the care that remains would largely be underground with worse support and likely outcomes.”

“They’ll never be able to fully ban this care,” Caraballo added. “There will always be providers willing to provide it like abortion. Even without access to providers, many trans youth will simply go DIY [do-it-yourself] like trans folks have done for decades. They’re not actually banning this care, they’re making it less safe.”

The administration’s “toxic” war on gender-affirming care

Though there is no federal law banning gender-affirming care, the current presidential administration has sought to eradicate the practice through a January executive order (that has since been blocked by several courts). The order instructed the DOJ to extend the time that patients and parents can sue gender-affirming doctors and to use laws against false advertising to prosecute any entity that may be misleading the public about the long-term effects of gender-affirming care (GAC).

In April, Bondi issued a memo to DOJ employees, telling them to investigate and prosecute cases of minors accessing gender-affirming care as female genital mutilation (FGM), even though hospitals don’t conduct such female genital surgeries. The memo threatened to jail doctors for 10 years if they provide gender-affirming care to young trans people.

The following June, the DOJ sent subpoenas to 20 medical providers who offer GAC to trans youth, demanding patients’ Social Security numbers, emails, home addresses, and information on the care they received, as well as other sensitive information dating back to January 2020. A federal judge blocked the subpoena in one instance and accused the DOJ of going on a “bad faith” “fishing expedition” to interfere with states’ rights to protect GAC within its borders, to harass and intimidate providers from offering such care, and to dissuade patients from seeking such care.

Fewer than 3,000 teens nationwide receive puberty blockers or hormone replacement therapy, according to a 2025 JAMA analysis of private insurance data. Gender-affirming care is supported by all major medical associations in the U.S., including the American Medical Association, the Endocrine Society, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, as safe and life-saving for young people with gender dysphoria.

One doctor interviewed by The Washington Post called the federal government’s crusade against gender-affirming care a “toxic plan” that will force some patients to detransition, potentially forcing them into adverse psychological and physical effects, including increased anxiety, depression, and the development of unwanted physical changes.

0

Federal judge strikes Biden-era ban on transgender care discrimination

Read more at The Hill.

A federal judge on Wednesday struck down a former President Biden-era rule that extended federal health antidiscrimination protections to transgender health care. 

Judge Louis Guirola Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi ruled in favor of a coalition of 15 GOP-led states that sued over the rule, which broadened sex discrimination by adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protected characteristics in certain health programs and activities.   

The Department of Health and Human Services “exceeded its authority by implementing regulations redefining sex discrimination and prohibiting gender identity discrimination,” Guirola ruled. 

The decision is a significant loss for the transgender community, which is has faced a wave of state and federal policies and court decisions rolling back previously established rights.   

The complaint centered on provisions in Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, which the Biden administration interpreted to bolster health care protections against discrimination for LGBTQ people.   

The rule prevented covered entities from discriminating against certain protected groups in providing health care services, insurance coverage and program participation. 

The challenged provision added gender identity to Title IX’s definition of discrimination “on the basis of sex,” which previously included discrimination based on sex characteristics, pregnancy and sex stereotypes. 

The Biden administration’s final rule, which was released in 2024, said organizations receiving federal health funding and health insurers that do business through government plans cannot refuse to provide health care services, particularly for gender-affirming care, that would be provided to a person for other purposes.   

The rule was first created under former President Obama in 2016. President Trump then reversed it during his first term before the Biden administration turned it back again.

The first Trump policy kept protections against discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability. But the administration narrowed the definition of sex to only mean “biological sex,” cutting out transgender people from the protections.

Guiroloa ruled that a statute “cannot be divorced from the circumstances existing at the time it was passed.”  

The word “sex” is not defined in the statute, so the court said it must interpret the term according to its meaning in or around 1972, when the statute was enacted.  At that time, the definition focused on the reproductive distinctions between males and females.  

Guirola vacated the rule universally, meaning it’s not limited to the 15 red state plaintiffs. But the impact is likely limited because the rule had not taken effect.  

In a statement, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti celebrated the decision.

“Our fifteen-State coalition worked together to protect the right of health care providers across America to make decisions based on evidence, reason, and conscience.  This decision restores not just common sense but also constitutional limits on federal overreach, and I am proud of the team of excellent attorneys who fought this through to the finish,” he said in a statement. 

0

Trans medical tourism is booming in Iran, while transitions are forced on locals

In Iran, where being gay can carry the death penalty and the idea of marriage equality is an abomination, gender transition-related medical care has long been a booming business serving locals and foreigners alike.

Part of the Islamic Republic’s expertise in the field comes from 40 years of forcing gay people to choose between transitioning and death.

But now, in a desperate search for currency in the cash-strapped country, the government is luring patients from around the world with steep discounts and luxury lodging, The New York Times reports.

Crippled by war and economic sanctions, Iran has launched a PR blitz promoting its expertise to a global audience, luring foreigners with trans-themed packages including budget-conscious surgeries, luxury hotel stays, and sightseeing tours.

Iran’s theocratic government has set a goal of generating more than $7 billion from medical tourism annually, according to Iranian state news media, a seven-fold increase over a year ago. 

In addition to nose jobs and hair transplants, glossy brochures and a social media campaign are offering vaginoplasties, mastectomies, and penis constructions for a song.

“We handle everything from start to finish, providing the best medical services to ensure a stress-free experience,” said Farideh Najafi, the manager of two medical tourism companies. “This includes booking hotels, hospitals, transportation, and more.”

According to one operator, while the cost of comprehensive surgery in the U.S. could be “around $45,000, and in Thailand, it’s approximately $30,000,” patients can pay “less than $12,000” in Iran. A government hospital stay can go for as low as $4,500.

The cut-rate prices are luring patients from wealthier countries like Australia, the United States, and Europe, according to medical tour operators and surgeons, despite the dark backdrop to the country’s transgender expertise.

Many gay and lesbian Iranians who are not trans are “pressured into undergoing gender reassignment surgery without their free consent,” according to a United Nations Human Rights Council report issued in March, and the alternative can be execution.

Amnesty International says more than 5000 gay people have been put to death in the Islamic Republic since the Iranian Revolution in 1979. Public flogging is even more common.

A British Home Office report in 2022 found that roughly 4,000 people underwent transition surgery each year in Iran, compared to just under 13,000 in the U.S. in 2020, which has a population four times greater. The vast majority of patients come from inside Iran, experts say.

The extraordinary number has its basis in a fatwa issued by Ayatollah Khomeini, the founding supreme leader of the Islamic Republic. He declared in the 1980s that transgender individuals could gain legal recognition of their identifying gender on the condition that they underwent transition surgery.

The volume of surgeries has come with a questionable safety record. A 2015 U.N. report described botched procedures like “abnormally shaped or located sexual organs.” Some activists have likened the country’s gender clinics to “butcher” shops.

Raha Ajoudani, a 20-year-old trans woman and activist, fled Iran rather than submit to a forced transition.

“I never wanted to undergo gender reassignment surgery,” she said. “I’ve defined myself outside of this binary. I didn’t want to live according to the governmental definition of cultural expectations of being a woman or a man, nor did I submit to Khomeini’s fatwa.”

Eric, a 45-year-old trans man living in Canada, did take advantage of Iran’s expertise in the field, but acknowledged competing feelings over his choice and the plight of gay people in the country.

“I have heard a lot, especially among trans women, that because they are gay, and they cannot be gay in Iran, they try to do the surgery,” he said. “I’m really sad that gays and lesbians are not recognized in Iran, but on the other hand, I’m happy for trans people because they can do what they’re willing to do.”

0

Donald Trump ends LGBTQ+ health programs under the cover of the shutdown

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

On Friday, the Trump administration began massive layoffs throughout the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). As part of that, they completely removed the Office of Population Affairs, which was responsible for a wealth of public health programs, including specific initiatives for the LGBTQ+ community.

“This wasn’t a budget decision — it was ideological,” a former member of the Biden administration told The Advocate.  “These are the programs that centered reproductive and queer health, and now they’re gone.”

Donald Trump has welcomed the government shutdown as an opportunity to cut what he has called “Democrat Agencies” to shrink the government. The process is being led by Russ Vought, the head of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and key author of Project 2025, which advocated for such cuts. However, he has also tried to blame those government cuts on the Democrats.

Vought took to X/Twitter on Friday to announce the start of the “Reduction in Force,” or RIF. His office confirmed via Politico that federal employees were being permanently fired, not temporarily furloughed for the duration of the shutdown: “Can confirm RIFs have begun and they are substantial. These are RIFs, not furloughs.”

Adrian Shanker, who served as deputy assistant secretary for Health Policy during the Biden administration, told The Advocate that while the Office of Population Affairs often had its programs politicized, this is “the first time that the office itself is being cut.”

The Office of Population Affairs manages a huge range of public health initiatives. Those include Title X family planning services and grants; programs for adolescents that cover issues such as pregnancy prevention, mental health, and substance abuse; the Embryo Adoption Awareness and Services program; screenings and treatment for sexually transmitted infections and information on preventing the spread of HIV; and LGBTQ+ health initiatives, including information on gender-affirming care.

As well as restricting programming targeted specifically at the LGBTQ+ community, these cuts will restrict access to family planning programs that LGBTQ+ people are more likely to make use of to grow their families.

The cuts to the Office of Population Affairs will leave us lacking when it comes to sex education and with less support for LGBTQ+ youth, Shanker noted, saying it “leaves us more vulnerable to health inequities and worsened health outcomes.”

Wider cuts to the HHS will have broader effects as the CDC is losing over a thousand employees, including the elimination of entire departments. “CDC is over. It was killed,” said Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, the out gay former director of the CDC’s National Center on Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, after 1000 scientists, doctors, and public health officials were fired from HHS on Friday. Daskalakis, an infectious diseases expert, resigned in protest of the administration’s war on science-based public health earlier this year.

“This administration only knows how to break things. They have made America at risk for outbreaks and attacks by nefarious players. People should be scared.”

Some reports have suggested that some laid-off employees have been contacted and told that their reduction-in-force notices are being rescinded. This happened with federal layoffs from DOGE in the past, with some employees being rehired after DOGE cut their jobs. However, reports are unclear on how many RIFs have been rescinded.

Previous federal layoffs have been litigated in court, with some resulting in court rulings that the people cannot be fired, while other courts have allowed the dismissals to proceed. That process, if it occurs here, will take time, during which public health will suffer a setback.

“Without these people in place, it’s unlikely that a lot of these programs will be able to continue even after the government reopens,” predicted Shanker.

0

California lawmakers approve measure protecting medical data of transgender people 

Read more at The Hill.

California lawmakers passed legislation this week to prevent health providers from releasing transgender patients’ confidential medical records in investigations of gender-affirming care in states that ban treatment for minors. 

Senate Bill 497, introduced in February by Sen. Scott Wiener, a Democrat representing San Francisco, builds upon a 2022 state law that established California as a state of refuge for transgender people. That law, also authored by Wiener, prevents states that have banned gender-affirming care for minors from taking legal action against trans youth, their families and their doctors over treatment administered in California. 

The latest bill would require law enforcement requesting health information about transgender people in California to provide a warrant, according to Wiener’s office. It would also bar medical providers from complying with out-of-state requests, including subpoenas, for information related to gender-affirming care. 

“California must do everything in our power to protect the transgender community, and I’m confident that the Governor will continue his longstanding leadership on trans issues,” Wiener said in a statement on Thursday after the bill passed. 

The California Senate voted 30-10 on Wednesday to pass Wiener’s bill, which the state Assembly passed earlier this week. A spokesperson for California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) declined to comment, saying the governor’s office does not typically remark on pending legislation. 

Newsom must sign or veto the measure by Oct. 13. 

The vote on Wiener’s bill comes after the Justice Department announced in June that it had sent more than 20 subpoenas to doctors and clinics “involved in performing transgender medical procedures on children” in investigations of alleged health care fraud and false statements. A subpoena sent to the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia that was made public in a court filing last month requested patients’ birth dates, Social Security numbers and home addresses, as well as “every writing or record of whatever type” from doctors related to the provision of gender-affirming care to adolescents younger than 19 years. 

The subpoena requested information dating back to January 2020, more than a year before transition-related care was banned anywhere in the U.S. 

On Tuesday, a federal judge blocked an effort by the Trump administration to subpoena medical records of transgender patients who received gender-affirming care at Boston Children’s Hospital, calling the Justice Department’s investigation improper and “motivated only by bad faith.” 

In an email on Friday, a spokesperson for Wiener said Senate Bill 497, if signed, would “strengthen the case for any medical provider who wishes to fight Trump’s vicious assault on the transgender community.” 

President Trump and administration officials have broadly sought to ban gender-affirming care for minors. A Jan. 28 executive order states that the U.S. “will rigorously enforce” laws that ban transition-related care for anyone younger than 19. 

Federal judges have blocked parts of the order threatening funding for hospitals. 

Laws adopted by more than half the nation since 2021 ban gender-affirming care for minors, which major professional medical groups say is medically necessary and often lifesaving for transgender youth and adults. In June, the Supreme Court ruled that states can ban treatment for minors, finding that Tennessee’s prohibition on puberty blockers, hormones and rare surgeries for adolescents does not constitute sex discrimination. 

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑