Category: healthcare

Ohio Republicans are trying to strip transgender adults of health insurance coverage

Read more at the Advocate.

Ohio Rep. Josh Williams (R-Sylvania Twp.) has introduced his latest bill in his crusade against transgender Ohioans.

Williams introduced HB 838 last Thursday. The bill would prohibit Medicaid from covering most gender-affirming surgeries and procedures for transgender Ohioans and ban state and local municipalities from providing a contract to their employees that includes “coverage, benefits, or services for gender reassignment surgery.”

The legislation also stipulates that if these benefits are offered, the cost would then be subtracted from the local authority’s “local government fund payments,” the revenue-sharing portion of the state’s General Revenue Fund.

The bill has not yet been assigned to a committee.

Williams has broken a record, introducing more than 100 bills in a single General Assembly as he runs for a spot in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Six of those bills are explicitly anti-LGBTQ+, complementing his public statements that it would be “harmful to society” to affirm trans identity.

  • HB 249 (“The Indecent Exposure Modernization Act”), which would ban drag and gender performance in public spaces where minors are present. (Status: The bill passed the Ohio House and now moves to the Ohio Senate.)
  • HB 262, to designate “Natural Family Month,” to celebrate only heterosexual married couples with children. (Status: The bill is sitting in a House committee; three hearings have been held.)
  • HB 693 (“The Affirming Families First Act”), to grant protections to parents who reject their trans children. (Status: The bill is sitting in a House committee; two hearings have been held.)
  • HB 796 to ensure that all incarcerated people in state custody are housed according to the state’s definition of “biological sex.” (Status: The bill has been introduced, but not assigned to a committee.)
  • HB 798 (“The Privacy Protection Act”) that would limit trans Ohioans’ access to public bathrooms and ban Ohioans from being able to change the sex marker on birth and death certificates. (Status: The bill has been introduced, but not assigned to a committee.)

In the Cleveland suburb of Lakewood, the city’s robust “Gender Freedom Policy” would protect LGBTQ+ employees from the effects of HB 838.

The policy was introduced by Council President Sarah Kepple and out LGBTQ+ Councilmember Cindy Strebig, and will allow the city to provide medical coverage for transgender employees and covered family members who seek gender-affirming care, “even if such care must legally be provided outside the State of Ohio.”

“This is another attempt by the Republican led and out of touch state government to draw attention away from their continued failure to serve Ohioans,” Strebig told The Buckeye Flame. “I will continue to fight for my community and the dignity and respect of all people.”

Dara Adkison, executive director of TransOhio, said that HB 838 is just the latest bill in an “exhausting pattern of a single politician repeatedly targeting transgender Ohioans instead of addressing the real challenges facing our state.”

“Continued increasing of restrictions and limitations to healthcare undermines the safety, health and wellbeing of not only trans Ohioans but everyone,” Adkison said.

Adkison called HB 838 “reprehensible,” but reminded Ohioans that the bill was just introduced and is not law.

“Everyone deserves the ability to make informed decisions about their own healthcare, and every municipality deserves to maintain the authority over what will be covered by city employee insurance plans,” Adkison said.

0

Doctors can refuse to treat LGBTQ+ patients in several states – these religious exemption laws lead to drops in HIV testing

Read more at The Conversation.

An increasing number of U.S. states have passed laws that allow health care providers – including doctors, nurses and pharmacists – to refuse to treat patients based on their personal or religious beliefs. While these conscientious objection laws have long existed for issues such as abortion, their effects on LGBTQ+ people have not been well studied.

As of April 2026, 11 U.S. states have enacted conscientious objection laws specifically targeting LGBTQ+ people. As public health researchers who study the effects of public policies on the health of LGBTQ+ people, we wanted to examine how these laws have affected the roughly 1 in 5 LGBTQ+ Americans living in a state where a provider can legally refuse them care.

Specifically looking at sexual minorities, our research found that lesbian, gay, bisexual and queer adults living in states that passed conscientious objection laws were 28% less likely to report receiving a first-time HIV test, compared to peers in states without conscientious objection laws. These laws did not affect HIV testing rates for heterosexual adults.

Similarly, LGBQ+ adults in affected states were 71% more likely to report being in fair or poor health after the laws passed, compared to those in states without the laws.

Measuring the harm

We analyzed data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the health outcomes of more than 109,000 lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer and heterosexual adults from 2016 to 2018. We focused on eight states, comparing two that enacted conscientious objection laws during that period (Illinois and Mississippi) and six that did not (Louisiana, Minnesota, Ohio, Texas, Wisconsin and Virginia).

To isolate the effect of the laws themselves, we compared changes in health outcomes among LGBQ+ and heterosexual adults living in states with or without religious exemptions to health care, both before and after the laws passed. Making all these comparisons at once allowed us to identify differences in health outcomes due to the laws rather than preexisting differences between states.

We found that conscientious objection laws were associated with significant harms to LGBQ+ adults, including a decline in HIV testing and a worsening of self-rated health.

Our findings highlight how laws permitting clinicians to refuse to provide health care to LGBQ+ patients deepen existing health disparities. Notably, conscientious objection laws are just one type of policy restricting LGBTQ+ people’s access to health care.

The Trump administration has slashed budgets for the federal Ryan White HIV/AIDS program and state-level AIDS drugs assistance programs, reducing the availability of HIV prevention and treatment services. States have also moved to restrict access to gender-affirming care for both minors and adults, despite its additional benefit of helping to reduce new HIV infections. Employers have successfully declined to provide insurance coverage of highly effective HIV prevention medications under religious freedom laws.

Worsening disparities

LGBTQ+ people already face greater health challenges than their heterosexual peers, including higher rates of unmet health care needs and discrimination in medical settings.

HIV preexposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, can lower the risk of contracting HIV from sex by 99%. However, patients are required to receive an HIV test before PrEP can be prescribed. If providers are unwilling or unable to engage with LGBQ+ patients on their sexual health, people who could benefit most from HIV prevention tools, such as PrEP, may never receive them.

Moreover, since the risk of contracting HIV is closely linked to the social determinants of health, such as having safe and stable housing and employment, barriers to HIV testing could further widen health gaps.

Similarly, the worsening in self-rated health among LGBQ+ adults suggests that the cumulative effect of these laws on well-being is real and immediate. A person’s perception of their own health status is one of the strongest predictors of earlier death.

What can be done

Acknowledging the health consequences of conscientious objection laws could help policymakers and the public better understand their impact.

A 2026 national study found that Americans were more motivated to support policies that address LGBTQ+ inequality when these laws were framed as improving health inequality rather than economic inequality or sense of belonging. This finding suggests that people perceive health inequality as unjust and are less likely to blame LGBTQ+ individuals for those circumstances.

Health care systems can build more affirming environments that actively reassure LGBTQ+ patients will receive fair and equitable care. This can encourage more timely access to preventive services, such as vaccinations and cancer screenings.

For LGBTQ+ people, knowing your rights as a patient and seeking out LGBTQ+-affirming providers and community health centers can help mitigate some of the harms of restrictive laws.

0

American Medical Association reaffirms support for trans health care after controversial statement

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

The American Medical Association (AMA) reaffirmed its support for gender-affirming care and said media outlets that reported a change in its policy (including LGBTQ Nation) misinterpreted a recent statement from the organization.

AMA’s March 2026 newsletter devoted a section to the debacle and explained that it all started in February when Dr. Mehmet Oz, the head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, held a meeting for the leaders of the nation’s major medical organizations to discuss why they all endorsed medical interventions for trans teenagers.

Sources told the Times that Dr. Oz’s tone was measured, rather than hostile, but that it was clear he hoped to sway the organizations away from supporting gender-affirming care for young trans people. At the meeting, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) reportedly shocked everyone by announcing it was indeed changing its stance on gender-affirming care. 

The ASPS announced the change in its stance publicly on February 3, releasing a statement advising against conducting “gender-related breast/chest, genital, and facial surgery” on people under the age of 19. The ASPS based its statement on two recent reports from the U.K. and the U.S. that were widely criticized by transgender healthcare advocates as being biased.

Surgical interventions, however, are already almost never performed on minors. Trans minors don’t receive bottom surgery, though some teenagers who meet certain rigid requirements get top surgery or facial procedures.

The AMA newsletter explained that once ASPS released its statement, the AMA’s Executive Committee of the Board met to craft a statement to provide to probing media outlets.

“During our Board discussion, we were clear that we were not changing AMA policy,” the newsletter said, emphasizing that the statement was exclusively to be used if media outlets contacted the organization, rather than preemptively.

“While some media coverage characterized this as agreement with the ASPS statement, that phrasing did not come from the AMA,” the newsletter continued. “Unfortunately, how reporters frame their stories is beyond our control.”

The newsletter emphasized that the statement did not reflect a policy change or an endorsement of ASPS’s policy change: “AMA policy on gender-affirming care is unchanged. Our recent response to questions about ASPS’s position statement was intended to preserve—not diminish—access to gender-affirming care, and to clarify and reinforce what our policy has long reflected and standards of care. The AMA supports gender-affirming care as medically necessary per our policy.”

The language in AMA’s initial statement sowed chaos because it does state:  “In the absence of clear evidence, the AMA agrees with ASPS that surgical interventions in minors should be generally deferred to adulthood.”

But because gender-affirming surgery is already rare for minors, it seems AMA is trying to say it was merely reaffirming the position it has always held, which is that it supports non-surgical interventions for minors and, in rare cases, surgical ones.

At the time the ASPS walked back support for gender-affirming care, and many at least believed AMA did, too, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) released its own statement emphasizing it still fully endorses gender-affirming care. “The AAP continues to hold to the principle that patients, their families and their physicians — not politicians — should be the ones to make decisions together about what care is best for them,” the statement read, according to the New York Times.

The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) also spoke out: “There is no definitive age or one-size-fits-all approach for every patient, which is why they are built on case-by-case assessments, involve experts on adolescent development, and are designed to support thoughtful and ethical shared decision-making in a multidisciplinary field.”

Recent studies have shown that trans youth tend to be consistent in their identities, even after a decade. The findings mirror what has overwhelmingly been found in studies on trans adults, that very few people detransition. A 2024 study found that 97% of trans youth don’t regret transitioning, and another study from the same year showed that fewer than 1% of patients who undergo gender-affirming surgical procedures end up regretting it. In fact, rates of regret are higher for people who get tattoos, elective plastic surgeries, bariatric weight loss surgeries, or have children, the study found.

0

First puberty blockers, now hormones: England’s NHS bans more gender-affirming drugs

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

This week, England’s National Health Service (NHS) threw up yet another roadblock to gender-affirming care for transgender youth in the UK.

On Monday, the NHS announced it was pausing new referrals for feminizing and masculinizing hormones for 16- and 17-year-olds suffering from gender dysphoria, citing a collection of studies commissioned by the health service after publication of the controversial Cass Report in 2024, the Guardian reports.

That study recommended “extreme caution” initiating hormone treatments, including estrogen and testosterone, and a “clear clinical rationale for providing hormones at this stage rather than waiting until an individual reaches 18.”

The new NHS report comes to a similar conclusion.

“Following the Cass review, NHS England commissioned an in-depth review of all available clinical evidence for using estrogen or testosterone either alone or with other medications to treat gender incongruence and dysphoria,” the report states. “This review has established that the available evidence does not support the continued use of masculinizing or feminizing hormones to treat gender incongruence or dysphoria for young people under 18.”

The Cass Review, which contradicted long-established guidance around the efficacy of gender-affirming care for trans youth, has already prompted the health service to halt prescriptions of puberty-suppressing drugs for trans youth, with an indefinite ban for trans minors enacted by the UK government in December 2024.

The UK’s Health Secretary cited an “unacceptable safety risk” for halting new prescriptions of the drugs, though puberty blockers are still prescribed for early onset puberty and other conditions for children not suffering from gender dysphoria.

Puberty blockers, or GnRH analogues, slow down or halt the onset of puberty in young people taking them, and have preceded and been accompanied by the use of estrogen or testosterone for gender transition.

The positive effects of that combination therapy were all but ignored in the new NHS review, say critics of the decision to halt new prescriptions.

The Dutch Protocol, the “gold standard” for transition care, “involves prescribing GnRH analogues (puberty blockers) first to suppress puberty, then adding hormones later,” writes trans journalist Erin Reed in a story questioning the report’s findings.

“When hormones are introduced, the GnRH analogues are sometimes continued alongside them — the blocker keeps suppressing the body’s natural hormones while the prescribed estrogen or testosterone does its work. This overlap period means patients are on both GnRH analogues and hormones at the same time. That is the ‘combination therapy’ the reviews claim to examine.”  

But the reviews “inexplicably excluded every study” where GnRH analogues and feminising and masculinising hormones were taken in succession or combination. The review tossed out hundreds of such studies in favour of a “salami slicing” approach that examined the hormones in isolation.

NHS was explicit in its methodology.

“Any reference to GnRH analogues in the context of puberty suppression or used as puberty-suppressing hormones must be excluded,” the report states.

“NHS England’s own data, cited in the reviews themselves, confirms that 98% of its patients followed the very pathway every review was designed to exclude,” Reed writes.

She called the NHS evidence reviews “an extreme example of politically-manufactured science.”

Gender Plus, a leading private trans healthcare and education service in the UK, accused NHS England of ignoring clinical expertise and evidence provided by leaders in the field, including the Endocrine Society, which recommends introducing the hormones for trans youth once “persistence of gender incongruence has been confirmed and the young person has sufficient capacity to consent.”

“NHS England’s interpretation of the evidence is in contrast to every reputable expert body in the field of transgender healthcare,” said a spokesperson for the health group.

NHS said patients currently receiving hormone treatments can continue the therapy, “but this will need to be reviewed individually with their clinical team.”

“Banning new prescriptions of gender-affirming hormones for 16- and 17-year-olds is a profound attack on young people’s bodily autonomy,” said Tammy Hymas, policy lead at British advocacy organization TransActual, “with trans people yet again cruelly singled out by this government.”

0

17 states consider cutting assistance for HIV meds as prices increase

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

States across the U.S. have either implemented or are considering measures that limit access to life-saving medications for tens of thousands of low-income people living with HIV. The moves, experts warn, are likely to lead to economic and public health crises.

According to new data published this week by the National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors (NASTAD), 17 states and D.C. have already taken steps to cut costs for their AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAP), while five others are considering similar measures.

Since 1996, federally funded ADAPs have helped low-income, uninsured, and underinsured people afford HIV and AIDS medication, primarily through federal grants via the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act of 1990.

But as NASTAD’s report notes, “Federal funding for ADAPs has remained relatively unchanged over the last decade, while client enrollment and healthcare costs, including prescription drug, insurance premium, and cost-sharing expenditures, have continued to increase.” According to nonprofit health policy research group KFF, congressionally allocated funding for ADAPs “has not kept pace with inflation, even before accounting for enrollment growth and increased costs.”

According to both NASTAD and KFF, the expiration of enhanced premium tax credits for the purchase of insurance through the Affordable Care Act marketplaces is another key factor driving up costs for ADAPs.

“Effectively, programs are being asked to do more with less federal funding,” Lindsey Dawson, associate director of HIV policy at KFF, told the New York Times.

That has led to 10 state ADAPs reporting budget deficits for the current fiscal year, while 19 ADAPs expect to face deficits in the upcoming fiscal year, according to NASTAD.

NASTAD reports that five states — including Pennsylvania, Kansas, Delaware, and Rhode Island — have already lowered income eligibility for the ADAP.

By far the most drastic change took effect in Florida on Sunday. The state’s move to reduce income eligibility for its ADAP from 400% of the federal poverty level to 130%. That means people living with HIV in Florida who make more than approximately $20,500 annually — down from around $64,000 prior to the change — are now ineligible to receive ADAP assistance for medication that can cost more than $5,000 per month. By one estimate, 16,000 people living with HIV in Florida are now at risk of losing access to HIV/AIDS medications.

Other states, including Arkansas, Louisiana, New Jersey, Virginia, and Washington, are similarly considering changes to financial eligibility criteria. Others have or are considering other measures, including reducing formularies (the list of drugs covered), annual spending caps, restricting or ending health insurance assistance, and implementing recertification requirements that will likely lead to disenrollment, according to KFF. NASTAD reports that Arkansas, Louisiana, and New Jersey are also considering implementing waitlists for assistance.

Such cost-cutting measures “could leave growing numbers of people with HIV ineligible for safety-net services,” according to KFF.

Esteban Wood, director of AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which is suing to block Florida’s ADAP changes, warned the New York Times this week that the changes represented not only a “moral disaster,” but would likely lead to both public health and economic disasters. HIV medications not only keep people living with the virus healthy, they also make it essentially impossible to transmit it, and cutting off access to those meds will inevitably lead to an increase in new infections. The Times also notes that if people begin rationing their pills, the likelihood that the virus becomes resistant to medication increases.

The untold costs of such outcomes will have to be absorbed by other parts of the U.S. public health system, according to the Times.

0

Republican TX AG bans “radical” mental health workers from affirming trans youth: It’s “child abuse”

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) has declared that it is illegal for mental health care providers licensed by the state to affirm trans youth and that doing so is child abuse.

The virulently anti-trans official issued the opinion on Monday to explain that the state’s gender-affirming care ban applies to mental health care as well. In a press release, Paxton’s office referred to the practice of affirming someone’s gender as “‘transitioning’ our kids.”

“Any radical facilitating the ‘transitioning’ of our kids is committing child abuse,” Paxton said in a statement. “The law is clear that these radical procedures are illegal and in no world should Texans’ tax dollars be used to permanently harm children. This opinion should send a clear warning there will be consequences for any medical professional, whether a doctor or a therapist, who is illegally ‘transitioning’ Texas kids.”

Trans news site Transitics said the opinion can be interpreted as essentially requiring mental health professionals to either refuse to see young trans patients or else engage in conversion therapy. The opinion states that therapists have an obligation to help children with “overcoming” an “underlying… condition,” which in this case is gender dysphoria.

“Even if they want to, they can no longer affirm a trans kid’s identity, offer alternatives in another state, or encourage parents to accept their kids for who they are,” Aleksandra Vaca at Transitics explained. “Under Paxton’s opinion, doing anything other than push a child to accept being their assigned sex at birth will result in providers losing their license and/or being imprisoned. This is conversion therapy, which is recognized by the United Nations as being tantamount to torture.”

Paxton has spent his tenure as attorney general terrorizing the trans community. In 2022, he issued a non-binding opinion calling gender-affirming health care a form of child abuse, which led Gov. Greg Abbott (R) to order the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) to investigate for child abuse any parents who allow their trans children to access gender-affirming medical care prescribed by their doctors.

In a post at the time, Paxton called gender affirming care and puberty blockers – which have been shown to reduce lifetime suicide risk for transgender people who have access to them before puberty – “monstrous and tragic.”

Paxton has also argued it should be legal to discriminate against trans people at work, and he once tried to force a school to cancel its Pride week. He has sued for the right to discriminate against LGBTQ+ students, sued a group that highlighted the rise in hate speech on Elon Musk’s social media platform X, and sued the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) to force it to inspect every athlete’s gender before allowing them to play.

He has also said consensual encounters between consenting same-sex adults should be illegal, and that state workers can deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. 

Paxton was previously impeached by the Texas House in 2023 for 16 counts of bribery but was later acquitted by the Texas Senate. The FBI also investigated him for years for securities fraud, but the Department of Justice eventually dropped its investigation. He also settled a state securities fraud case against him, paying $300,000 and participating in community service to avoid legal charges.

In July, it came to light that his wife filed for divorce from him due to adultery.

Paxton told his staff about an extramarital affair in September 2018 while holding hands with his wife, The Texas Tribune reported. But while he recommitted to their marriage during that confession, he continued to cheat on her, the publication reported, even going through great lengths to hide affairs from her: using burner phones, secret email addresses, and secret rideshare accounts to meet with his mistress.

0

Ken Paxton sues Children’s Health and Dallas doctor for allegedly providing transgender youth care

Read more at KERA News.

Attorney General Ken Paxton sued Children’s Health System of Texas and a Dallas doctor Wednesday for allegedly violating a Texas ban on gender-affirming care for minors.

The AG asked a Collin County judge for a temporary injunction to stop the two defendants from providing any gender-affirming care or filing any claims to Texas Medicaid for that care.

The suit alleges Jason Jarin, a pediatric and adolescent gynecologist at Children’s Health and associate professor at UT Southwestern Medical Center, violated the law with 19 patients. It alleges he violated a 2023 law that prevents health care providers from giving transgender youth puberty blockers, hormone replacement therapy or surgery for the purpose of transitioning — one of a number of Texas laws aimed at limiting the type of care transgender adults and children can receive.

Paxton also argues Jarin filed claims for these services with Texas Medicaid, which doesn’t cover any gender-affirming care.

“This criminal extremist not only permanently harmed children, but he also then defrauded Medicaid and stuck Texas taxpayers with the bill for this insanity,” Paxton wrote in a statement. “Experimental ‘transition’ procedures on minors are illegal, unethical, and will not be tolerated in Texas.”

Jarin told KERA News Wednesday morning he had just learned of the lawsuit, and declined to comment.

Children’s Health told KERA in a statement its “top priority is the health and well-being of the patients and families we serve.”

“We comply with all applicable local, state and federal health care laws. Due to ongoing legal proceedings, we are unable to comment further at this time,” the statement read.

Jarin became an assistant professor at UT Southwestern in 2016 and has published studies on transgender children, according to his faculty profile.

Many of the lawsuit allegations claim he intentionally prescribed extra hormones for transgender kids leading up to Sept. 1, 2023, when the law took effect, so that they could continue to get treatment.

The law, known as Senate Bill 14, did allow for prescriptions to continue for children who were “already subject to a continuing course of treatment that began prior to June 1, 2023,” and children who “attended at least 12 mental health counseling or psychotherapy sessions over a period of at least six months prior to starting treatment,” according to Paxton’s suit. But those prescriptions had to be for the purpose of weaning the patient off the drug.

Jarin is accused of violating SB 14 with 12 of the 19 patients. If found liable, he could lose his medical license — SB 14 requires the Texas Medical Board to revoke the license of any physician who provides gender-affirming care to a child.

0

Adult trans patients left reeling after Massachusetts hospital cancels vaginoplasties without explanation

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

Trans women in Massachusetts may be suffering the effects of the Trump administration’s campaign to erase transgender identity from American society, but their hospital won’t confirm or deny it.

Several trans women scheduled for vaginoplasties with a highly regarded doctor specializing in the gender-affirming procedure were informed over the last few weeks that their surgeries had been cancelled and they wouldn’t be able to reschedule them, WGBH reports.

“I’m crushed. I can’t stop crying,” said one patient identified as Avery, who used a pseudonym. “This surgery was life-changing because it finally gives me the body that’s right for me. It has been ripped away with no explanation or follow-up plan.”

Avery’s hospital is UMass Memorial Health in Worcester, Massachusetts, and her surgeon is Dr. Ashley Alford, who introduced an innovative vaginoplasty technique never before used in New England. The surgery involves utilizing abdominal tissue and robotic technology to create a more realistic and functional vagina than other common procedures produce.

Avery had spent months preparing for the surgery, including a switch to a more expensive insurance plan that would cover the procedure.

Then it was cancelled. Avery said she pressed hospital staff for answers and learned that all of Dr. Alford’s appointments had been cancelled. She received no other explanation.

Among the six patients of Dr. Alford’s that were interviewed, all said they’ve received calls in the last two weeks canceling their appointments at UMass; more are identified in a subreddit devoted to the situation, which one describes as “unbelievably confusing.”

Despite the abrupt cancellations, the UMass health system says it’s not curtailing gender-affirming care.

“Although appointments may at times need to be canceled or rescheduled due to the availability of a specific provider, nothing has changed in UMass Memorial Health’s commitment to providing comprehensive, evidence-based health care, including gender affirming care, to all members of our community,” the statement read.

Dr. Alford had no comment on the nixed appointments and procedures.

The second Trump administration has issued a wave of orders curtailing the rights of transgender people, including attempts to end gender-affirming care for minors (early with his executive order addressing so-called “Child Mutilation”) and later, in December, an announcement from Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that any hospital providing gender affirming care for minors would lose Medicare and Medicaid funding.

UMass’s abrupt cancellations of surgeries for trans adults conjure a nightmare scenario for older patients reliant on gender-affirming care.

Chrissi Bates, an advocate for transgender healthcare and Alford’s first patient to undergo the advanced vaginoplasty procedure, sees a hidden hand behind Alford’s sudden unavailability.

“We all love Dr. Alford. We all doubt that it’s her that wants to leave,” said Bates, who planned on seeing Alford for post-op appointments. “It’s really disheartening to hear that UMass is just caving to this unjust kind of healthcare agenda that’s being pushed by the Trump administration.”

Most of all, the UMass patients in Worcester want answers.

“If it is Dr. Alford being pushed out due to concerns from the Trump administration, who’s to say that’s not going to happen in Boston?” said Kara Earp, a North Carolina transplant who moved to Massachusetts just for the gender-affirming care. Her appointment with Alford was cancelled, as well.

“I probably won’t actually be happy until I wake up from surgery and it’s all over with,” she said.

0

Detransitioner who regrets mastectomy wins $2 million in malpractice lawsuit against doctors

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

A woman who sued her doctors over a breast removal surgery she received when she was 16 and identified as transgender has been awarded $2 million in damages, marking the first time a detransitioner has won a medical malpractice lawsuit over the care they received as part of their transition.

Multiple right-wing news outlets are calling the decision “historic,” but even the woman’s lawyer is downplaying its significance, insisting the case was never about “the legitimacy of gender-affirming care.”

As The Free Press first reported, on Friday, a jury in New York State sided with 22-year-old Fox Varian, who sued her psychologist and a plastic surgeon, accusing them of failing to adhere to standards of care around gender-affirming care for minors. According to the New York Times, Varian claimed that her doctors did not obtain adequate consent or adequately inform her of the risks associated with a double mastectomy she received in 2019 and came to regret.

As multiple outlets have reported, Varian suffered from depression, anxiety, social phobia, eating disorders, and body-image issues as an adolescent, and was diagnosed with autism at 14. Court documents reportedly show she began questioning her gender at 15. She changed her name multiple times, used he/him pronouns, began binding her breasts, and told her psychologist, Kenneth Einhorn, that she wanted to transition.

According to both the New York Times and the Epoch Times, Einhorn, who has no formal training in treating transgender patients, claimed in court that Varian insisted she needed top surgery. In October 19, nine months after Varian expressed a desire to transition, Einhorn referred her to plastic surgeon Simon Chin.

Crucially, however, Einhorn referred to Varian’s diagnosis as “body dysmorphia” rather than gender dysphoria in his letter to Chin. He also reportedly referred her to an LGBTQ+ nonprofit center for additional counseling, where Varian continued to express uncertainty about her gender. However, Einhorn never followed up with the center. According to the Epoch Times, both Einhorn and Chin admitted in court that had they known about Varian’s continued uncertainty, they would not have referred her for the surgery or performed it.

As both the Epoch Times and the New Republic noted, the jury was not asked to issue a verdict on whether minors should receive gender-affirming surgeries — such procedures are already exceptionally rare — but whether Einhorn and Chin had adhered to accepted standards of care.

Dr. Loren Schechter, president-elect of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), which sets medical standards for gender-related care, even testified as an expert witness on behalf of Varian. Schechter testified that he believed the Einhorn and Chin’s decision to approve the surgery was based on “assumption and inference,” according to the New York Times.

“This case was a medical malpractice case, not a referendum on gender-affirming care,” WPATH said in a statement following the verdict. “When care is delivered ethically and responsibly within these guidelines, the integrity of the field is strengthened.”

Similarly, Varian’s lawyer, Adam Deutsch, issued a statement echoing arguments he’d made in court. “This was never a debate over the legitimacy of gender-affirming care,” he said, according to the Times. “It was about whether medical professionals met the standards that covered their own profession.”

Einhorn and Chin “just didn’t have the experience to deal with someone questioning their gender identity,” Deutsch added. “At the bottom of all of this was a lack of collaboration between the two of them, and lack of communication to follow through.”

At the same time, Benjamin Ryan, an independent journalist who covered the case for The Free Press and who has been critical of gender-affirming care for minors, suggested in a video promoting his reporting that the verdict “could help reshape the legal landscape around youth gender medicine.”

Describing the jury’s verdict as “decisive and historic,” Ryan said that Varian’s case “marks a turning point” and “could contribute to a reckoning over lax assessment standards by care providers when they consider whether irreversible medical interventions should be offered or given to minors with gender dysphoria.”

He said the case “signals a growing wave of detransitioners turning to the courts” and noted that by his count, nearly 30 similar civil cases are currently working their way through courts across the U.S. But as the Times noted, it remains unclear what impact Varian’s case will have on other cases.

Following Friday’s verdict, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) released a statement advising against conducting “gender-related breast/chest, genital, and facial surgery” on people under the age of 19. While the February 3 statement does not mention the Varian case, as the Times notes, it marks the first time a major American medical association has shifted its guidance on gender-affirming care for minors.

0

Wisconsin pediatric hospitals end gender-affirming care, risking health of trans youth

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

Two of Wisconsin’s largest pediatric hospitals have stopped providing gender-affirming care for transgender youth, Wisconsin Public Radio reports.

Children’s Wisconsin and University of Wisconsin (UW) Health have ended the treatment for minors, after pressure from the Trump administration. Advocates say the end of gender-affirming medical care will lead to negative mental health effects for trans youth.

In a statement, Children’s Wisconsin cited “escalating legal and federal regulatory risk” facing providers across the nation as the reason it is “currently unable to provide gender-affirming pharmacologic care.” The hospital added that LGBTQ+ children should be treated with “support, respect, dignity, and compassion.”

The hospital will continue to offer mental health services for patients and families.

In December, the Department of Health and Human Services, under the direction of Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., announced plans to end all Medicaid and Medicare funding for hospitals that provide gender-affirming care to minors.  

“Under my leadership, and answering President Trump’s call to action, the federal government will do everything in its power to stop unsafe, irreversible practices that put our children at risk,” Kennedy said, announcing the funding threat. “This administration will protect America’s most vulnerable. Our children deserve better — and we are delivering on that promise.”

In reality, gender-affirming medications for young people are considered by every major American medical association to be safe, reversible, and essential to the well-being of trans youth.

UW Health said its hospital system will pause prescribing puberty blockers and hormone therapy for patients under 18 years old “due to recent federal actions.” The hospital remains committed to providing “high-quality, compassionate” care to LGBTQ+ patients, officials said in a statement.

“We recognize the uncertainty faced by our impacted patients and families seeking this gender-affirming care and will continue to support their health and well-being,” they said.  

Steve Starkey, executive director for OutReach LGBTQ+ Community Center in Madison, said the consequences of ending the care will be grave.

“It will definitely have a negative impact on the rates of suicide, and the mental health of the trans community” in general, he said. “It affects trans adults as well, because it’s like an attack on all trans people.”

Starkey pointed to rates of suicide and suicidal ideation, which are already high for the trans community.

A 2023 study by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law found that more than 80% of trans adults had suicidal thoughts, while more than 40% had attempted suicide.

“For trans people of all ages, being able to express themselves in the gender that they feel that they are is important for their mental and physical health,” Starkey said. “By not allowing trans people to do that, to have the support, it just means that they are not able to be wholly who they are.”

In the last week alone, hospitals and clinics in Orange County, Riverside, and San Diego, California — and in Tacoma, Washington too — announced plans to shutter gender-affirming care programs for trans youth.

Those closures follow dozens of other hospitals and healthcare facilities ending the care under threats from the Trump administration, in the form of funding cuts or investigations initiated by the Justice Department, even before last month’s federal funding ultimatum.

A year ago this week, Trump issued an executive order vowing to end what he called the “chemical and surgical mutilation” of children with gender-affirming care. Republicans have used these terms to outrage people and vilify medical providers of the care, but puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapies don’t “mutilate” kids, and gender-affirming surgeries are rarely (if ever) conducted on minors.

A protester at Children’s Hospital of Orange County this week described the same care as life-saving.

“I’m a transgender woman, and I’m here to tell you that denying people this gender-affirming care doesn’t make gender dysphoria go away,” Stephanie Wade, chair of Lavender Democrats of Orange County, told LAist. “All it does is make it metastasize into suicidal depression. And I’ve been there. I dealt with this as a child. We can’t take this away from kids.”

If you or someone you know is struggling or in crisis, help is available. Call or text 988 or chat at 988lifeline.org. The Trans Lifeline (1-877-565-8860) is staffed by trans people and will not contact law enforcement. The Trevor Project provides a safe, judgement-free place to talk for youth via chat, text (678-678), or phone (1-866-488-7386). Help is available at all three resources in English and Spanish.

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑