logo
FBI wants to investigate doctors who provide gender-affirming care to minors. Experts question its legal basis

FBI wants to investigate doctors who provide gender-affirming care to minors. Experts question its legal basis

CNN3 days ago

The Federal Bureau of Investigation began Pride month by asking Americans to report doctors, hospitals and clinics who offer gender-affirming surgeries to minors, claiming that those procedures amount to child mutilation.
In social media posts Monday, the FBI and its chief spokesperson asked for tips on 'any hospitals or clinics who break the law and mutilate children under the guise of 'gender affirming care.''
But experts say the FBI's new push isn't backed up by federal law and may only be intended to scare medical practitioners away from offering those services.
'The only purpose of a tweet like this is to create fear and confusion for transgender youth, their families and their medical providers,' Josh Block, a senior attorney with the ACLU's LGBTQ & HIV Projects, told CNN. 'It simply has no legal basis.'
The reporting initiative is among the most dramatic moves in a multipronged effort by President Donald Trump's administration to challenge gender-affirming care across the country, spawned by a January executive order that initiated a crackdown on what the president called 'chemical and surgical mutilation' of individuals under 19 years old.
It also comes as the Trump administration broadly continues an anti-transgender agenda. The Justice Department on Monday, for instance, issued warnings to California school districts that have allowed transgender student athletes to play on sports teams that align with their gender identity. 'Today at work… put 1600+ California schools on blast for violating equal protection in girls' sports,' Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said on X.
There is no federal law that outlaws gender-affirming surgeries on minors – a rare practice that is not recommended by major medical organizations. The Trump executive order instructed that the Justice Department prioritize enforcement actions under a criminal statute that protects against female genital mutilation.
The FBI did not immediately respond to an inquiry about the legal backing for any future investigation.
Federal prosecutors, however, have conceded in court that the female genital mutilation law 'differs markedly' from Trump's executive order, according to a ruling earlier this year from a federal judge who said that parts of the order targeting federal funding should be paused indefinitely.
The judge, Lauren King, who was nominated by Joe Biden, said that gender-affirming surgery is considered medically necessary – a key legal hurdle when prosecuting someone for mutilation. She also noted that prosecutors 'acknowledge that non-surgical options 'are generally the only treatments minors can receive.''
Referencing that law in the executive order, King concluded, 'seems misplaced, and could be construed as a bad-faith attempt to make parents and providers fear prosecution.'
Gender-affirming care for trans youth is largely focused on social aspects like names, pronouns and clothing.
If a minor does move forward with any sort of medical intervention – treatment that is typically focused on medications whose effects are reversable instead of surgeries – a team of doctors and the child's family will consider what is appropriate for that child's needs and stage of development.
'A strong body of medical evidence supports the safety and efficacy of this care,' said Jennifer Levy, the senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD Law. 'These efforts make it more difficult for parents to secure the health care their children need to thrive.'
Still, nearly 30 states have passed legislation banning gender-affirming medical care for people under 18 years old. Several of those states, including Alabama, Florida and North Carolina, are defending those bans in court.
One of the challenges, which was brought over a Tennessee law that bans puberty blockers and other hormonal treatments for minors, is currently under consideration by the US Supreme Court. A decision is expected this month.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Ex-sheriff accused of shooting judge in chambers says state skirted law, should toss murder case: report
Ex-sheriff accused of shooting judge in chambers says state skirted law, should toss murder case: report

Fox News

time28 minutes ago

  • Fox News

Ex-sheriff accused of shooting judge in chambers says state skirted law, should toss murder case: report

The attorneys representing the former Letcher County, Kentucky sheriff who stands accused of murdering the county's judge in his chambers have filed a new motion to have their client's indictment dismissed, according to a report. Former sheriff Shawn "Mickey" Stines' lawyers say the state failed to record a November 2024 meeting between state prosecutors and the Letcher County grand jury that eventually indicted Stines, according to a court filing obtained by KAVE. The filing says the grand jury was "deprived of information known to the Commonwealth [of Kentucky], sought in question by grand jurors, but not disclosed." Stines allegedly shot District Judge Kevin Mullins in Mullins' own chambers in the Letcher County Courthouse on Sept. 19, 2024. The incident, which rocked the tiny rural town, was caught on a surveillance camera. Both Stines and Mullins were well-known pillars of the community for decades. Specifically, the motion filed by attorney duo Jeremy and Kerri Bartley says the grand jury was denied information about an ongoing civil lawsuit, in which Stines is named as a defendant, that could provide context for the shooting. The lawyers also claim that testimony before the grand jury from Kentucky State Police Detective Clayton Stamper, the lead investigator in the case, was unfairly prejudicial. Stines' attorneys claim that allegations of sexual abuse plagued the Letcher County Courthouse. Just three days before the shooting, Stines was deposed in a civil case against his former deputy, Ben Fields, who is currently serving prison time for raping a woman inside the courthouse in exchange for removing her ankle monitor while she was on home confinement during criminal proceedings. Jeremy Bartley told Fox News Digital that the sheriff had threatened to keep his mouth shut in the civil case, and that he feared for the safety of his wife and daughter. "On the day that this [shooting] happened, my client had attempted multiple times to contact his wife and daughter, and he firmly believed that they were in danger," Bartley said. "He believed that they were in danger because of what he knew to have happened within the courthouse. And there was pressure, and there were threats made to him to sort of keep him in line, to keep them from saying more than these folks wanted him to say." "I think one of the big things is that my client felt there had been pressure placed on him not to say too much during the deposition, and not to talk about things that happened within the courthouse, particularly in the judge's chambers," Bartley said. Body camera footage from the immediate aftermath of the shooting shows a paranoid Stines afraid for his life while being questioned by police. "Come on, be fair to me now," Stines can be heard saying to Stamper. "I seen the look… Y'all come on now, don't kill me. Don't punish me, you know. Let's be fair. Don't shoot me, nothing like that." "Y'all are gonna kill me, aren't you?" he asked. "Y'all are gonna kill me, I know you are. Let's just get it over with. Let's just go." Bartley is planning an insanity defense. Experts have denounced that defense as "frivolous." Fox News Digital reached out to Bartley and prosecutor Jackie Steele for comment.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store