What to know about the impacts of the Supreme Court's ruling on transgender care for youth
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming surgery for transgender youth in a ruling that's likely to reverberate across the country.
Most Republican-controlled states already have similar bans.
In his majority opinion Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that Tennessee's ban does not violate the Constitution's equal protection clause, which requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same.
Since President Donald Trump returned to office this year, the federal government has been trying to restrict access.
Here are some things to know about gender-affirming care and the court's ruling:
What is gender-affirming care?
Gender-affirming care includes a range of medical and mental health services to support a person's gender identity, or their sense of feeling male, female, neither or some combination of both. Sometimes that's different from the sex they were assigned at birth.
The services are offered to treat gender dysphoria, the unease a person may have because their assigned gender and gender identity don't match. Studies, including one from 2023 by researchers at institutions including London Children's Hospital and Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, have found the condition is linked to depression and suicidal thoughts.
Gender-affirming care encompasses counseling and treatment with medications that block puberty and hormone therapy to produce physical changes. Hormone therapy for transgender men causes periods to stop, increases facial and body hair and deepens voices. The hormones used by transgender women can have effects such as slowing growth of body and facial hair and increasing breast growth. Fewer than 1 in 1,000 U.S. adolescents receive gender-affirming medications, a study released this year found.
Gender-affirming care can also include surgery, including operations to transform genitals and chests. These surgeries are rarely offered to minors.
There are documented uses of genital surgery for adults dating back to the 1920s. But for youth, gender-affirming care has been more common since the 1990s.
What is the controversy?
As a medical consensus emerged in support of gender-affirming care for youth, the issue also became politically divisive in other ways. Some states approved measures to protect transgender people, who make up around 1% of the nation's population.
Many critics dismiss the idea that gender is changeable and lies along a spectrum. About two-thirds of U.S. adults believe that whether a person is a man or woman is determined by biological characteristics at birth, an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll conducted in May found.
In the last five years, most GOP-controlled states have passed laws to block transgender girls from sports competitions for girls. About half the Republican-controlled states have now banned transgender people from using school bathrooms that align with their gender identity.
Opponents of gender-affirming care sometimes refer to it as 'mutilation' and say people who transition when they're young could later regret it.
What could the ruling mean for bans in states besides Tennessee?
In addition to Tennessee, 26 other states have passed bans or restrictions on gender-affirming care for youth. Judges have struck down the bans in Arkansas and Montana, though the legal fights there aren't over.
All of the laws have been adopted in the past five years and nearly all have been challenged in court.
The Supreme Court's decision means that federal challenges to those laws aren't likely to prevail. However, some of the lawsuits against them are based on arguments rooted in state constitutions, and it's still possible that judges could find more protections in those state constitutions than are in the U.S. Constitution.
What will the ruling mean for states without bans on gender-affirming care?
It probably won't make any difference immediately.
Several of those states have laws or executive orders intended to protect access to gender-affirming care for transgender minors.
But the question about whether the care will continue isn't only about what's legal. It's also about funding.
That's where Trump comes in.
Trump campaigned last year pledging to rein in rights of transgender people. He's followed through on many fronts, though court challenges have resulted in some of his efforts being blocked, at least for now.
What has Trump done on transgender issues?
He has ordered that no federal taxpayer money be used to pay for the care for those under 19. Enforcement of that order is on hold.
Trump has also tried to block federal funding from institutions — including hospitals and the universities that run some of them — that provide gender-affirming care for youth. A judge has blocked that effort while challenges to it proceed.
His administration published recommendations that therapy alone – and not medication – be used to treat transgender youth. The position contradicts guidance from major medical organizations. But it could impact practices.
Other actions Trump has taken including initiating the removal of transgender troops from military service; ordering that transgender women and girls be kept out of sports competitions for females; erasing the word 'transgender' from some government websites; and saying the government would recognize people only by their sex at conception.
That's resulted in efforts to move transgender women inmates to men's prisons and change how passports are issued to transgender and nonbinary people. A judge this week blocked the Trump administration from limiting passport sex markers for many transgender and nonbinary Americans.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Globe and Mail
15 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
What are bunker-buster bombs the U.S. used to attack Iran's nuclear facilities?
In inserting itself into Israel's war against Iran, Washington unleashed its massive bunker-buster bombs on Iran's Fordo fuel enrichment plant. Those bombs were widely seen as the best chance of damaging or destroying Fordo, built deep into a mountain and untouched during Israel's week-long offensive. Air Force Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said 14 of the bombs were used in Sunday's attack on Fordo and a second target. The U.S. is the only military capable of dropping the weapons, and the movement of B-2 stealth bombers toward Asia on Saturday had signalled possible activity by the U.S. Israeli leaders had made no secret of their hopes that President Donald Trump would join their week-old war against Iran, though they had also suggested they had backup plans for destroying the site. In all, the U.S. hit three nuclear sites and Caine told reporters Sunday that 'initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage.' The mission could have wide-ranging ramifications, including jeopardizing any chance of Iran engaging in Trump's desired talks on its nuclear program and dragging the U.S. into another Mideast war. Here's a closer look. 'Bunker buster' is a broad term used to describe bombs that are designed to penetrate deep below the surface before exploding. In this case, it refers to the latest GBU-57 A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator bomb in the American arsenal. The roughly 30,000 pound (13,600 kilogram) precision-guided bomb is designed to attack deeply buried and hardened bunkers and tunnels, according to the U.S. Air Force. It's believed to be able to penetrate about 200 feet (61 meters) below the surface before exploding, and the bombs can be dropped one after another, effectively drilling deeper and deeper with each successive blast. It was not immediately known how many were used in the Sunday morning strike. The bomb carries a conventional warhead, but the International Atomic Energy Agency has confirmed that Iran is producing highly enriched uranium at Fordo, which had raised the possibility that nuclear material could be released into the area if the GBU-57 A/B were used to hit the facility. Initial assessments by the IAEA, however, were that this had not happened. Fordo is Iran's second nuclear enrichment facility after Natanz, its main facility, which already has been targeted by Israeli air strikes and was also hit by the U.S. on Sunday, along with Isfahan. The IAEA says it believes those earlier strikes have had 'direct impacts' on the facility's underground centrifuge halls. Fordo is smaller than Natanz, and is built into the side of a mountain near the city of Qom, about 60 miles (95 kilometres) southwest of Tehran. Construction is believed to have started around 2006 and it became first operational in 2009 — the same year Tehran publicly acknowledged its existence. Analysis: Israel eyes the heart of Iran's nuclear ambitions In addition to being an estimated 80 meters (260 feet) under rock and soil, the site is reportedly protected by Iranian and Russian surface-to-air missile systems. Those air defences, however, likely have already been struck in the Israeli campaign, which claims to have knocked out most of Iran's air defences and the U.S. bombers were not fired upon during their mission. Still, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said the goal of attacking Iran was to eliminate its missile and nuclear program, which he described as an existential threat to Israel, and officials have said Fordo was part of that plan. 'This entire operation ... really has to be completed with the elimination of Fordo,' Yechiel Leiter, Israel's ambassador to the U.S., told Fox News. In theory, the GBU-57 A/B could be dropped by any bomber capable of carrying the weight, but at the moment the U.S. has only configured and programed its B-2 Spirit stealth bomber to deliver the bomb, according to the Air Force. The B-2 is only flown by the Air Force, and is produced by Northrop Grumman. According to the manufacturer, the B-2 can carry a payload of 40,000 pounds (18,000 kilograms) but the U.S. Air Force has said it has successfully tested the B-2 loaded with two GBU-57 A/B bunker busters – a total weight of some 60,000 pounds (27,200 kilograms). In the attack on Fordo, Caine said the first B-2 dropped two of the bunker busters on the facility. The strategic long-range heavy bomber has a range of about 7,000 miles (11,000 kilometres) without refuelling and 11,500 miles (18,500 kilometres) with one refuelling, and can reach any point in the world within hours, according to Northrop Grumman. The mission against Iran was flown from its home base in Missouri. Whether the U.S. would get involved had been unclear in recent days. At the G7 meeting in Canada, Trump was asked what it would take for Washington to become involved militarily and he said: 'I don't want to talk about that.' Then on Thursday, Trump said he would decide within two weeks whether to get involved, to give another chance to the possibility of negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. In the end, it took just two days to decide. Sunday's attack was specifically restricted to the three nuclear sites, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said. 'The scope of this was intentionally limited, that's the message that we're sending, with the capabilities of the American military nearly unlimited,' he told reporters. 'So Iran, in that sense, has a choice.'
Toronto Star
31 minutes ago
- Toronto Star
US signals a willingness to renew talks with Iran and avoid a prolonged war
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration on Sunday signaled a willingness to renew talks with Iran and avoid a prolonged war in the aftermath of a surprise attack on three of the country's nuclear sites as U.S. officials assessed Tehran's nuclear ambitions and the threat of retaliation against American interests. President Donald Trump, who had addressed the nation from the White House on Saturday night, allowed his national security team to speak for him the next morning, staying quiet on social media and scheduling no public appearances. The coordinated messaging by his vice president, Pentagon chief, top military adviser and secretary of state suggested a confidence that any fallout from the attack would be manageable and that Iran's lack of military capabilities would ultimately force it back to the bargaining table.
Canada News.Net
33 minutes ago
- Canada News.Net
4 reasons to be concerned about Bill C-4's threats to Canadian privacy and sovereignty
In Canada, federal political parties are not governed by basic standards of federal privacy law. If passed, Bill C-4, also known as the Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Act, would also make provincial and territorial privacy laws inapplicable to federal political parties, with no adequate federal law in place. Federal legislation in the form of the Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act sets out privacy standards for government and business, based on the fair information principles that provide for the collection, use and disclosure of Canadians' personal information. At the moment, these laws don't apply to political parties. Some provinces - especially British Columbia - have implemented laws that do. In May 2024, the B.C. Supreme Court upheld the provincial Information Commissioner's ruling that B.C.'s privacy legislation applies to federal political parties. That decision is currently under appeal. Bill C-4 would undermine those B.C. rights. It would make inapplicable to federal parties the standard privacy rights that apply in other business and government contexts- such as the right to consent to the collection, use and disclosure of personal information - and to access and correct personal information held by organizations. Why should we be concerned about Bill C-4's erasure of these privacy protections for Canadians? There are four reasons: In light of threats to Canadian sovereignty by United States President Donald Trump, the Canadian government and Canadian politicians must rethink their approach to digital sovereignty. Until now, Canadian parties and governments have been content to use American platforms, data companies and datified campaign tactics. Bill C-4 would leave federal parties free to do more of the same. This is the opposite of what's needed. The politics that resulted in Trump being elected twice to the Oval Office was spurred in part by the datafied campaigning of Cambridge Analytica in 2016 and Elon Musk in 2024. These politics are driven by micro-targeted and arguably manipulative political campaigns. Do Canadians want Canada to go in the same direction? Bill C-4 would undermine one of the mechanisms that makes Canada a society: collective political decisions. Datified campaigning and the collection of personal information by political parties change the nature of democracy. Rather than appealing to political values or visions of what voters may want in the future or as a society - critically important at this historical and troubling moment in history - datified campaigning operates by experimenting on unwitting individual citizens who are alone on their phones and computers. It operates by testing their isolated opinions and unvarnished behaviours. For example, a political campaign might do what's known as A/B testing of ads, which explores whether ad A or ad B is more successful by issuing two different versions of an ad to determine which one gets more clicks, shares, petition signatures, donations or other measurable behaviour. With this knowledge, a campaign or party can manipulate the ads through multiple versions to get the desired behaviour and result. They also learn about ad audiences for future targeting. In other words, political parties engaging in this tactic aren't engaging with Canadians - they're experimenting on them to see what type of messages, or even what colour schemes or visuals, appeal most. This can be used to shape the campaign or just the determine the style of follow-up messaging to particular users. University researchers, to name just one example, are bound by strict ethical protocols and approvals, including the principle that participants should consent to the collection of personal information, and to participation in experiments and studies. Political parties have no such standards, despite the high stakes - the very future of democracy and society. Most citizens think of elections as being about deliberation and collectively deciding what kind of society they want to live in and what kind of future they want to have together as they decide how to cast their ballots. But with datified campaigning, citizens may not be aware of the political significance of their online actions. Their data trail might cause them to be included, or excluded, from a party's future campaigning and door-knocking, for example. The process isn't deliberative, thoughtful or collective. Political parties collect highly personal data about Canadians without their knowledge or consent. Most Canadians are not aware of the extent of the collection by political parties and the range of data they collect, which can include political views, ethnicity, income, religion or online activities, social media IDs, observations of door-knockers and more. If asked, most Canadians would not consent to the range of data collection by parties. Some governments can and do use data to punish individuals politically and criminally, sometimes without the protection of the rule of law. Breaches and misuses of data, cybersecurity experts say, are no longer a question of "if," but "when." Worse, what would happen if the wall between political parties and politicians or government broke down and the personal information collected by parties became available to governments? What if the data were used for political purposes, such as for vetting people for political appointments or government benefits? What if it were used against civil servants? What if it were to be used at the border, or passed to other governments? What if it were passed to and used by authoritarian governments to harass and punish citizens? What if it was passed to tech companies and further to data brokers? OpenMedia recently revealed that Canadians' data is being passed to the many different data companies political parties use. That data is not necessarily housed in Canada or by Canadian companies. If provincial law is undermined, there are few protections against any of these problems. Bill C-4 would erase the possibility of provincial and territorial privacy laws being applied to federal political parties, with virtually nothing remaining. Privacy protection promotes confidence and engagement with democratic processes - particularly online. Erasing privacy protections threatens this confidence and engagement. The current approach of federal political parties in terms of datified campaigning and privacy law is entirely wrong for this political moment, dangerous to Canadians and dangerous to democracy. Reforms should instead ensure federal political parties must adhere to the same standards as businesses and all levels of government. Data privacy is important everywhere, but particularly so for political parties, campaigns and democratic engagement. It is important at all times - particularly now.
