Latest news with #transyouth
The Independent
3 hours ago
- Politics
- The Independent
Families of trans kids worry about what's next after Supreme Court rules on gender-affirming care
A U.S. Supreme Court decision Wednesday upholding Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors is leaving transgender children and their parents uncertain and anxious about the future. The court handed President Donald Trump's administration and Republican-led states a significant victory by effectively protecting them from at least some of the legal challenges against many efforts to repeal safeguards for transgender people. The case stems from a Tennessee law banning puberty blockers and hormone treatments for transgender minors. Opponents of gender-affirming care say people who transition when they're young could later regret it. Families of transgender children argue the ban amounts to unlawful sex discrimination and violates the constitutional rights of vulnerable Americans. Eli Givens, who is transgender and testified against Tennessee's gender-affirming care bill in 2023, said it's devastating that lawmakers 'who have called us degenerates, have told us that we're living in fiction' are now celebrating the court's ruling. Givens, who received mastectomy surgery in 2022 at age 17, said the legislation inspired their advocacy. The 20-year-old college student from Spring Hill, Tennessee, attended the Supreme Court arguments in the case last December, on their 20th birthday. 'We're not making a world that trans youth are welcomed or allowed to be a part of,' Givens said. 'And so, it's just a really scary kind of future we might have. Again, we won't stop fighting. But it does feel like the rug is kind of being swept under our feet just a little bit.' Jennifer Solomon, who supports parents and families at the LGBTQ+ rights group Equality Florida, called the ruling a decision 'that one day will embarrass the courts.' 'This is a decision that every parent should be concerned about,' she said. 'When politicians are able to make a decision that overrides your ability to medically make decisions for your children, every family should worry.' Fears of what's next after Supreme Court decision Rosie Emrich is worried the court decision will embolden legislators in New Hampshire, where legislation banning hormone treatments and puberty blockers for children is expected to reach the governor's desk. Lawmakers are weighing whether to block the treatments from minors already receiving them, like Emrich's 9-year-old child. 'It's definitely disappointing, and I'm trying to figure out how I'm going to talk to my kid about it,' Emrich said. Emrich said she and her husband have considered moving from New Hampshire and are waiting to see what will happen. 'The hard part is, like, I've grown up here, my husband has grown up here, we very much want to raise our family here,' she said. 'And we don't want to leave if we don t have to.' Conservative activists take credit Chloe Cole, a conservative activist known for speaking about her gender-transition reversal, posted on social media after the court's decision that 'every child in America is now safer.' Cole was cited as an example by Tennessee Republicans as one of the reasons the law was needed. Matt Walsh, an activist who was one of the early backers of Tennessee's law, applauded the high court. Three years ago, Walsh shared videos on social media of a doctor saying gender-affirming procedures are 'huge moneymakers' for hospitals and a staffer saying anyone with a religious objection should quit. 'This is a truly historic victory and I'm grateful to be a part of it, along with so many others who have fought relentlessly for years,' Walsh posted on social media. Mother says gender-affirming care saves lives Sarah Moskanos, who lives near Milwaukee, said her 14-year-old transgender daughter went through nearly a decade of counseling before she started medical gender-affirming care. Moskanos said that even before therapy, her daughter, who she declined to name for safety concerns, said that even at age 4 she was sure she identified as a girl. 'I would say that there is decades of research on this very thing,' she said. 'And we know what works and we know what will save trans kids' lives is gender-affirming care.' Even though Wisconsin doesn't have a gender-affirming care ban, getting her daughter that care has not been easy. Moskanos said she now worries about what the future holds. 'We live in tumultuous times, and we are but one election cycle away from disaster for my kid,' she said. Vowing not to disappear Mo Jenkins, a 26-year-old transgender Texas native and legislative staffer at the state Capitol, said she began taking hormone therapy at 16 years old and has been on and off treatment since then. 'My transition was out of survival,' Jenkins said. Texas outlawed puberty blockers and hormone treatment for minors two years ago, and in May, the Legislature passed a bill tightly defining a man and a woman by their sex characteristics. 'I'm not surprised at the ruling. I am disheartened,' Jenkins said. 'Trans people are not going to disappear.' ___ Mulvihill reported from Cherry Hill, New Jersey, and Seewer reported from Toledo, Ohio. Associated Press journalists Susan Haigh in Hartford, Connecticut; Kenya Hunter in Atlanta; Laura Bargfeld in Chicago; Nadia Lathan in Austin, Texas; and Daniel Kozin in Pinecrest, Florida, contributed to this report.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Supreme Court Upholds Tennessee Law Banning Care for Trans Kids
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court voted 6-3 to uphold a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors. The ruling in U.S. v. Skrmetti dictates that state laws prohibiting gender-affirming hormone therapies and puberty-pausing medications for transgender youth are constitutional. Notably, the Tennessee law doesn't allow best-practice transition-related medical care for children under the age of 18, while permitting minors who are not transgener to access treatments like hormone therapies and puberty blockers. Three Tennessee trans youths and their families challenged the state's law, which passed in 2023, arguing that it violates the Equal Protection Clause under the 14th Amendment. 'Rather than leave the state of Tennessee, these young people, their families, [and] healthcare providers tried to challenge that contradiction in best practices and frankly, the totally confusing discrimination on the basis of their sex assigned at birth,' says Kara Ingelhart, clinical assistant professor of law and director of the LGBTQI+ Rights Clinic at Northwestern University. This is the first time the Supreme Court has directly ruled on how the Equal Protection Clause applies to gender-affirming care for minors, according to UCLA's Williams Institute. 'The Equal Protection Clause is designed to protect historically marginalized groups, like trans folks, people of color, women — those who don't have the political power to move legislators in their favor all the time,' Ingelhart explains. 'When we leave questions of minority rights to majoritarian rule, there can be people left behind.' The Tennessee law, SB1, stipulates that gender-affirming care cannot be used to treat youth with gender dysphoria, prohibiting medical practitioners from providing hormones, puberty blockers, or surgery for the purposes of 'enabling the minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor's sex; or treating purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor's sex and asserted identity.' 'This is an incredibly painful day for transgender young people and their families who love and support them,' Andy Marra, executive director of Advocates for Trans Equality tells Rolling Stone in an emailed statement. 'The U.S. Supreme Court has failed in its most basic duty — to protect the rights and freedoms of vulnerable people from political overreach. By allowing this cruel and unnecessary ban to stand, the Court has abandoned Tennessee's minors and families in favor of extremist politicians.' The decision has the potential to impact similar state laws across the country. Currently, Tennessee is one of 25 states with total bans on gender-affirming care for those under 18 — all of which have been enacted since 2018. Tennessee is home to more than 3,000 transgender youth and approximately 28,000 transgender adults, according to estimates from the Williams Institute. According to Ingelhart, the Skrmetti ruling makes it so that states like Tennessee, that have discriminated against children on the basis of gender identity, can continue having healthcare bans. 'That doesn't mean that there won't continue to be fights in those states, because there are other questions at the lower court right now that other litigation that could succeed on, like the rights of parents — a constitutional right that this court didn't address,' she explains. Other experts stress that the fight isn't over. 'This ruling is a setback, but it is not the end of the road,' says Heron Greenesmith, deputy director of policy at the Transgender Law Center (TLC). 'We remain steadfast in our belief that access to affirming care and the right to bodily autonomy are constitutional rights. This ruling underscores the urgent need for safe, evidence-based policies that prioritize the health, dignity, and autonomy of all people.' The decision also impacts doctors who provide gender-affirming care to minors. 'Now, by federal law, it's possible to discriminate on the basis of sex, age, gender, identity, and sexual orientation in the delivery of health care,' says Morissa Ladinsky, MD, a pediatrician providing gender-affirming care and clinical professor at Stanford Medicine. 'It doesn't mean we have to — it just means we can. So my hope is that my colleagues around the nation take the high road.' All major medical associations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, and World Health Organization, have issued statements in support of healthcare for transender youth. For those who live in states where gender-affirming care for minors is banned, their only opportunity to access the treatments they need is to travel to a state where they're legal. 'It's already a state of crisis in America with regard to health care and socioeconomic status, but it will become a question of whether your family can travel for you to get the affirming care, and whether the state that you live in may want to threaten you for doing so,' Ingelhart says. 'This is life or death for people, [and] whether or not they can be affirmed and get the care they need can mean the difference between risk of suicidality and not. And none of this was ever being considered outside the careful administration and oversight of healthcare providers and parents' consent.' Chase Strangio, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union representing the plaintiffs in U.S. v. Skrmetti — and first openly transgender individual to present oral arguments before the Supreme Court — released a statement on Instagram indicating that 'there will be more to say soon,' noting that 'the Court got it wrong, but they left many open avenues — both doctrinal and extra-legal — for us to fight.' Other advocates, like Ben Greene, also worry that the Skrmetti decision will affect trans youth across the country. 'More than anything, the ruling attempts to send a hateful message to transgender young people and their families that says 'We don't see you. We don't protect you,'' says Greene, the author of the book My Child Is Trans, Now What?: A Joy-Centered Approach to Support. Not only do laws like the one in Tennessee limit a person's bodily autonomy, they're also a major blow to their mental health. A 2024 Trevor Project study found that between 2018 and 2022 — during which time 48 anti-transgender laws were enacted in 19 different states — suicide attempts among transgender and nonbinary youth increased by as much as 72 percent. In a recent report from Human Rights Watch on bans on gender-affirming care in the U.S., Kai, a 14-year-old trans boy in a state with a ban in effect, explains that he has experienced suicidal ideation almost all of his life as a result of gender dysphoria, and more recently, the anti-trans laws that are being enacted across the country. 'I don't even recognize the person I see in the mirror,' he told Human Rights Watch in the report. 'Why should I even live this life that isn't mine? And with the ramping up of anti-trans legislation… I felt more suicidal.' The rights of trans youths have been under attack since Donald Trump took office, starting with his Jan. 28 executive order outlining his plans to eliminate gender-affirming medical treatments for transgender children. The Department of Health and Human Services followed that up in May with a 400-page report recommending that gender dysphoria be treated with 'exploratory therapy,' which experts say is simply a rebranding of conversion therapy. 'Since Trump was inaugurated, I've noticed more people being negative toward me,' Jenny, a 17-year-old trans girl in a state where gender-affirming care is banned, told Human Rights Watch in a recent report. 'People are more bold now. I've faced more harassment from my peers.' Even with state bans on gender-affirming care for trans youths, Jenny said that under the Biden administration, she at least felt some protection from the federal government. 'Now it feels like every level of government is turning against us,' she says. 'It's hard to feel safe in your own country, in your own community and that's terrifying.' In a 2023 declaration asking a federal judge to put the ban on hold, Ryan Roe, a 17-year-old trans boy and one of the plaintiffs in Skrmetti, said that gender-affirming care saved his life, and if he were to lose access to it, his mental health would suffer. 'Since the bill passed, my family and I have had a lot of hard conversations,' he wrote. 'We have to talk about regularly traveling out of state to get me care, or even moving away from our home. I feel terrible when I think about what that would mean, not just for me, but for my parents, too. I feel like in a sense I am losing my childhood because I have to spend so much time worrying and planning.' But as discouraging as the decision may be, Ingelhart says that it isn't a doomsday scenario. 'It's important to know that trans folks aren't fighting this alone — that advocates across civil rights movements are there to support them,' she says. Greene echoes this sentiment. 'This small handful of judges do not speak for the American people, and I hope that transgender young people, their families, their doctors, and those that love them know that they have hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people who are prepared to stand with them, protect them, and fight for them at every turn,' he says. In fact, organizations like the ACLU, TLC, and Lamba Legal are 'planning actions across the country today and this weekend to stand in defiance of the ruling and in solidarity with one another,' Greenesmith says. While the decision isn't what Dylan Thomas Cotter hoped for, he's not giving up. 'To be a transgender American at this point in history is to be a fighter,' says Cotter, a publicist, author, and transgender rights activist. 'We, as proud transgender Americans, know this will take time and are in it for the long haul. It's important to hold on to the fact that tomorrow is a new day and there are many transgender people and allies that remain on the frontlines of fighting the good fight for all. June 18, 3:25 p.m.: This story has been updated to include comment from Heron Greenesmith of the Transgender Law Center. More from Rolling Stone Trump Administration Cuts LGBTQ-Specific Care From Suicide Hotline Mumia Abu-Jamal on Trump's America: 'All Is Not Well in Babylon' Trump 'Doesn't Speak With Precision,' Justice Department Tells Judge Best of Rolling Stone The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Health
- Yahoo
L.A. Press Conference Re: SCOTUS Transgender/Skrmetti Ruling - TODAY 12:30 pm
FLUX & The Connie Norman Transgender Empowerment Center (CONOTEC) join Lambda Legal, GJLA, & LA LGBT Center in Statement re: the Supreme Court Decision in U.S. v. Skrmetti June 18, 2025--(BUSINESS WIRE)--FLUX: WHEN: TODAY – Wednesday, June 18th, 2025, 12:30pm PDT – The Connie Norman Transgender Empowerment Center 1001 N Martel, LA CA 90046 WHAT: FLUX & The Connie Norman Transgender Empowerment Center's Leadership, together with Lambda Legal and Gender Justice LA collectively denounce the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Skrmetti, a landmark case challenging Tennessee's categorical ban on lifesaving, gender-affirming hormonal therapies for transgender youth to stand. WHY: This will allow other states to follow suit, denying lifesaving care and the rights of parents to choose medically necessary care for their children, and scares Medical Providers in states that do allow gender-affirming care to preemptively end services, for fear of Federal mandates as Children's Hospital LA has recently done. CONTEXT: Tennessee's SB1 law bans gender-affirming hormone treatments for transgender youth, discriminating based on sex and transgender status. For decades, courts have recognized that laws discriminating on these grounds require heightened scrutiny—a rigorous legal standard ensuring fairness and equality. This case tested whether such bans respect the constitutional rights guaranteed under the Equal Protection Clause. WHO: Queen Victoria Ortega, Chief Visionary Officer CONOTEC/Int. Pres. FLUXQueen Chela Demuir, COO, CONOTEC/Pres. CEO Unique Woman's CoalitionJennifer C. Pizer, Chief Legal Officer, Lambda LegalShedrick Davis, Western Regional Director, Lambda LegalPeter Renn, Senior Counsel, Lambda LegalAce Anaya, Campaign Coordinator, Gender Justice LAJoe Hollendoner, CEO Los Angeles LGBT CenterLucas Rojas, Researcher CHLA/FLUX Operations Director Please direct all media inquires to Scottie Jeanette Madden - (818) 489-4341 View source version on Contacts MEDIA CONTACT Scottie Jeanette Madden, FLUX International Director of Advocacy(818) Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court upholds Tennessee law restricting gender-affirming care for minors
Washington — The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a Tennessee law that restricts access to gender-affirming care for minors experiencing gender dysphoria, a decision that is likely to have broad implications for access to medical treatments for transgender youth in half of the country. In the case of U.S. v. Skrmetti, high court ruled 6-3 to reject the challenge brought by the Biden administration, three families and a physician who had argued that Tennessee's law violated the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law. The court concluded that the state's measure, which is known as SB1 and was enacted in 2023, does not run afoul of the 14th Amendment. "Our role is not 'to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic' of the law before us, but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. The court's majority found that Tennessee's law is not subject to a heightened level of judicial review and satisfies the most deferential standard, known as rational basis. "We are asked to decide whether SB 1 is subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause," Roberts wrote. "We hold it is not. SB1 does not classify on the bases that warrant heightened review." The three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, were in dissent. Sotomayor read her dissent from the bench. The court, Sotomayor wrote, "obfuscates a sex classification that is plain on the face of this statute, all to avoid the mere possibility that a different court could strike down SB1, or categorical healthcare bans like it." Joined in her dissent by Kagan and Jackson, she continued: "The court's willingness to do so here does irrevocable damage to the Equal Protection Clause and invites legislatures to engage in discrimination by hiding blatant sex classifications in plain sight. It also authorizes, without second thought, untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them." The Tennessee law Tennessee's law prohibits medical treatments like puberty blockers or hormone therapy for transgender adolescents under the age of 18. The state is one of 25 with laws that seek to restrict access to gender-affirming care for young people diagnosed with gender dysphoria. The case, U.S. v. Skrmetti, marked the first in which the Supreme Court stepped into the politically charged debate over health care for transgender youth. In addition to the state prohibitions, President Trump has issued executive orders that address what he calls "gender ideology." One declares that it is the federal government's policy to recognize "two sexes, male and the female," and the second threatens federal funding for medical institutions that offer gender-affirming care to young people under the age of 18. Mr. Trump's proposals are being challenged in the federal courts. Known as SB1, Tennessee's law prevents health care providers from administering puberty blockers or hormone therapy if they're meant to enable "a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor's sex." The state had argued that it has a "compelling interest in encouraging minors to appreciate their sex, particularly as they undergo puberty," and in barring treatments that "might encourage minors to become disdainful of their sex." Shortly before the law took effect, three families with transgender children and a physician who provides the treatments to patients with gender dysphoria challenged the ban in federal court, arguing it is unconstitutional. The Biden administration then intervened in the case. A federal district court blocked the law, finding that it discriminates based on sex and transgender status. A divided panel of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit then reversed that decision and allowed Tennessee's ban to take effect while legal proceedings continued. The appeals court evaluated the law under rational-basis review, the most deferential of the tiers of judicial scrutiny. But the Biden administration and the families had argued Tennessee's ban should be subject to a more stringent level of review, known as heightened scrutiny, because it draws lines based on sex and discriminates based on transgender status. But Tennessee had argued that the state aims to protect young people from the consequences of the medical treatments, which it said are risky and unproven. The state said it was setting age- and use-based limits on medical care and exercising its authority to regulate medicine. Access to gender-affirming care has become a flashpoint in the culture wars, as half of the states have in recent years enacted laws that limit the availability of the medical interventions. Many of those same states have also enacted measures prohibiting transgender athletes from competing in women's sports. The court's decision The Supreme Court's conservative majority found that Tennessee's law classifies on the basis of age and medical use, since treatments like puberty blockers and hormones can be administered to treat certain conditions, but not gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder or gender incongruence. Classifications that turn on age or medical use are subject to only rational-basis review, the least demanding level of judicial review, it said. "Under SB 1, no minor may be administered puberty blockers or hormones to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, or gender incongruence; minors of any sex may be administered puberty blockers or hormones for other purposes," Roberts wrote. The majority said that Tennessee had "plausible reasons" for restricting access to gender-affirming care that brought its inquiry over the law's constitutionality to an end, namely concerns about the health risks. The justices said they wouldn't second-guess the legislature over the lines that the ban draws. "Recent developments only underscore the need for legislative flexibility in this area," Roberts wrote, pointing to a report from England's National Health Service that evaluated the evidence regarding the use of puberty blockers and hormones and characterized it as "remarkably weak." "This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field," he wrote. "The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound. The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best." Roberts concluded that the court's role is only to ensure that the law does not violate the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection. Teen questioned after family's quadruple murder Iranians evacuate capital Tehran, some say the regime is frightened Parents, brother of slain Minnesota lawmaker Melissa Hortman speak about her death
CBS News
10 hours ago
- Health
- CBS News
Supreme Court upholds Tennessee law restricting gender-affirming care for minors
Washington — The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a Tennessee law that restricts access to gender-affirming care for minors experiencing gender dysphoria, clearing the way for the medical treatments for transgender youth to be limited in half of the country. The high court ruled 6-3 in rejecting the challenge from the Biden administration, three families and a physician who had argued that Tennessee's law violated the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law. The court concluded that the state's measure, enacted in 2023, does not run afoul of the 14th Amendment. "Our role is not 'to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic' of the law before us, but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. This is a breaking news story and will be updated.
