Legal action may change transgender care in America

Few issues divide Americans, and their politicians, as much as medical care for children with gender dysphoria. Governors in six Republican states have signed bills that restrict or ban such care, which some see as 'child abuse'. In response, some of these states are being sued, and governors in several Democratic states are putting protections in place for a treatment that they see as 'life-saving'. Do not expect the politicians to try to settle their differences—they have too much to gain from whipping up outrage among their supporters. Instead the serious action is likely to play out in the courts.
On February 22nd a lawsuit was filed that could mark the start of a backlash. Chloe Cole, an 18-year-old who has become a voice for detransitioners in America, is suing Kaiser Permanente, a large American medical provider, for medical negligence. Ms Cole decided at the age of 12 that she was a boy, was put on puberty blockers and testosterone at 13 and underwent a double mastectomy at 15, before changing her mind and detransitioning at 16.
The complaint, filed in California by the Centre for American Liberty, a conservative non-profit that supports Ms Cole, accuses Kaiser of performing a 'mutilating, mimicry sex-change experiment' on a vulnerable girl instead of focusing on her complex mental health. Her lawyer, Harmeet Dhillon, said medical professionals 'permanently disfigured her for profit'. Ms Cole, whose lawyers say she meets the criteria for being on the autism spectrum, says she is particularly concerned about her fertility and about pain and discomfort caused by skin grafts.
Kaiser's broad statement, in response to a request to comment on the allegations, says it 'provides patient centred gender-affirming care that is consistent with the standards of medical care and excellence'. It emphasises that it respects 'the patients and their families' informed decisions about their personal health'. But a crucial part of the claim is that Ms Cole says she and her parents were not informed of alternative, less invasive treatments, such as psychiatric care. According to the complaint, physicians suggested that her gender dysphoria would 'never resolve unless she chemically/surgically transitioned'. Ms Cole told a rally outside the Capitol in September that the clinic presented her case to her parents as a choice between having a suicidal daughter or a trans son.
Proponents of adolescent medical transition say detransitioning is very rare. Opponents point to two recent studies that suggest 20-30% of patients may discontinue hormone treatment within a few years.
So far there has been little litigation from 'detransitioners', people who received care for gender dysphoria but then decided to stop or reverse the treatment. The medical procedures they underwent are relatively new; it can take years for people to change their minds or to start experiencing negative effects. Moreover, many states have short statutes of limitations, says Candice Jackson, a west-coast lawyer. Some state politicians have promised to change those restrictions.
Another complication is that, in contrast to botched surgery, claiming and measuring harm is more difficult when a doctor has provided exactly what was promised. Muddying matters further still is the belief that medical practitioners are shielded from litigation by the fact that they can say they were following their medical bodies' guidelines on gender-affirming care, a little-tested assumption.
Few law firms want to risk being labelled transphobic, being 'cancelled' or losing clients. Ms Jackson co-founded her own firm after she realised how hard it was for detransitioners to find legal representation. There has been little money in this business, at least up to now. And, adds one paediatrician, many detransitioners have a history of mental illness. They may make poor witnesses. But a credible star witness could break the mould. This may turn out to be Ms Cole, whose lawyers claim they have been contacted by others from across America, who are preparing lawsuits on behalf of their detransitioner clients.
Cases such as this will take time to be heard and ruled on; some may be settled behind closed doors. Ms Jackson says she is preparing for an arduous battle, much like the one fought against Big Tobacco. Legal victories for detransitioners could have knock-on consequences, by making insurers come to regard gender-transition treatments as a liability. That would push up the costs of providing the treatment, and make providers more careful about advertising.
Most Americans favour protecting trans people from discrimination, but they sharply disagree on medically transitioning children. Whereas 72% of Republicans believe it should be illegal to provide a minor with medical care for gender transition, just 26% of Democrats agree, according to the Pew Research Centre, a think-tank. Activists who believe such care saves lives have tried to discredit Ms Cole, by focusing on the support she receives from firebrands on the right. But the facts of this case—if they are as claimed—could give at least some of them pause for thought.
First Published: 2 May 2025, 04:10 PM IST

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Hans India

29 minutes ago

• Hans India

American Strikes Hit Iranian Nuclear Sites, Extent of Damage Still Under Review

After the US military struck three Iranian sites, there were urgent questions raised Sunday about what remained of Iran nuclear program and its weakened military. After more than a month of US military strike on Iran, which have systematically destroyed the country's offensive missile capability and air defenses while damaging Iran's nuclear sites, the decision to involve the US directly was made. U.S. officials and Israeli officials said American stealth bombers with a 30,000-pound bunker-buster bomb (13,600 kilograms) they can only carry offer the best chance to destroy heavily fortified Iranian nuclear sites buried deep underground. According to Rafael Grossi, the U.N.'s top nuclear functionary, it's simply not possible right now — indeed for the International Atomic Energy Agency — to determine what kind of damage may have passed below ground at Fordo." Donald Trump announced that the Israeli strikes on Iran had taken place. Iran's IRNA state-run news agency reported the attacks. Tehran has gestured through its Foreign Minister that a balance remains on the table. The B-2 stealth aircraft that destroyed Iran's Fordownuclear site included microwaves, bathrooms, and usually a refrigerator to store snacks. This was to make life easier for the pilots during their 37-hour journey from Missouri to Iran, then back to America. NY POST reports that the fleet of modern American bombers was launched from Whiteman Air Force Base, north of Kansas City, on Friday. The aircraft refueled multiple times during the 18-hour journey around the world. Donald Trump announced that the attacks had taken place. Iran's IRNA state-run news agency reported the attacks. Iran's Foreign Minister said that Iran reserves the right of retaliation. The B- 2 charge targeting Fordow came the most extended operation of its kind since the U.S. launched its first air strikes in Afghanistan after 9/11.

First Post

33 minutes ago

• First Post

Was Donald Trump's decision to bomb Iran unconstitutional?

US President Trump's airstrikes on Iran have raised questions over presidential war powers, with lawmakers across the aisle questioning whether he violated the Constitution by bypassing Congress. While some back the strikes as necessary, others call them illegal, even impeachable read more Demonstrators hold a papier-mache head depicting US President Donald Trump, as they gather to march against the upcoming Nato leaders' summit, at The Hague, Netherlands, June 22, 2025. File Image/Reuters United States President Donald Trump's recent airstrikes targeting Iranian nuclear sites have everyone asking one question: can a US president launch offensive military action without direct approval from Congress? The question has prompted a bipartisan outcry, with lawmakers examining the constitutionality of Trump's decision and the implications for war powers delegated under US law. While some have praised the strikes as strategically necessary, others have called them a dangerous breach of executive authority that potentially defies the US Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Did Trump act without congressional green light? The airstrikes ordered by Trump on June 21 came amid a broader escalation following Israel's bombardment of Iranian nuclear and military infrastructure. Though Trump has consistently voiced reluctance to entangle the US in further conflicts in the region, he defended the decision by saying, 'Iran can't have a nuclear weapon.' Yet the timing and unilateral nature of the strikes have raised concerns across both political aisles. US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed during a press conference that Congress was notified only after the aircraft safely exited Iranian airspace. 'They were notified after the planes were safely out. But we complied with the notification requirements of the War Powers Act,' Hegseth said. That admission did little to ease tensions among lawmakers who viewed the operation as constitutionally questionable. How have lawmakers objected to Trump's move? Some of the most vocal objections came from members of Trump's own party. US Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, a Republican known for his strict constitutionalist views, responded to the strikes by stating bluntly, 'This is not Constitutional.' Days earlier, Massie co-authored a resolution with Democratic Representative Ro Khanna of California aimed at preventing unauthorised military action against Iran. Representative Warren Davidson of Ohio, another Republican typically aligned with Trump, added: 'While President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional.' Both Davidson and Massie put a spotlight on the requirement for congressional authorisation before initiating military hostilities against a foreign nation. On the Democratic side, US Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia reiterated his longstanding commitment to reclaiming Congress's war powers. 'We're going to have the briefing this week. We'll have a vote,' he said on Fox News Sunday. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'I know many Republicans will fall in line and say a president can do whatever he wants. But I hope members of the Senate and the House will take their Article I responsibilities seriously.' Kaine's resolution — privileged under Senate rules — can be fast-tracked to the floor and requires only a simple majority to pass. Other lawmakers have suggested the president's actions may warrant impeachment. US Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York posted on social media: 'The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorisation is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers. He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations.' US Representative Sean Casten of Illinois made similar arguments: 'No president has the authority to bomb another country that does not pose an imminent threat to the US without the approval of Congress. This is an unambiguous impeachable offense.' Casten called on Speaker Mike Johnson to protect Congress's constitutional responsibilities: 'Grow a spine.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD US Senator Bernie Sanders, speaking during a campaign event in Tulsa, called the strikes 'grossly unconstitutional' and stated, 'The only entity that can take this country to war is the US Congress. The president does not have the right.' House Minority Whip Katherine Clark stated that the power to declare war 'resides solely with Congress,' calling Trump's actions 'unauthorised and unconstitutional.' House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries expressed concern that Trump 'failed to seek congressional authorisation' and warned that the move could entangle the US in a potentially 'disastrous war.' Despite the criticism, Trump also received support from some lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. US Speaker Mike Johnson said, 'The President fully respects the Article I power of Congress, and tonight's necessary, limited, and targeted strike follows the history and tradition of similar military actions under presidents of both parties.' Senate Majority Leader John Thune also backed the president's decision, signalling a likelihood of Republican congressional support. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Some Democrats also refrained from raising legal objections. Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland and Representative Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey supported the strikes without questioning their constitutionality. US Senator John Fetterman offered full endorsement of the military action, stating: 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities. I'm grateful for and salute the finest military in the world.' Are Trump's strikes on Iran constitutional? At the centre of the dispute lies the US Constitution. Article I gives Congress the authority to declare war, while Article II names the president as Commander-in-Chief. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was introduced to clarify this balance after repeated US military interventions without formal war declarations, most notably in Vietnam and Cambodia. The War Powers Act mandates that the president notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying US armed forces and limits unauthorised deployments to 60 or 90 days without further congressional approval. It also requires consultation with Congress 'in every possible instance' before initiating hostilities. Yet the law has often been sidestepped. Presidents have used various justifications — emergency threats, existing authorisations or interpretations of commander-in-chief powers — to engage militarily without a formal declaration of war. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Since World War II, the US has engaged in multiple conflicts — from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan — without official war declarations. One major legal instrument enabling military operations without congressional votes is the Authorisation for Use of Military Force (AUMF). Passed in 2001 and 2002 for operations related to terrorism and Iraq, these authorisations have since been invoked for unrelated operations. For instance, Trump relied on the 2003 AUMF to justify the 2020 killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani. How is this legislation often side-stepped? In response to Trump's recent actions, several new legislative measures have been introduced. Kaine's resolution aims to reassert Congress's authority before further military engagement with Iran. Massie and Khanna filed a joint measure in the House based on the War Powers Act to block 'unauthorised hostilities.' Sanders introduced the No War Against Iran Act to prohibit federal funds from being used for any military force against Iran. The ongoing conflict between the legislative and executive branches over war-making powers has been a hallmark of US history. The US Supreme Court last addressed the issue in 1861 during the Civil War, when it ruled that US President Lincoln's naval blockade of southern ports was constitutional in the absence of a war declaration because the executive 'may repel sudden attacks.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Still, critics argue that the War Powers Resolution lacks real enforcement mechanisms. Resolutions to end unauthorised hostilities are often subject to presidential vetoes, which require a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override. While the law provides a framework for transparency and reporting — over 100 such notifications have been sent to Congress since 1973 — it remains a contested tool. US Representative Ro Khanna said during an appearance on MSNBC: 'This is the first true crack in the MAGA base.' With inputs from agencies

The Hindu

34 minutes ago

• The Hindu

Iran-Israel conflict: Congress asks government to show moral courage, slams it for not condemning U.S. bombing

U.S. President Donald Trump's decision to unleash American air power on Iran makes a "mockery" of his own calls for the continuation of talks with Iran, the Congress said on Monday (June 23, 2025) and slammed the Modi government for neither criticising nor condemning the U.S. bombing and Israel's aggression. The opposition party reiterated the absolute essentiality of immediate diplomacy and dialogue with Iran. Congress general secretary in-charge of communications Jairam Ramesh said President Trump's decision to unleash U.S. air power on Iran makes a "mockery" of his own calls for the continuation of talks with Iran. "The Indian National Congress reiterates the absolute essentiality of immediate diplomacy and dialogue with Iran. The Government of India must demonstrate greater moral courage than it has so far," he said. "The Modi Government has unequivocally neither criticised nor condemned the US bombing and Israel's aggression, bombings and targeted assassinations," Mr. Ramesh said on X. "It has also maintained a deafening silence on the genocide being perpetrated on the Palestianians in Gaza," he added. His remarks come after the U.S. bombed three major nuclear sites — Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan — in Iran, bringing itself into the Israel-Iran conflict. Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Sunday (June 22, 2025) conveyed to Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian India's "deep concern" over Iran's conflict with Israel and called for immediate de-escalation of the situation through "dialogue and diplomacy". The U.S. attack on the Iranian nuclear facilities has triggered fears of a wider regional conflict, with many leading countries and blocs calling for restraint. On Saturday (June 21, 2025), before the US bombing, Congress Parliamentary Party chairperson Sonia Gandhi had strongly criticised India's silence on Israel's devastation in Gaza and Iran as "not just a loss of its voice, but also a surrender of values". In an article published in The Hindu - "It is still not too late for India's voice to be heard", she had accused the Modi government of abandoning India's long-standing and principled commitment to a peaceful two-nation solution envisioning an independent Palestine along with Israel. Gandhi, in the article, had also been critical of US President Trump for following a "destructive path" in West Asia, after having spoken against America's endless wars.