Families of trans kids worry about what's next after Supreme Court rules on gender-affirming care

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — A U.S. Supreme Court decision 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 on Wednesday handed President 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 celebrating the court's ruling.
The nonbinary college student from Spring Hill received mastectomy surgery in 2022 at age 17. They said the legislation inspired their advocacy, and they 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.'
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.'
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.
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.'
Erica Barker and her family moved from Jackson, Mississippi, to North Las Vegas, Nevada, a little over two years ago so one of her children could start receiving gender-affirming care.
Barker's transgender daughter, then 12, had been in therapy for three years, and the family agreed it was time for medical treatments.
Mississippi passed a ban on gender-affirming care for minors the next year, which Barker said she saw coming.
Barker said the move was complicated, involving a new job for her husband and two mortgages when their Mississippi home was slow to sell, but it also brought access to care for her daughter, now 14.
'Our hearts are hurting for folks who are not having the same experience,' Barker said.
In another state with a ban on gender-affirming care for minors, Oklahoma resident Erika Dubose said finding care for her 17-year-old nonbinary child, Sydney Gebhardt, involves a four-hour drive to Kansas and getting prescriptions filled in Oregon and mailed to their home.
'I just wish the younger folks wouldn't have to go through this,' Gebhardt said. 'These folks deserve to be focusing on their academics and hanging out with their friends and making memories with their families and planning out a safe and happy future.'
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 but has been sure since the age of 4 that 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.'
Wisconsin doesn't have a gender-affirming care ban, but Moskanos said getting her daughter that care has not been easy. She now worries about what the future holds.
'We are but one election cycle away from disaster for my kid,' she said.
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 gender-affirming care 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.'
Mattise, Mulvihill and Seewer write for the Associated Press. Mulvihill reported from Cherry Hill, N.J., and Seewer reported from Toledo, Ohio. AP journalists Susan Haigh in Hartford, Conn.; Kenya Hunter in Atlanta; Laura Bargfeld in Chicago; Nadia Lathan in Austin, Texas; and Daniel Kozin in Pinecrest, Fla., contributed to this report.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Newsweek

16 minutes ago

• Newsweek

Is Donald Trump Considering Tactical Nukes Against Iran? What We Know

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Trump administration has not taken anything "off the table," including the use of tactical nuclear weapons, if it decides to take military action against the underground Iranian nuclear facility at Fordow, Fox News reported, citing a White House official. It followed a report in The Guardian that the president "is not considering using a tactical nuclear weapon on Fordow." The Pentagon declined comment to Newsweek, instead referring to a statement by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who said on June 16 that he had directed "the deployment of additional capabilities" to the Middle East. "Protecting U.S. forces is our top priority and these developments are intended to enhance our defensive posture in the region," Hegseth said. President Donald Trump speaks to the press in the Oval Office of the White House on June 18, 2025 (left) and a retired U.S. B61 thermonuclear gravity bomb, a type of tactical nuclear weapon still... President Donald Trump speaks to the press in the Oval Office of the White House on June 18, 2025 (left) and a retired U.S. B61 thermonuclear gravity bomb, a type of tactical nuclear weapon still in service, shown in 2021. More BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Jon G. Fuller/GETTY/AP Why It Matters No nuclear weapon has been deployed in war since the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan in 1945, and any use of such weapons against an Iranian facility would be extremely controversial in the U.S. and worldwide. On Thursday, the White House said Trump would decide "within the next two weeks" whether the U.S. will join Israeli military action that began on June 13 against Iranian nuclear sites. Israel claims that Iran is working toward building a nuclear weapon, while Tehran insists its nuclear program is entirely peaceful. What To Know One of Iran's most important nuclear sites is the Fordow nuclear enrichment facility, which is believed to be buried about 80 meters deep into the side of a mountain. Experts have suggested Israel doesn't have any conventional bombs capable of destroying the site, though on Thursday Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that "we have the capability" to "hit all of their nuclear facilities." Unlike Israel, the U.S. possesses 30,000-pound GBU-57s "bunker buster" bombs that are specifically designed to reach targets buried deep beneath the surface and can be deployed by B-2 Spirit heavy bombers. On Wednesday, citing people "familiar with the deliberations," The Guardian reported that Trump "does not appear to be fully convinced" that GBU-57s bombs can reach the Fordow facility. It said the effectiveness of GBU-57s against the Fordow facility was "a topic of deep contention" within the Pentagon, citing two defense officials, with some reportedly believing that only a tactical nuclear weapon could destroy the site. It added that Trump was "not considering" the option and said it hadn't been presented by Hegseth or Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Dan Caine. Tactical nuclear weapons are smaller than strategic nuclear weapons and are designed to be deployed for limited strikes or on the battlefield, rather than against whole cities. The U.S. maintains a large arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons, though none have ever been used in combat. Fox News senior White House correspondent Jacqui Heinrich said she was told by a White House official that The Guardian report was "false." According to Heinrich, the official "has no doubt about the efficacy of bunker busters in eliminating the site at Fordow" adding they also denied "that any options [including tactical nukes] have been taken off the table." Israel has been attacking Iranian military and nuclear sites since June 13. On Thursday, the Washington-based group Human Rights Activists said that at least 639 people had been killed in the attacks, though the figures have not been independently verified. In response, Iran has fired ballistic missiles at Israel, killing 24 civilians, according to Israeli authorities. On Friday the British, French and German foreign ministers were slated to meet their Iranian counterpart in Geneva, Switzerland, in a bid to resolve the conflict. U.K. Foreign Secretary David Lammy said that "a window now exists within the next two weeks to achieve a diplomatic solution." What People Are Saying Fox News senior White House correspondent Jacqui Heinrich: "There have been a lot of headlines this afternoon including one from The Guardian that claims that the U.S. military has doubts about whether the 'bunker-buster' bombs could get the job done, further claiming only a tactical nuke maybe could finish it and it further stated that the president is not considering a tactical nuke, that it was not one of the options presented to him. "I was just told by a top official here that none of that report is true, that none of the options are off the table and the U.S. military is very confident 'bunker busters' could get the job done at Fordow." Fox News host Jesse Watters, on Thursday: "The Guardian reported Trump was getting cold feet worried about the effectiveness of 'bunker busters' and not willing to use tactical nukes. But the White House tells Fox that's not true, everything's on the table, even tactical nukes." Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov, on Friday, referring to possible U.S. tactical nuke deployment, according to Russia's TASS news agency: "This would be a catastrophic there are so many speculations that, in fact, it's impossible to comment on them." What Happens Next It is not yet known whether the U.S. will launch strikes against Iran and, if so, what weaponry it will use. Deploying a tactical nuclear bomb, the first use of a nuclear weapon since World War II, would be a controversial move.

Fox News

17 minutes ago

• Fox News

Foreign policy experts rip Tim Walz's claim that China has 'moral authority' in Middle East conflict

Former vice presidential nominee Gov. Tim Walz, D-Minn., is facing criticism after claiming China could be the voice of "moral authority" in the Israel-Iran conflict. During a "What's Next: Conversations on the Path Forward" event hosted by the Center for American Progress (CAP) last week, Walz responded to a question from former Biden White House advisor, Neera Tanden, about the "escalatory" nature of the strikes between the two countries. "Now, who is the voice in the world that can negotiate some type of agreement in this? Who holds the moral authority? Who holds the ability to do that? Because we are not seen as a neutral actor, and we maybe never were," Walz said of the United States' role in deescalating tensions in the Middle East. As the United States weighs striking Iran and war in the Middle East rages on, Danielle Pletka, a distinguished senior fellow in Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute (AEI), told Fox News Digital that Walz's comments are "ignorance on display." According to Walz, the United States once attempted "to be somewhat of the arbitrator" in the Middle East, but Americans must face the reality that the "neutral actor" with the "moral authority" to lead negotiations in the Middle East "might be the Chinese." Walz didn't elaborate on why China would be that world leader. "It's so staggering to me that Tim Walz was within a heartbeat of the presidency," Pletka said, before adding, "We don't need a neutral player here," and urging him to "stick to local politics." Andy Keiser, senior fellow at the conservative National Security Institute and former senior advisor on the House Intelligence Committee, told Fox News Digital that someone should "remind Governor Walz that China is far from a moral authority on much of anything," and said China is committing "cultural genocide." "The Chinese government has reportedly arbitrarily detained more than a million Muslims in reeducation camps since 2017," according to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). "Most of the people who have been detained are Uyghur, a predominantly Turkic-speaking ethnic group primarily in China's northwestern region of Xinjiang." In addition to the detentions, "Uyghurs in the region have been subjected to intense surveillance, forced labor, and involuntary sterilizations, among other rights abuses," according to the CFR. According to Human Rights Watch, President Xi Jinping has "detained human rights defenders, tightened control over civil society, media, and the internet, and deployed invasive mass surveillance technology" in Xinjiang and Tibet, which the human rights watchdog likened to "crimes against humanity." "I would strongly beg to differ that China has a moral authority on much in the world," Keiser said, and added, "I would not see them as a neutral arbiter here." "Obviously, we are not going to be a neutral broker between a terrorist and a democratic state," Pletka said. "That's just not how it works. You threatened to kill the President of the United States, but we're then meant to think of you in a balanced way with the state of Israel, our most important ally in the Middle East?" Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Fox News' Bret Baier on Monday that President Donald Trump remains a target of the Iranians. "They want to kill him. He's enemy No. 1." "I don't know how anybody could have said what [Walz] said about the role that China plays. The idea that there is some neutral interlocutor in this world, that anybody is an 'honest burger' is nothing other than grad school silliness," Pletka said. Pletka added that "Of course, China can't play that role. China is an authoritarian communist [state] that is supporting Russia in its war on Ukraine, that is threatening Taiwan, that has broken its word over Hong Kong." And she said, "This is not a playground in which you need somebody who can talk to both Bobby and Billy about why it is you don't smack your friends." "The idea that it should be reduced to something where you have an arbiter who sees the arguments on both sides, no. This is a situation where there's a right and a wrong, and there's a winner and a loser. That's how it should be, by the way, because Iran has fashioned itself as an enemy, not just to the state of Israel, but to the United States." Nikki Haley – former U.S. Ambassador to Israel and a 2024 GOP presidential candidate, who sounded off on China's threat to the United States on the campaign trail – was quick to criticize Walz's viral comments last week. "This is absolute insanity. Democrats think that we need the Chinese to be the negotiators between Iran's nuclear production and Israel…God bless Tim Walz. Totally tone deaf," Haley posted on X.

CNN

21 minutes ago

• CNN

Israel has threatened to kill Iran's supreme leader. Here's what could come next

As US President Donald Trump weighs joining Israel's assault on Iran, questions are mounting over whether such an intervention could trigger regime change in Tehran – an outcome that risks splintering the country and sending shockwaves across the region. Home to long-simmering separatist movements that have vied for power and independence, Iran could face internal fragmentation and chaos if its government falls, experts warn. After reportedly rejecting an Israeli plan to kill Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Trump stated this week that Iran's Supreme Leader is an 'easy target.' 'We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding,' Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on Tuesday. 'He is an easy target but is safe there - We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.' Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not ruled out targeting Khamenei either, saying that the death of the Supreme Leader is 'not going to escalate the conflict, it's going to end the conflict.' On Thursday, Defense Minister Israel Katz went further, declaring that Khamenei cannot be allowed to 'continue to exist' after an Iranian missile struck a hospital in Israel. Iran is a nation of more than 90 million people and home one of the world's oldest continuous civilizations. Its borders have remained more or less stable for about 100 years. The Islamic Republic has managed to preserve those frontiers despite a diverse population of ethnic and religious groups, many of whom have sought autonomy at various points. But the comments from Israeli and US officials have prompted speculation over what Iran might look like if Khamenei is killed – with experts warning that the country could face a range of scenarios, including regime collapse or even civil war. The 86-year-old cleric has ruled Iran for more than 35 years as its highest authority, rising to power a decade after the 1979 Islamic Revolution overthrew a US-backed monarch. Over the years, he consolidated power and ruled with an iron grip under strict Islamic law. He crushed wave after wave of protests demanding social freedoms – each with increasing ferocity – and expanded Iran's reach far beyond its borders through a network of proxy militias. With his fate in question, attention is turning to who might succeed him, and how that uncertainty could unleash greater unrest. The Supreme Leader is elected by the 88-member Assembly of Experts for life and doesn't officially name a successor. It is unclear who might replace Khamenei, but that process may take place as separatist groups who have long resented the Islamic Republic seek to take advantage of what they may see as an opportunity. Israel has already killed several of Iran's key military figures, and experts say that the regime is now at its weakest. Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute in Washington, DC, said that regime change would require Israel or the United States having a figure in mind to replace Khamenei and send troops to the country. The figure Israel is likely to favor is Reza Pahlavi, the US-based son of the deposed Iranian monarch who was ousted in 1979. Pahlavi has voiced support for Israel's actions, drawing praise from some in the Iranian diaspora and accusations of betrayal from many others. 'Soon in Tehran,' Israeli Minister of Diaspora Affairs Amichai Chikli posted on X on Friday, along with a picture of himself shaking hands with a smiling Pahlavi. Pahlavi told BBC News on Sunday that Israel's conflict with Iran was an opportunity to bring down the Iranian regime. If the Supreme Leader is killed and the Guardian Council delays naming a successor, the risk of instability could grow, experts say. A possible outcome of Khamenei's potential killing is total regime collapse, Parsi said. 'Regime collapse is just to collapse the state, and let the chaos that ensues fester,' Parsi told CNN. Several scenarios could ensue if the Iranian regime falls, none of which is expected to be to the liking of the US or neighboring states, experts said. Hamed Mousavi, associate professor of International Relations at the University of Tehran, warned that military intervention 'rarely leads to democratization.' 'Look at the experience of Iraq and Afghanistan… Both countries were unstable for many years,' Mousavi told CNN, adding that Iran is 'even more complicated' than those nations. One outcome could be that other elements in the Iranian military assume power. They are unlikely to seek diplomatic routes with Israel or the US, but could take a more hawkish approach that sees possession of a nuclear bomb as the only deterrent to more attacks, Parsi said. Military factions that could take over are 'not going to be the type of regime that the US may have had in mind,' Parsi said. Another possible scenario is descent into chaos, as Iran's multiple ethnic groups vie for power. Iran has a diverse population, including Persians, Azeris, Arabs, Baloch and Kurds. Under Khamenei's decades-long rule, the Islamic Republic largely managed to contain civil and ethnic unrest, despite the mistreatment faced by some groups. Minorities faced discrimination in 'their access to education, employment, adequate housing and political office,' according to Amnesty International last year. 'Continued underinvestment in regions populated by ethnic minorities exacerbated poverty and marginalization,' it said. Azeris make up around 16% of Iran's overall population, according to Minority Rights Group. The Shiite group is the largest and most well-integrated minority in the Islamic Republic but has nonetheless faced inequity. Arabs constitute up to 4 million people, and they have also been subjected to marginalization over the years. A group of tribes speaking the Balochi language, the Baloch people make up nearly 5 million of Iran's population. The predominantly Sunni group extends into neighboring Pakistan and Afghanistan, raising the possibility of separatist conflict spilling over the borders. The 'Army of Justice' organization, a Baloch Sunni militant group, has shown support for Israel's strikes on Iran, saying in a statement: 'It is clear that the current attack is not on Iran, but on the Velayat-e-Faqih (ruling) regime , it is God's will that the ground has been prepared for us, the people of Iran, to make the best use of this vacuum.' Kurds make up some 10% of Iran's population and are mostly settled along the borders with Iraq and Turkey. They have been subject to 'deep-rooted discrimination,' Amnesty said. The Kurdistan Freedom Party, a nationalist and separatist militant group in Iran, published a statement backing Israel's strikes, saying it supports 'the process of destroying Iran's military and security capabilities.' A Kurdish rebellion in Iran would also be a major concern for neighboring Iraq and Turkey, both of which have large Kurdish minorities that have sought independence. Another exiled group that has garnered support from US conservatives is the Mujahadin-e Khalq (MeK), a shadowy dissident group that was once a US-designated terrorist organization but today counts prominent anti-Iran politicians as key allies. Iran accuses it of terrorism, saying it carried out a series of attacks in the 1980s. The MeK denies those charges. It is one of the best-organized opposition groups confronting the Islamic Republic, but it has little support among Iranians, largely due to its violent past and for having supported Iraqi President Saddam Hussein during his almost decade-long war with Iran. If Iran's regime falls, 'there would be support for ethnic separatist groups by the Israelis, and perhaps the US,' Parsi said. This would lead to a situation where remnants of the state are going to be consumed with fighting separatists. Fatemeh Haghighatjoo, executive director of the Nonviolent Initiative for Democracy and a former Iranian lawmaker who opposes the current regime, expressed fears that Iran may descend into civil conflict if the current rule falls. 'I would like to get rid of this regime. I am the opposition,' she told CNN's Becky Anderson. 'My main concern is… I see the signs (of) civil war.'