this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2025
57 points (98.3% liked)

Progressive Politics

3578 readers
284 users here now

Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)

(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
57
Nationwide Trans Youth Care Ban Incoming As Trump Admin Announces "Nuclear Option" Federal Rule (www.erininthemorning.com)
submitted 4 days ago by Armand1@lemmy.world to c/progressivepolitics@lemmy.world
9 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Rather than directly banning Medicaid reimbursement for transgender care, the rule would bar any hospital that accepts Medicaid funding from providing gender-affirming care for trans youth at all, regardless of whether that care is paid for by Medicaid.

The new rule contains no exceptions for patients already receiving care... For many, this would amount to forced medical detransition.

This rule appears to violate multiple U.S. statutes and constitutional limits on federal authority.

The government attempts to get around this by stating that gender affirming care is not part of “the practice of medicine.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AA5B@lemmy.world -5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

First search result says

Criticism of WPATH Organizations critical of "gender-affirming care," such as the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) and Sex Matters, have used the files as evidence of widespread medical malpractice and a failure to meet basic standards of evidence-based medicine. The files have been cited in ongoing debates about legislation and clinical guidelines. The UK's National Health Service (NHS) has indicated that WPATH guidelines will not be used in children's services.

Defense of WPATH Supporters of WPATH and gender-affirming care have downplayed the significance of the leak. Some have described the contents as typical professional discussions where disagreements are expressed, rather than an exposé of malpractice. Others claim the accompanying report contains factual errors and misrepresents the context of the conversations.