California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom was unable to definitively provide an answer when he was asked if a child who is eight years old is too young to undergo irreversible transgender procedures.
Newsom, who appears to be ramping up his 2028 presidential campaign efforts, joined podcast host Shawn Ryan this week and was asked point-blank about his personal views on so-called &#8220;gender-affirming care.&#8221;
“What about for your values, is eight years old too young?&#8221; Ryan asked Newsom. 
&#8220;Yeah, I mean look, now that I have a 9-year-old — just became nine. Come on, man, I get it,&#8221; Newsom said. &#8220;So those are legit — it&#8217;s interesting, the issue of age, I haven&#8217;t &#8230; As someone that&#8217;s been so focused on equality, broadly — LGBT rights, particularly, though, gay marriage. The trans issue for me is also novel — it&#8217;s over the last few years, I&#8217;m trying to understand as much as anyone else. The whole pronoun thing, trying to understand all of that. That was like — all that stuff, I get it. All this stuff started to collapse on us.&#8221;
&#8220;On the issue of children, this is a tough, tough issue,&#8221; the governor added.
Newsom later said that he&#8217;s coming to this issue &#8220;more open-minded than I&#8217;ve ever been,&#8221; but also suggested he didn&#8217;t take it seriously early on because conservatives, whom he &#8220;didn&#8217;t respect,&#8221; opposed it.
&#8220;A lot of the pushback came from folks, candidly, that I didn&#8217;t respect, that never respected the gay community, period,&#8221; Newsom said. &#8220;They were people who were opposed to just basic rights, &#8230; so I think that my next inclination was to dismiss, and now I recognize more fully and deeply. And I think the sports issue really opened that door for me.&#8221;
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Ryan: Is 8 years old too young for a sex change?
Newsom: Yeah&#8230; Now that I have a 9-year-old, come on man, I get it. <a href="https://t.co/aCSFvwrg9V">pic.twitter.com/aCSFvwrg9V</a>
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) <a href="https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1944858509679472709?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 14, 2025</a></blockquote>
Notably, Newsom made California the first “<a href="https://www.kqed.org/news/11929233/california-becomes-first-sanctuary-state-for-transgender-youth-seeking-medical-care">sanctuary state</a>” for transgender-identifying minors seeking these life-altering surgeries. The state also has policies that allow teachers to shield parents from knowing about their child&#8217;s &#8220;gender transition.&#8221; 
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/not-anti-gun-at-all-newsoms-latest-attempt-to-disguise-his-rampant-leftism?author=Hank+Berrien&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=‘Not+Anti-Gun+At+All’%3A+Newsom’s+Latest+Attempt+To+Disguise+His+Rampant+Leftism">‘Not Anti-Gun At All’: Newsom’s Latest Attempt To Disguise His Rampant Leftism</a>

Gavin Newsom

Gavin Newsom Can’t Say Whether Eight Is Too Young To ‘Transition’ Genders

Newsom Asked If 8 Years Old Is Too Young To ‘Transition.’ He Can’t Answer. 

California

Elections

minors

Politics

Transgender

Transgender Athletes

transgender surgery

Transgenders

Women's sports

Stephen Ireland, who has repeatedly attacked J.K. Rowling online for her pro-woman and anti-trans stances, was sentenced to 30 years in prison on Monday for raping a 12-year-old boy.
Ireland co-founded the pro-LGBT UK-based group Surrey Pride in 2018, and since then, has used his position to lash out at the “Harry Potter” author, labeling her a TERF (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist) for advocating that women must be protected from biological men taking over their spaces.
“How to ruin a legacy… Become a TERF!” he <a href="https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2025/06/30/pride-founder-who-repeatedly-attacked-jk-rowling-online-gets-30-years-for-rape-n3804344">wrote</a> in a 2020 X post shared by J.K. Rowling on Monday. “Very disappointing JK!”
Another post from 2020 read, “The sorting hat has decided… @JK_Rowling ‘House of TERF.’”
Ireland, 41, raped the child at a flat in Addlestone, a town about 18 miles from London, after messaging him on Grindr, a dating app for gay men. The victim told police they had sex in the flat, smoked methamphetamine, and watched pornography, <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2kkrxdpndo">according</a> to the BBC.
The child initially lied to Ireland about his age, saying he was 17 before later claiming he was 13.
“OK &#8211; we just have to keep it a secret,” Ireland said when the child told him this, and later asked if he would do it again with his flatmate, David Sutton, who was a Surrey Pride volunteer.
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=freedom&amp;utm_content=freedomeditorial&amp;_gl=1*r8odly*_gcl_au*MTQ5MDUzNjQ0NC4xNzQ1ODQ0MzMyLjEwNDAyMzM0NDQuMTc0NzY1MzIxNy4xNzQ3NjUzMjE3*_ga*MTM1OTk4Njg2NS4xNzA2NzE2NTAy*_ga_CZKR9ZYKJP*czE3NTEyOTIzMDQkbzMyJGcxJHQxNzUxMjkyOTI5JGo1NyRsMCRoMA.." target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=freedom&amp;utm_content=freedomeditorial" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-75638">JULY 4 SALE: Get Six Months Of DW+ Free</a>
Ireland and Sutton were both found guilty of a string of sexual crimes against children, including voyeurism, arranging commission of a child sex offense, and &#8220;possession and distribution of prohibited images of children.&#8221;
On Monday, Judge Patricia Lees said that Ireland “took advantage” of the 12-year-old boy.
“Far from finding that repugnant, you found that exciting, and sought to do it again,” she said. 
Ireland was sentenced to 24 years for the rape, as well as a further 6 years on &#8220;extended license,&#8221; often part of an extended sentence for offenders deemed a significant risk to the public. Sutton was sentenced to four-and-a-half years for making inappropriate images of children and the possession of an extreme pornographic image.
After enduring much online abuse from Ireland, Rowling weighed in on the sentencing in an X post.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Stephen Ireland, who targeted me with endless abuse on here because I oppose the chemical castration of children and the removal of protected spaces for women and girls, has just been sentenced to 30 years in jail for child rape. <a href="https://t.co/0HHctRocB4">pic.twitter.com/0HHctRocB4</a>
— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) <a href="https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1939783256620298492?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 30, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
“Stephen Ireland, who targeted me with endless abuse on here because I oppose the chemical castration of children and the removal of protected spaces for women and girls, has just been sentenced to 30 years in jail for child rape,” she wrote.

“Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes Of Grindelwald” UK Premiere – Red Carpet Arrivals

Pride Group Founder Who Vilified J.K. Rowling For Defending Women Convicted Of Child Rape

Crime

JK Rowling

Rape

United Kingdom

World

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Friday to uphold a Texas law requiring users to verify their age before accessing pornography, handing a defeat to a trade organization for the porn industry.
The case, Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, focused on a requirement for users to demonstrate that they are 18 years old or older to access pornographic websites. The law prompted PornHub to <a href="https://versustexas.com/blog/age-verification-law-texas/">suspend access</a> for all Texas users while claiming that the legislation infringed on free speech.
The ruling affirms a lower court&#8217;s decision against a trade group working on behalf of the pornography industry.
“Age-verification laws … fall within States’ authority to shield children from sexually explicit content. The First Amendment leaves undisturbed States’ traditional power to prevent minors from accessing speech that is obscene from their perspective,” Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1122_3e04.pdf">wrote</a>. “That power necessarily includes the power to require proof of age before an individual can access such speech.”
“The power to verify age is a necessary component of the power to prevent children’s access to content that is obscene from their perspective,” Thomas went on to note, adding that the legislation “falls within Texas’s traditional power to protect minors from speech that is obscene from their perspective.”
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan dissented, alongside Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
“For adults cannot be limited to ‘only what is fit for children,’” Kagan wrote in the dissenting opinion. “Their right to view ‘[s]exual expression,’ outside the traditional obscenity category, is ‘protected by the First Amendment,’” she went on to say before charging that Texas’ law “impedes the exercise of that right.”
“It imposes what our First Amendment decisions often call a ‘chilling effect,’” Kagan said of the law.
The Supreme Court’s ruling could clear the way for other states to impose age restrictions on pornographic websites, with 18 states already passing <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/06/27/supreme-court-decision-porn-website-age-verification-texas/84379183007/">similar legislation</a>.

Supreme Court Justices

Supreme Court Upholds Texas Law Requiring Age Verification To Shield Kids From Pornography

Courts

Pornography

SCOTUS

Supreme Court

Texas

U.S.

The Supreme Court upholds Tennessee’s ban on transgender medical procedures for minors. The 6–3 decision is a landmark victory for parents and conservatives, and a defining blow to transgender activism. The United States continues to fortify the Middle East as Trump ramps up the pressure on Iran to surrender. And, as Trump escalates deportation plans, Democrats make headlines by getting themselves arrested.
It’s Thursday, June 19, and this is the news you need to know to start your day.
Morning Wire is available on video! You can watch today’s episode here:
 
<iframe loading="lazy" title="SCOTUS Upholds Trans Treatment Ban &amp; Iran Strike Looms?" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9OtOZrUF2Wc?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
If you’d rather listen to your news, today’s edition of the Morning Wire podcast can be heard below:
&nbsp;
<iframe style="width: 100%; max-width: 660px; overflow: hidden; border-radius: 10px;" src="https://embed.podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/scotus-upholds-trans-treatment-ban-iran-strike-looms-6-19-25/id1576594336?i=1000713542242" height="175" frameborder="0" sandbox="allow-forms allow-popups allow-same-origin allow-scripts allow-storage-access-by-user-activation allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation"></iframe>
&nbsp;
<h2>SCOTUS Upholds Gender-Mutilation Ban</h2>
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-936581" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/SEGMENT-HEADERS.00_00_21_19.Still001-7.jpeg" alt="" width="640" height="360" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/SEGMENT-HEADERS.00_00_21_19.Still001-7.jpeg 640w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/SEGMENT-HEADERS.00_00_21_19.Still001-7-300x169.jpeg 300w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 640px) 100vw, 640px" /></div>
Topline: In a major win for conservative activists and parent groups, the Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a Tennessee law banning transgender drugs and surgeries for children.
In the case of United States v. Skrmetti — the justices decided that Tennessee’s law does not violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The plaintiffs in the case — which included trans-identifying teens and their families — claimed that Tennessee’s law banning puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries for minors discriminated against them on the basis of sex. More than 20 states have bans similar to Tennessee’s.
Chief Justice John Roberts penned the court’s <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-477_2cp3.pdf">opinion</a> and rejected the plaintiffs’ argument. He also said the plaintiffs “contort the meaning of the term ‘medical treatment,&#8217;” writing, “Notably absent from their framing is a key aspect of any medical treatment: the underlying medical concern the treatment is intended to address.”
“The main argument from the other side when we did the oral argument in front of the court was if you have a boy who wants testosterone to resolve a developmental defect, then they can get it,”  Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti told The Daily Wire. “But a girl who wants testosterone to deepen her voice can&#8217;t. The dissenting justices thought that this was some sort of discrimination. But with any medical treatment, you&#8217;re not just handing someone a drug, you&#8217;re giving them a treatment to treat a specific condition. And different drugs have different effects on different conditions. And we differentiate between those purposes all the time. So I thought that was a fatal flaw in the argument on the other side.”
Roberts noted that the number of minors requesting “sex transition treatments” has increased in recent years, and meanwhile, European countries have cracked down on these procedures and drugs. Medical skepticism around these drugs and procedures is only growing – last month, the <a href="https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/gender-dysphoria-report-release.html">HHS</a> released a review saying the “science and evidence do not support” the use of these drugs and procedures for children.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion in which he said, “there is no medical consensus on how best to treat gender dysphoria in children,” and “recent revelations suggest that leading voices in this area have relied on questionable evidence, and have allowed ideology to influence their medical guidance.”
Meanwhile, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissent joined by the two other liberal-leaning justices, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Sotomayor claimed that teens needing transgender drugs “can be a question of life or death.” Advocates of these drugs and surgeries have <a href="https://www.heritage.org/gender/report/puberty-blockers-cross-sex-hormones-and-youth-suicide">pushed</a> a similar line to parents of trans-identifying children for years, even as newer evidence has shown that these treatments do not improve children’s mental health.
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
<h2>Iran Says It Will &#8216;Never Surrender&#8217; While Trump Teases Possible Strikes</h2>
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-936585" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/SEGMENT-HEADERS.00_01_21_16.Still002-2.jpeg" alt="" width="640" height="360" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/SEGMENT-HEADERS.00_01_21_16.Still002-2.jpeg 640w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/SEGMENT-HEADERS.00_01_21_16.Still002-2-300x169.jpeg 300w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 640px) 100vw, 640px" /></div>
Topline:  As the war between Israel and Iran approaches its seventh day, the Ayatollah says his country will never surrender.
On Wednesday, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei let the world know he would never agree to President Donald Trump’s demand for an unconditional surrender. In a video statement, Iran’s theocratic leader said, “Those with wisdom who know Iran, its people and its history, never speak to this nation in the language of threats, because the Iranian nation will not surrender…The United States must know that our people will not surrender, and any military intervention by them will lead to irreparable consequences.” 
That video came a day after President Trump threatened to strike the Ayatollah, and as Israel continues to hammer Iranian nuclear and military facilities. To date, the Israelis have killed 11 of Iran’s 12 highest-ranking military leaders.
The expectation from military experts is that if Trump joins Israel’s offensive, the Iranians would respond by launching missiles at American military installations across the Middle East, particularly those in Iraq, Syria, and Kuwait, which are just across the border. 
“I may do it, I may not do it,” Trump <a href="https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/1935338837695189018">said</a> at the White House on Wednesday. “Nobody knows what I’m gonna do. I can tell you this, that Iran’s got a lot of trouble. And they wanna negotiate. And I said, &#8216;Why didn’t you negotiate with me before all this death and destruction?'&#8221;
The president also made it clear that whatever course he takes, he intends to avoid a protracted war and is solely focused on preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. In the latest <a href="https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration_second_term/57_favor_u_s_military_action_against_iran_s_nukes">Rasmussen polling</a>, 57% of Americans support American strikes to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, compared to just 30% who oppose them. But 69% of Americans say that even if they support airstrikes against Iran, they prefer the two sides negotiate an agreement.
&nbsp;
<h2>Immigration Pushback Continues As Trump Admin Sticks To Its Guns</h2>
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-936587" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/SEGMENT-HEADERS.00_02_17_10.Still003.jpeg" alt="" width="640" height="360" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/SEGMENT-HEADERS.00_02_17_10.Still003.jpeg 640w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/SEGMENT-HEADERS.00_02_17_10.Still003-300x169.jpeg 300w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 640px) 100vw, 640px" /></div>
Topline:  Blue cities are in rebellion against Trump’s immigration agenda. Protests and riots threaten immigration officers, while Democratic officials openly challenge the federal government.
Most of the pushback against immigration enforcement is in major cities such as Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York. The resistance involves everything from activist coordination to impeding ICE operations and local officials getting in between ICE and local law enforcement. 
Chicago has suspended an online portal for illegal aliens to apply for IDs. The CityKeys program was shut down after ICE subpoenaed its records. The Chicago city clerk then shut it down and told the <a href="https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/06/14/ice-subpoena-chicago-city-clerk-online-municipal-id/">Chicago Tribune,</a> “We’re going to fight giving over any data to the federal government.” Democratic Mayor Brandon Johnson has been adamant that Chicago would “take to the streets” if it had to resist Trump. 
Comments like that haven’t stopped Trump from targeting these cities.
“Biden allowed 21 million people to come into our country,” Trump <a href="https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/1934638998640537748">said</a> earlier this week. “Vast numbers of those people were murderers, killers, people from gangs, people from jails. They emptied their jails out into the US. Most of those people are in the cities, all blue cities, all Democrat-run cities, and they think they&#8217;re going to use them to vote. It&#8217;s not going to happen.” 
Local law enforcement is also cracking down on anti-ICE riots  – a bevy of new charges were announced Tuesday from state and federal officials. U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli and Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman outlined dozens of counts from curfew violations to assault of law enforcement. Hochman said that his district attorney’s office has charged at least 30 people. The U.S. attorney has brought an additional 20 counts. 
Lawmakers on both sides have condemned violence, but Democrats also seem to court their own run-ins with law enforcement. Earlier this month, New Jersey Congresswoman LaMonica McIver was charged after chaos erupted at an ICE detention center in Newark. More recently, New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, who is a candidate for mayor, was arrested outside an immigration court on Tuesday. Police say he was impeding law enforcement. Then last week, Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA) had to be forcefully removed from a Homeland Security press conference in Los Angeles.

MRN 6.19.25 Thumbnail_V1

Morning Brief: SCOTUS Makes Trans Ruling, Iran Talks Tough, And Dems On Thin ICE

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

Brandon Johnson

Chicago

Children

Donald Trump

Illinois

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

Iran

Israel

Los Angeles County

Media

Morning Wire

New York

New York City

Riots

Tennessee

Top Tennessee lawmakers and officials celebrated Wednesday after the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to uphold a law that bans transgender procedures on children in the Volunteer State, saying that it was a major victory for &#8220;common sense.&#8221;
In their ruling, the justices said that the law, which prohibits doctors from performing both surgical and hormonal procedures on minors, does not violate the 14th Amendment. Republican Governor Bill Lee signed it in March 2023.
&#8220;In today&#8217;s historic Supreme Court win, the common sense of Tennessee voters prevailed over judicial activism,&#8221; <a href="https://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/news/2025/6/18/pr25-37.html">said</a> Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti. &#8220;A bipartisan supermajority of Tennessee&#8217;s elected representatives carefully considered the evidence and voted to protect kids from irreversible decisions they cannot yet fully understand.&#8221;
&#8220;I commend the Tennessee legislature and Governor Lee for their courage in passing this legislation and supporting our litigation despite withering opposition from the Biden administration, LGBT special interest groups, social justice activists, the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, and even Hollywood,&#8221; Skrmetti added. 
The two Republican authors of the legislation, Senator Jack Johnson and Representative William Lamberth, also celebrated the decision, which was offered by Chief Justice John Roberts.
“Today marks a significant milestone for the children of Tennessee and for all children across the nation,” Johnson <a href="https://x.com/SenJohnson/status/1935344745188049033" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>. “This ruling sends a strong message to the country that states have a clear right and path forward to protect children from irreversible body mutilation.”
Lamberth said the decision upheld the will of Tennesseans and aligned with most Americans&#8217; beliefs.
&#8220;For too long, the Left labeled these harmful drugs and barbaric procedures as ‘gender-affirming care,’ refusing to acknowledge they are unproven, irreversible and come with life-altering disfigurement. From the beginning, this law was about protecting vulnerable young people unable to provide informed consent to advice rooted in lies and radical ideology,&#8221; he said. 
U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) <a href="https://x.com/MarshaBlackburn/status/1935356196921475137" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> the decision was &#8220;fantastic news,&#8221; adding that &#8220;protecting children from mutilation is common sense.&#8221;
The passage of Tennessee&#8217;s law came after Daily Wire host Matt Walsh published an investigation into the Pediatric Transgender Clinic at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, showing it had removed the breasts of girls who identified as boys and prescribed cross-sex hormones to gender-confused children. Other parts of the investigation revealed that a doctor affiliated with the adult clinic boasted about how transgender procedures bring in a lot of money.
Walsh said Wednesday that the Supreme Court&#8217;s decision was a &#8220;fatal blow to the child mutilation industry.&#8221;
&#8220;Three years ago, we launched our investigation into Vanderbilt’s child mutilation practices,&#8221; he <a href="https://x.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1935345883769430153" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>. &#8220;We rallied in the state capital. Our lawmakers responded with a law banning child mutilation in the state. Today the Supreme Court upheld our law, which means child mutilation can be banned anywhere and everywhere in the country. And should be. 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.&#8221;
Top Trump administration officials also welcomed the decision from the court.
&#8220;I applaud today’s Supreme Court decision that allows states to protect vulnerable children from genital mutilation and other so-called &#8216;gender-affirming care&#8217; that leaves children permanently disfigured and scarred,&#8221; <a href="https://x.com/AGPamBondi/status/1935362210638729531" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> Attorney General Pam Bondi. &#8220;This Department of Justice will continue its fight to protect America’s children and parental rights. I encourage other states to follow Tennessee’s lead and enact similar legislation to protect our kids.&#8221;
Earlier this year, the Justice Department moved to drop the federal government&#8217;s opposition to Tennessee&#8217;s law, reversing course from the Biden administration.
&#8220;The Supreme Court today rightly upheld a Tennessee state law to protect children from irreversible harm,” Secretary of Education Linda McMahon <a href="https://x.com/EDSecMcMahon/status/1935347078546219267" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>. “Great news as the Department of Education recognizes Title IX Month.”

Supreme Court Considers Tennessee’s Ban On Treatments For Transgender Minors

‘Fatal Blow To The Child Mutilation Industry’: Conservatives Cheer SCOTUS Decision On Trans Ban

On December 4, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in the case for Tennessee Senate Bill 1. Today, the highest court in the land has spoken — and it got it right.
In a decision that will now set precedent throughout the entire country, the Supreme Court has upheld Tennessee’s right to protect our children from irreversible and unproven medical procedures under the guise of “gender-affirming care.” This is not just a victory for Tennessee, but for every state in the country seeking to preserve its duty to protect minors.
In today’s political climate, it’s more clear than ever that the Left has resisted so much that they now champion the mutilation of children. In their America, biology and truth are optional and children are subject to permanent, life-changing procedures.
Back in 2023 after Matt Walsh and the team at the Daily Wire uncovered disturbing details about so-called “gender affirming” care in our state, we said enough is enough. Now, two years later, that law was just affirmed by the United States Supreme Court.
To allow children – who cannot vote, get a tattoo, or enlist in the military – to permanently alter their bodies in the name of &#8220;affirming them” is not compassion, it’s exploitation.
As a State Senator, I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and protect Tennesseans – that’s why my colleagues and I passed this legislation. With this historic ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States – with Tennessee right by their side – took a stand and made a bold statement: our country will not stand by while children are preyed upon for profit.
Tennessee has become a haven for families fleeing the Left-wing chaos in blue states. Families are moving here seeking common sense and stability that frankly does not exist anymore in areas of our country. With this Supreme Court ruling, Tennessee continues leading the nation and solidifying itself as a state with a backbone and the interest of children in mind.
This ruling is more than a legal win; it’s the start of a cultural shift in our country. The Supreme Court has decided that states can make decisions for the people through their duly elected representatives – especially on matters as serious as the health of our children.
A day like today wouldn’t be possible without the remarkable dedication and fight from our outstanding Attorney General, Jonathan Skrmetti. His conviction and commitment to the rule of law are why we are celebrating this milestone. While some Attorneys General chase headlines, General Skrmetti chases justice.
President Trump’s recent executive orders — protecting women’s sports and restoring a biologically based definition of sex across federal agencies — are major victories for conservatives and for common sense. Today’s Supreme Court decision is another powerful affirmation of truth and actual leadership. I’m deeply encouraged by President Trump’s bold stand on this issue and pray his administration continues to lead with courage and conviction.
This historic decision gives new found hope and strength to every state bold enough to push back on these policies that prioritize money over children’s safety. The Supreme Court has only affirmed what we know all along: Senate Bill 1 is lawful, necessary, and is now the law of the land. This is only the beginning, Tennessee.
***
Jack Johnson represents Senate District 27 which consists of Williamson County. Jack Johnson serves as the Tennessee Senate Majority Leader.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

SCOTUS Says Tennessee Can Protect Kids From Trans Procedures. Other States Should Follow Our Lead.

gender-affirming care

Hospitals

Matt Walsh

Puberty blockers

Skrmetti

The following is an edited transcript of an interview between Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief John Bickley and The Heritage Foundation’s Sarah Parshall Perry on a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/morning-wire/high-court-weighs-tennessee-s-transgender-law-12-8-24" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Sunday Extra edition of Morning Wire.</a>
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday on what’s being called the marquee case of this term. In United States V. Skrmetti, three trans identifying teens, a Memphis physician and the Biden administration challenged a Tennessee state law that aims to protect children by banning puberty blockers and hormone therapy for the purpose of attempting to change a child’s gender.
* * *
JOHN: Joining us to break down this week’s oral arguments in United States V. Skrmetti and the broader implications is Sarah Parshall Perry, senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Sarah, thanks for coming on – always good to talk to you.
SARAH: Thank you for having me.
JOHN: So, this week we had the oral arguments for this landmark case. Now, we here at the Daily Wire have followed this case closely, in part because of the role <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/morning-wire/high-court-weighs-tennessee-s-transgender-law-12-8-24" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Sunday Extra edition of Morning Wire.</a> in this. His investigation into Vanderbilt helped prompt the law that this center’s on. First, can you walk us through how we got to the Supreme Court hearing?
SARAH: Yes. This actually came from a parental rights challenge. Three parents of transgender minors brought this challenge against SB1, which was a law that was enacted with bipartisan support in the state of Tennessee, saying that not only did it interfere with their rights to achieve this particular very controversial and experimental medical care for their children, but it was also a sex discriminatory law, and that would make it illegal, unconstitutional, under the Equal Protection Clause. Well, both the Federal Trial Court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals found for Tennessee, basically determining that the state of Tennessee had satisfied the constitutional bar, and it had every interest in protecting minors from unproven sexism, scientifically sketchy procedures, and that this was well within their police power as the state. Well, by the time it got to the Sixth Circuit, the United States had filed a motion to intervene. It can do so when a state law challenging an equal protection clause violation is at issue. That&#8217;s what they did here. And so by the time it got to the Supreme Court, it only granted review of the United States&#8217;s claim and not the parental rights claim. So what we heard was oral arguments specifically dedicated to whether or not this was sex discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause.
JOHN: So, let&#8217;s unpack that a bit more. What is the argument for this being sex discrimination and the argument against it? 
SARAH: Well, Elizabeth Prelogar, the U.S. Solicitor General for the United States, argues for the Biden administration that because the law makes a distinction on boys who are identified as boys at birth who want to get testosterone, but will not allow girls who are identified as boys who want as male at birth – being transgender, of course – they cannot get access to testosterone, that that&#8217;s a facially discriminatory characteristic. But what the law actually does, and the state legislators were very careful to engage in this type of analysis, is to simply restrict for both males and females any access to the drugs determined by their age alone – which the Supreme Court has never held to be a class requiring elevated scrutiny — and also based on the use to which the drugs would be put. So restricted only based on use and age, nothing more, and treated men and women equally under the law.
<iframe style="width: 100%; max-width: 660px; overflow: hidden; border-radius: 10px;" src="https://embed.podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/high-court-weighs-tennessees-transgender-law-12-8-24/id1576594336?i=1000679633865" height="175" frameborder="0" sandbox="allow-forms allow-popups allow-same-origin allow-scripts allow-storage-access-by-user-activation allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation"></iframe>
JOHN: And to be clear, what is barred here is to use these controversial procedures, these hormone treatments, these puberty blockers, in order to attempt to change the gender or sex of a minor, correct?
SARAH: That&#8217;s exactly it. In fact, there is no restriction on the use of these puberty blockers for endocrine disorders like precocious puberty, which obviously indicates that those are appropriate medical uses. And of course, the state of Tennessee restricts the use of other drugs for particular purposes as well. It wants to make sure that the dangers of “off-label use” — And that&#8217;s exactly what&#8217;s involved here. This is off-label use of unproven drugs for gender dysphoria. They want to make sure that that use is restricted, and they&#8217;re constitutionally permitted to do that.
JOHN: For those who aren&#8217;t familiar with that term, “off-label” – which is actually crucial in this case – what does that mean in this context?
SARAH: The FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, has never approved puberty blockers for &#8220;gender dysphoria.&#8221; It has never approved those particular drugs for which these minor children and their parents, and the United States, have all argued to get access to. Instead, it&#8217;s only approved them for endocrine disorders. So the state of Tennessee does not want minor children assuming the risk of off-label use and making determinations that could have lifetime consequences.
JOHN: Now, judging from what we heard on Wednesday, where do you think the justices are leaning in this case?
SARAH: I think there&#8217;s a very strong reason to believe that at least five of the justices are going to be skeptical of the United States’ arguments. In fact, Justice Alito himself was fairly excoriating in his refusal to allow Elizabeth Preloger, the Solicitor General, to be creative with her legal analysis and to ignore the science. In fact, he said that she&#8217;s relegated to a footnote in the bombshell Cass Review Report, which came out of England earlier this year, but in fact the science itself is we also know that Justice Kavanaugh said there is &#8220;a red light&#8221; here to prevent us from getting involved in new areas and constitutionalizing new areas of medicine. Justice Barrett said this is a question better left for the legislature, as did the Chief Justice himself, who actually quoted, without citing the case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women&#8217;s Health by saying this issue is better suited for the people and their elected representatives. Strangely silent was Justice Gorsuch, who had nothing to say during two and a half hours, and he may be the swing vote in this.
<div id="attachment_838801" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-838801" class="size-large wp-image-838801" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-2187611773-864x576.jpg" alt="Police stand between demonstrators in support of gender affirming treatment, left, and demonstrators in support of the Tennessee case against gender affirming treatment for minors, right, outside the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday, Dec. 4, 2024. The US Supreme Court is considering the constitutionality of state laws that ban gender-affirming treatments for minors less than five years after the justices outlawed job discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation." width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-2187611773-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-2187611773-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-2187611773-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-2187611773.jpg 1024w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Credit: Photographer: Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images.</div>
JOHN: Justice Gorsuch was notably silent. Do you have any sense of why that might have been the case?
SARAH: You know, it could be one of two things. First of all, I think it&#8217;s wise to remember that Justice Gorsuch was the majority opinion author in Bostock versus Clayton County dating to the year 2020. And in that case, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, relative to employment discrimination, was expanded not only to prohibit sex discrimination, but also to prohibit anti-racism and gender identity discrimination. Now, he was that opinion&#8217;s majority author. He may have been dealing with the fact that there is now a recognition that the Bostock opinion was a Pandora&#8217;s box. The Biden administration has used the Bostock opinion to expand the administrative state, and to force gender identity into concepts like medicine, school lunches, education, and more. That is something I think with which he will have to ultimately reckon because Elizabeth Preloger, the Solicitor General, mentioned the similarity to Bostock, so he very much may have been curling his toes underneath the table.
JOHN: So will this ruling potentially override that – will this set a new precedent in terms of that discrimination clause writ large?
SARAH: Well, as the other justices noted, particularly conservative justices, the analysis for a constitutional claim, a violation, for example, of the Equal Protection Clause and whether it discriminates based on sex, is slightly different than a discriminatory analysis based on sex under civil rights law. The Constitution holds to a higher bar, what&#8217;s called intermediate or heightened scrutiny, and that&#8217;s a higher bar for a state to achieve. But that analysis is different enough where Bostock is different from the current issue. I do think what it will do, however, is pin back the ears a little bit, the reach of the Bostock determination, and ensure that equal protection claims are not brought alongside statutory civil rights discrimination claims.
JOHN: All right so that was the conservative response – what did we hear from the Left-leaning justices?
SARAH: Unsurprisingly, there was a lot of histrionic commentary about trans kids dying and that these are proven scientific interventions, when in fact we know that is not the case. But the most interesting comparison came from Justice Kanji Brown Jackson, who cited Loving v. Virginia as a analogous case law study, and in Loving v. Virginia, that was the case in which the Supreme Court invalidated the interracial marriage ban from that state under the Equal Protection Clause, essentially overriding the judgment of the state legislature. She argued for the United States to be able to do so here, but ignored the fact that, once again, sex is not the defining characteristic at issue.
JOHN: Right – and Brown’s questions in particular gained a lot of negative attention online. Now, it&#8217;s notable that the conservatives seem to suggest that this issue is more appropriate to be dealt with by state legislatures rather than the court. And I think the implication there is that science is constantly being updated and reexamined, the best practices are often changing. Is the idea here that a federal court ruling can be too permanent in a sense for medical practices?
SARAH: Well, I&#8217;ll harken back to the Dobbs decision again, and we know the line of viability, for example, that Roe v. Wade set shifted and changed over the fifty years before Dobbs versus Jackson women&#8217;s health. And in writing the majority opinion, Justice Alito mentioned the fact that they should not be constitutionalizing areas of medical regulation. That was wholly within the state&#8217;s authority. I think they are very likely here to make the exact same determination, especially with so recent a ruling like that on the books.
<div id="attachment_838675" style="width: 816px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-838675" class="size-large wp-image-838675" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-2188237026-806x576.jpg" alt="WASHINGTON, DC - DECEMBER 04: Transgender rights supporters and opponent rally outside of the U.S. Supreme Court as the high court hears arguments in a case on transgender health rights on December 04, 2024 in Washington, DC. The Supreme Court is hearing arguments in US v. Skrmetti, a case about Tennessee's law banning gender-affirming care for minors and if it violates the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee." width="806" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-2188237026-806x576.jpg 806w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-2188237026-300x214.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-2188237026-768x549.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-2188237026.jpg 1024w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 806px) 100vw, 806px" />Credit: Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images.</div>
JOHN: When do we expect a decision to be handed down on this case?
SARAH: Well, there are quite a number of high-profile decisions, but I would argue this is the most high-profile, which indicates to me we are not likely to see an outcome here until probably the end of June 2025.
JOHN: Okay, so beyond the Supreme Court and constitutional issues here, looking at the broader legal issues here – one of the things that the Matt Walsh investigation uncovered was an apparent financial incentive for promoting the kind of very controversial, permanent treatments that we&#8217;re seeing with these transgender minor operations procedures. Do you foresee legal trouble for those that have been involved in these kinds of programs?
SARAH: That&#8217;s a good question. We know that this is a three to $5 billion a year industry and some estimates are as high as $10 billion. On average, gender medicine yields a doctor $8,000 per single procedure in sole profit. So we know money had to be spent, quite a bit to do with this and with the incentive of doctors to medicalize these minor children, but there is good news. We&#8217;ve already seen a lawsuit coming out of California brought by Harmeet Dhillon&#8217;s law firm and she&#8217;s done excellent work. They are suing Kaiser Permanente for rushing three minor girls, three young teen girls, through the gender medicine gambit without getting informed consent. I do believe a reckoning is coming.
JOHN: You mention Harmeet Dhillon, we actually caught up with her recently and she gave as an overview of her cases involving transition procedures. Here’s some of what she said:
HARMEET: We literally filed the first, second, and third lawsuits on this issue in the country. I think other lawyers are joining us and so these cases are winding their way through the court system or through arbitration, because Kaiser tries to force people into arbitration, so do other medical providers. And one of the issues why there&#8217;s so few cases is because there&#8217;s statute of limitations that are very short that really keep the window very narrow for these young women — largely women — to file lawsuits. And so it&#8217;s heartbreaking the number of people we simply can&#8217;t help because of these statute of limitations issues. I do think that&#8217;s going to make a difference, but the bigger and faster and more effective long term difference is going to be legislatures banning these procedures on children. Medical boards taking away the licenses of doctors who commit medical malpractice, which I believe most of these doctors are doing. I mean, you literally have cases where people go in, some guidance counselor sends them for one session with some rubber stamper who then goes and gets the girl&#8217;s breasts cut off. It&#8217;s shocking and outrageous, it&#8217;s insane and it needs to stop. And we shouldn&#8217;t rely on the courts and lawyers. We should ask Republican legislatures and Democrat legislatures, frankly, if they care about humans, to stop this practice.
JOHN: Final question: How significant will this ruling ultimately be? Is it fair to say that this ruling will change how the issue of laws about trans procedures in the other states are handled by the courts?
SARAH: Yeah, I think that&#8217;s exactly accurate. In fact, there are other cases relative to the notion of gender identity pending on the Supreme Court&#8217;s docket. But I think the first shot across the bow is the particular notion of gender medicine, because that is at bottom such a controversial notion. I do believe for the 26 other states who are watching keenly what happens with Tennessee&#8217;s ban, when they themselves have almost identical bans within their own states. They are very hopeful that the Supreme Court will come down on the side of states rights and their ability to protect minor children, which is something that the Supreme Court has recognized for more than a hundred years.
JOHN: A consequential decision coming this summer. Sarah, thanks so much for coming on. That was Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow Sarah Parshall Perry and this has been a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/morning-wire/high-court-weighs-tennessee-s-transgender-law-12-8-24">Sunday Extra edition of Morning Wire.</a>
***
<h3><a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift-guide/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE</a></h3>

‘$5 Billion Industry’: Breaking Down SCOTUS Oral Arguments On Transgender Case

'$5 Billion Industry': Breaking Down SCOTUS Oral Arguments On Transgender Case

Gender

gender ideology

The following is an edited transcript of an interview between Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief John Bickley and Tennessee Attorney General John Skrmetti on a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/morning-wire/landmark-battle-skrmetti-defends-law-protecting-minors" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Saturday edition of Morning Wire</a>. 
It’s being called the most significant case of the current Supreme Court term — United States v. Skrmetti. The attorney general sat down with us to discuss his pivotal role in the case and his defense of a state law aimed at protecting minors from transgender medical procedures.
* * *
JOHN: Joining us now is Tennessee’s Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti. Attorney General, thank you so much for coming on. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday on what is setting up to be a landmark case on transgender medical procedures on minors. Your name is on this marquee case, it’s you against the federal government: United States v. Skrmetti. So, safe to say, no one is more attuned to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/tennessees-ban-on-child-sex-changes-heads-to-the-supreme-court-live-blog" target="_blank" rel="noopener">what happened this week</a> than you. First, how do you feel the day went for your case? 
SKRMETTI: I thought it went very well. I can&#8217;t predict outcomes, you don&#8217;t know what the court&#8217;s going to do and the justices have months to deliberate. So without talking “horse race” here, I thought the day went well for us. My solicitor general Matt Rice did a great job making our case. I was very happy with his oral argument. The argument went long, which I think reflects that the justices care a lot about this, recognize there are some complexities here from a legal perspective, and that this could be a very consequential precedent. And so they want to get it right. So I thought they explored many issues very thoroughly, and I thought we put out a great case for Tennessee.
JOHN: Yeah, what were some of the questions from the justices that stuck out to you, that could be key in their decision-making?
SKRMETTI: Again, you don&#8217;t want to prognosticate too much, but I think the sex discrimination questions were very important. There was one lengthy line of questioning, but there were a number of questions about how this case might fit into existing sex discrimination case law. And I think that&#8217;s probably going to be a very significant issue for the outcome of the case. I think I can prognosticate that much. But the question is: Is this a sex discrimination case in a constitutional sense? Our position is, it is not, because you&#8217;re not treating like people differently. The argument is because boys can get testosterone, but girls can&#8217;t, and girls can get estrogen, but boys can&#8217;t, that you&#8217;re discriminating on the basis of sex. But our position is there&#8217;s not some universal distribution of hormones out there. You don&#8217;t just give boys testosterone. Anytime a drug is prescribed, it is for the purpose of treating a particular condition. And the evaluation of whether the drug is appropriate depends on that condition. There&#8217;s not some universal access to any given drug. So, if you&#8217;re giving a boy testosterone, for a testosterone deficiency, that&#8217;s relieving medical problems. That&#8217;s curing harms. If you give a girl testosterone for a psychological condition, gender dysphoria, it will create a host of physiological problems – potential lifelong loss of fertility, potential lifelong loss of sexual function. Depending on which hormone you&#8217;re talking about, you can have lifelong problems with blood clots, with tumors, with puberty blockers, bone density disorders, and all of them cause potential lifelong cognitive impairments. So the use of the drug is very contingent on which condition you&#8217;re addressing with it.
<iframe style="width: 100%; max-width: 660px; overflow: hidden; border-radius: 10px;" src="https://embed.podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/landmark-battle-skrmetti-defends-law-protecting-minors/id1576594336?i=1000679563780" height="175" frameborder="0" sandbox="allow-forms allow-popups allow-same-origin allow-scripts allow-storage-access-by-user-activation allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation"></iframe>
JOHN: Part of this is encapsulated in the concept of off-label usage of drugs. Can you explain what that means for our audience?
SKRMETTI: Sure. So the FDA, kind of adopting the perspective that I just articulated, only evaluates drugs for certain uses. They don&#8217;t say, &#8220;This drug is good, everybody can get as much of it as they want.&#8221; They say, &#8220;This drug is appropriate for treating this condition.&#8221; So, a lot of times, a drug will be approved to treat certain conditions. The FDA doesn&#8217;t have sufficient research to evaluate whether it&#8217;s appropriate for other conditions, but doctors can still sometimes prescribe it. They can prescribe off-label, which means even though the drug is not approved for that use, the doctors have made an informed medical decision to use it in that context, but they&#8217;re still subject to regulation. The state has, for hundreds of years, been regulating the practice of medicine. Even though doctors have a great deal of latitude, there are legal limits on what they can do. Oftentimes those limits are in place because the potential harms dramatically outweigh the potential benefits. The state has made a judgment that it is simply not appropriate to let doctors do what they would otherwise be inclined to do. Of course, those are fairly limited circumstances. We give a lot of latitude to doctors. We have a lot of respect for their training and for their decision-making, but there&#8217;s still a role for regulation there.
JOHN: When your team researched the evidence, the medical justification for why you think this is a fair law in the first place, what did you find in terms of the efficacy of these gender transition procedures for minors? Is there evidence backing up what pro-trans activists will claim about this?
SKRMETTI: Every systematic review of the evidence has determined that there is little to no benefit to minors. There are individual studies – there was some of this in the court. You can attack any given individual study on either side, there are always arguments to be made, but the systematic reviews of the overall research literature have consistently shown no benefit to minors. That&#8217;s why European countries that pioneered the use of these procedures on kids have since reversed course. It&#8217;s not because they suddenly got very politically conservative. It&#8217;s because they looked at the evidence and they determined that, for kids, the risks far outweigh the benefits, that the unexplained dramatic increase in the number of cases was very concerning, that there simply wasn&#8217;t a medical justification for the broad adoption of these treatments in the juvenile context. So they&#8217;ve greatly restricted the availability of these treatments. And that same review of evidence informed Tennessee&#8217;s decision.
JOHN: Now, I wanted to ask you about the parental rights aspects of this law. The pro-trans activists have tried to argue that Tennessee’s law could violate parent’s rights. What do you make of that argument?
SKRMETTI: So when the case was originally filed, there was both the constitutional argument, involving sex discrimination, and a parental rights argument. We won both in the Court of Appeals in the Sixth Circuit. The United States only petitioned for cert on the 14th Amendment issue, and so when the court granted that petition, the only question before them is the equal protection sex discrimination claim. So, the parental rights issue is still lurking out there. Justice Barrett addressed that briefly. Now, there are other situations where parents aren&#8217;t allowed to do what they&#8217;d otherwise be inclined to do. We give parents a great deal of latitude with their children but that doesn&#8217;t mean that they can do whatever they want, particularly in situations where you&#8217;re talking about severely adverse consequences in the long run. Parents can&#8217;t just go ahead and let their kids engage in conduct like that because the kids can&#8217;t meaningfully consent, and the parents can&#8217;t consign them to a life of dealing with the consequences for many, many different choices. This is an area where the state&#8217;s power is near its apex, protecting kids from serious harm.
<div id="attachment_838675" style="width: 816px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-838675" class="size-large wp-image-838675" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-2188237026-806x576.jpg" alt="WASHINGTON, DC - DECEMBER 04: Transgender rights supporters and opponent rally outside of the U.S. Supreme Court as the high court hears arguments in a case on transgender health rights on December 04, 2024 in Washington, DC. The Supreme Court is hearing arguments in US v. Skrmetti, a case about Tennessee's law banning gender-affirming care for minors and if it violates the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee." width="806" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-2188237026-806x576.jpg 806w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-2188237026-300x214.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-2188237026-768x549.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-2188237026.jpg 1024w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 806px) 100vw, 806px" />Credit: Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images.</div>
JOHN: Now, as we’ve documented here at the Daily Wire, Tennessee’s law was inspired by an investigation into Vanderbilt’s gender clinic by <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/this-could-be-the-beginning-of-the-end-for-gender-ideology" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Matt Walsh</a> that got the attention of a lot of people not just in the state but across the country. And now over two dozen states have laws similar to Tennessee’s How will this ruling of impact those state laws?
SKRMETTI: Well, presumably if Tennessee&#8217;s law is constitutionally sound, then the other half of the states in the country that have adopted similar laws will similarly survive constitutional scrutiny, and it will allow those states to exercise their sovereign authority to regulate the medical profession in a way that protects kids. So, this is definitely a case that will have broader consequences than just within the borders of Tennessee.
JOHN: A larger question, about the cultural context of this: We just saw an election where Republicans gained 10 points or more in almost every single state, even in very deep blue areas – even if they didn&#8217;t vote for Trump, they moved in the direction of Republicans. And one of the most cited issues was the transgender agenda. Do you see this year as a turning point on this issue? 
SKRMETTI: So I think it&#8217;s an issue that&#8217;s front of mind for a lot of people because the country has moved, at least in part, very, very far, very, very fast over the past few years. We&#8217;ve just seen radical changes in the rhetoric, in mainstream conversations about gender identity. To tell someone 10 years ago this would be the big case of this term at the Supreme Court, I think, would have baffled most Americans. So it&#8217;s something that people are reacting to. But I do think, even if there is a political element to it with respect to the election, it&#8217;s really important to note that this is not a political issue for a lot of people. This was a bipartisan piece of legislation. It was supported by members of both sides of the aisle when it came through the Tennessee legislature. The people advocating for this include, of course, traditional Christian conservative groups, traditional constitutional conservative groups, but also groups that probably don&#8217;t align with us on a lot of issues. There are medical groups that are fairly non-political. There are LGB groups that are very concerned about what they term “transing the gays.” So this is a coalition that&#8217;s much broader than just one side of the political divide. There are a lot of people who are really worried that we have adopted an approach to gender identity issues that&#8217;s going to leave a lot of kids very hurt.
JOHN: There’s certainly evidence that the national sentiment has shifted on this. Final question. The justices will deliver their decision this summer. In the meantime, how does Tennessee handle this particular law in the intervening months?
SKRMETTI: So, our law is currently in effect, and we will enforce it. That means we&#8217;re going to be protecting Tennessee kids from these lifelong treatments. One important fact is, the science shows, the evidence shows most kids dealing with gender dysphoria will outgrow it. It&#8217;s a hard thing to deal with, it&#8217;s a hard thing for everybody to deal with, but most of these kids who are being steered toward these life-altering treatments would be fine if they were just given time – and we want to make sure they have that time.
JOHN: Well, attorney general, thank you so much for taking the time to talk to us.
SKRMETTI: Thank you. Take care.
JOHN: That was Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti and this has been a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/morning-wire/landmark-battle-skrmetti-defends-law-protecting-minors" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Saturday edition of Morning Wire</a>.
***
<h3><a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift-guide/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE</a></h3>

AG Skrmetti

‘A Very Consequential Precedent’: AG Skrmetti Unpacks Landmark Supreme Court Case

'A Very Consequential Precedent': AG Skrmetti Unpacks Landmark Supreme Court Case

Attorney General

The legal team for Dr. Ethan Haim, the doctor who exposed Texas Children’s Hospital in May 2023 — revealing that the facility had lied about ending its transgender medical program and was still performing attempted transition procedures on children as young as 11 — ripped the Biden Department of Justice for seeking a gag order targeting Haim in his legal case with the government.
Haim’s claims were originally published in an <a href="https://www.city-journal.org/article/sex-change-procedures-at-texas-childrens-hospital">explosive story</a> by journalist Christopher Rufo. In June 2023, Haim said he knew he was being targeted by the DOJ when federal agents visited his home; the DOJ  attempted to charge him with four felony counts of violating HIPAA. “The DOJ has based their case, in large part, on the claim that Haim had no reason to access Texas Children’s Hospital records after he finished a surgical rotation at the hospital in January 2021,” The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/exclusive-new-info-destroys-doj-case-against-trans-surgery-whistleblower-lawyers-say">reported.</a>
“Today, @TheJusticeDept filed a reply supporting its motion for a gag order against our legal team and @EithanHaim,” The Burke Law Group, representing Haim, posted in a <a href="https://x.com/BurkeLawTweets/status/1863803194310054127">thread</a> on X. “They dispute our charges of government misconduct, saying that we mischaracterize the facts. Yet much like previous censorship efforts by this administration, it is the federal government that is purveying misinformation, and it is all on the judicial record.”
“The government’s assertion that the prosecution is trying to ‘uphold the law’ rings hollow because it has not attempted to defend most of HIPAA, completely abandoning the Privacy Rule,” the thread continues. “The idea that the prosecutors are nobly doing so ‘in the face of constant public rhetoric’ demonstrates yet again that they believe they are entitled to prosecute @EithanHaim without public scrutiny of the immense power they wield.”
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift-guide/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://get.dailywire.com/gift-guide/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1732727087136000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3Ao27zcTCGutKhTz_xpaKC">CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE</a>
“While the prosecution tries to make it sound like its gag order is reasonable, it would completely prevent Dr. Haim or his counsel from criticizing the prosecution, no matter how correct the criticism,” they state. ”The prosecution tries to make its case by painting Dr. Haim’s and the defense’s critical tweets as inaccurate. But as the defense already explained in its own filing, all of the public criticism has been richly deserved.”
“The government attempts to use safety concerns to shut down debate,” the law group declares. “It suggests that the ‘extreme rhetoric’ could harm the career public prosecutors and federal agents who put felons away for a living, even though they have received no threats. Yet the hypocrisy is worse than that. One X post the government complains about is a post by Dr. Haim calling the prosecutors modern day woke aristocrats. But the government omits the context—he was skewering them for the motion for the gag order because the government tried to justify the gag order due to ‘online bullying’ when the prosecution can send armed agents and strip someone of their rights by just an accusation.”
On November 24, Haim had written on X :
<blockquote>
The DOJ&#8217;s justification for a gag order is that they are concerned with &#8220;online bullying.&#8221;  This perfectly encapsulates the defining feature of the modern day woke aristocrat.   They zealously deploy the threat or the outright use of state-sanctioned violence against those who challenge their political ideology yet cast themselves as the victim when regular citizens stand up, take notice, and utilize their first amendment right to criticize their tyrannical behavior. 
These prosecutors have no qualms about sending me to prison for a decade. They have no problem inventing new crimes to do so.   They had no problem sending heavily armed US Marshals to my home at 7AM even though I am a law-abiding citizen with no criminal history.   They had no problem taking away my right to possess firearms knowing the legitimate death threats I would face from radical transgender activists.   And I don&#8217;t bring this up to garner sympathy for myself but rather to demonstrate the magnitude of their hypocrisy.   They have no problem with any of the above, but they have a major problem with anyone noticing it happening.   Their corrupt gambit relies on the silence of their target to legitimize their corruption. In my case, they knocked on the wrong door. I simply refuse to voluntarily comply with my own destruction.
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
The DOJ&#39;s justification for a gag order is that they are concerned with &quot;online bullying.&quot;
This perfectly encapsulates the defining feature of the modern day woke aristocrat. 
They zealously deploy the threat or the outright use of state-sanctioned violence against those who… <a href="https://t.co/vqQZVm7wAo">pic.twitter.com/vqQZVm7wAo</a>
&mdash; Eithan Haim MD (@EithanHaim) <a href="https://twitter.com/EithanHaim/status/1860736560460677615?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 24, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
Mary Margaret Olohan contributed to this article.
RELATED: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/exclusive-new-info-destroys-doj-case-against-trans-surgery-whistleblower-lawyers-say">EXCLUSIVE: New Info Destroys DOJ Case Against Trans Surgery Whistleblower, Lawyers Say</a>

Dr. Eithan Haim

Legal Team For Trans Surgery Whistleblower Rips Biden DOJ For Seeking Gag Order

Biden-Harris administration

Ethan Haim

Texas Children's Hospital

A judge on Monday upheld a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/missouri" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Missouri</a> law that bans doctors from performing transgender procedures on children. 
Cole County Circuit Judge R. Craig Carter <a href="https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/Noe-v.-Parson-trial-order.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ruled</a> that the state’s Save Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) Act does not violate the constitution, siding with GOP Governor Mike Parson, who was sued over the law. The law bans giving minors puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and performing surgeries like mastectomies on girls who identify as boys. 
Carter’s decision, which cited the numerous medical risks and dangers of transgender procedures, comes before the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on a challenge to a similar law in Tennessee on December 4. 
“The Court has left Missouri’s law banning child mutilation in place, a resounding victory for our children. We are the first state in the nation to successfully defend such a law at the trial court level,” said Attorney General Andrew Bailey, who defended the law in a two-week trial. “I’m extremely proud of the thousands of hours my office put in to shine a light on the lack of evidence supporting these irreversible procedures. We will never stop fighting to ensure Missouri is the safest state in the nation for children.”
The suit was brought by the ACLU of Missouri and Lambda Legal on behalf of a parent and her minor child. 
Carter rejected arguments that the treatments were medically backed and that Missouri’s law violated the equal protection clause. He said that there was “an almost total lack of consensus as to the medical ethics of adolescent gender dysphoria treatment.”
He argued that if he followed the logic of the plaintiffs, “any person – including a minor – would be able to do anything from meth, to ecstasy, to abortion as long as a single medical professional was willing to recommend it.”
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift-guide/">CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE</a>
Carter pointed to research showing that many minors naturally outgrow gender dysphoria and noted the medical harms of the procedures. 
“The gender dysphoria treatment prohibited by Missouri uses drugs and surgeries to either inhibit normal healthy human growth or surgically remove and replace healthy human organs,” he wrote. “Such an approach to treatment is well outside normal medicine, and medical ethicists are unable to agree on the propriety thereof.”
Missouri is one of 26 states that have banned transgender procedures on minors in recent years.

Four Surgeons discuss each Other Surgical Precision and Healthcare Expertise  before the Operation case

‘Resounding Victory’: Judge Upholds Missouri Law Banning Trans Procedures On Children

Missouri

trans

The following is an edited transcript of a recent interview between Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief John Bickley and Harmeet Dhillon, managing partner at The Dhillon Law Group.
Post-election polling shows that the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/how-kamalas-focus-on-gender-ideology-cost-her-the-election" target="_blank" rel="noopener">transgender issue</a> was a top three issue that drove voters to Trump and away from Harris. The data comes as more states are shutting down transgender procedures for minors and lawsuits are beginning to mount against healthcare professionals who’ve pushed the trans agenda.
* * *
JOHN: Joining us to discuss is Harmeet Dhillon, whose legal firm the Dhillon Law Group has been leading the fight against potentially permanent procedures performed on children. Harmeet, thanks for coming on.
HARMEET: Thanks for having me.
JOHN: First, many have said that the trans agenda – including boys in girls sport and trans surgeries for prisoners and illegal immigrants – was a &#8220;sleeper issue&#8221; this year. We&#8217;ve done some <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/harris-pledged-to-use-taxpayer-money-to-fund-sex-change-surgeries-for-illegal-aliens-in-detention-report" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reporting</a> at Daily Wire about this. Do you see data that it did in fact impact this election?
HARMEET: Well, I would say the data that I saw was from the Trump campaign and its allies, and they certainly focused hard on that issue. And I&#8217;m sure that was in response to data. We&#8217;ve done some work, a lot of work actually. We&#8217;ve been a national leader on the issue of suing doctors who mutilate girls and also representing parents whose civil rights are violated by not having access to the information they need to parent their children properly on this issue and many other issues. So we&#8217;ve done a lot of litigation on it. It did pick up in the national pulse. Our client, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/to-the-la-times-get-a-life-i-have-lives-to-save" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Chloe Cole</a>, has been prominently featured by some messaging on these issues. She&#8217;s a girl who detransitioned, now a young woman, and is suing Kaiser Permanente here in California over that. She&#8217;s been a landmark voice on these issues, testifying around the country. I know it has motivated legislatures to change the law and that I think is definitely a talking point in those states. A lot of red states, purple states — it&#8217;s a huge issue. It&#8217;s not a huge issue here in California, even on the opposite side. I don&#8217;t see a lot of activists going to bat for this issue. And so I think we are really within a striking distance of President Trump being able to severely cut back on the prevalence of this issue through cutting back federal funding or other ways to do it. For once, America needs to catch up with Europe and the rest of the world where these procedures are simply not being done, for the most part, on children because they don&#8217;t work.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/morning-wire">LISTEN: Catch the latest news on Morning Wire</a></h3>
<div id="attachment_774281" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-774281" class="wp-image-774281 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/08/Chloe_Cole_53808758359-copy-864x576.jpeg" alt="Chloe Cole speaking with attendees at the 2024 Chapter Leadership Summit at Huntington Place in Detroit, Michigan. 13 June 2024. Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America. Wikimedia Commons." width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/08/Chloe_Cole_53808758359-copy-864x576.jpeg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/08/Chloe_Cole_53808758359-copy-300x200.jpeg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/08/Chloe_Cole_53808758359-copy-768x512.jpeg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/08/Chloe_Cole_53808758359-copy-1536x1024.jpeg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/08/Chloe_Cole_53808758359-copy-2048x1366.jpeg 2048w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/08/Chloe_Cole_53808758359-copy-1800x1200.jpeg 1800w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/08/Chloe_Cole_53808758359-copy-1200x800.jpeg 1200w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Chloe Cole speaking with attendees at the 2024 Chapter Leadership Summit at Huntington Place in Detroit, Michigan. 13 June 2024. Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America. Wikimedia Commons.</div>
JOHN: Right, there’s been dramatic movement away from these sorts of procedures in several European countries. Are you seeing progress on this issue in the courts, legally?
HARMEET: No, it&#8217;s too early in the courts. We literally filed the first, second, and third lawsuits on this issue in the country. I think other lawyers are joining us and so these cases are winding their way through the court system or through arbitration because Kaiser tries to force people into arbitration – so do other medical providers. And one of the issues, why there are so few cases, is because there&#8217;s a statute of limitations that are very short and really keep the window very narrow for these young women, largely women, to file lawsuits. And so it&#8217;s heartbreaking, the number of people we simply can&#8217;t help, because of these statute of limitations issues. I do think that&#8217;s going to make a difference. But the bigger and faster and more effective long-term difference is going to be legislatures banning these procedures on children. Medical boards taking away the licenses of doctors who commit medical malpractice, which I believe most of these doctors are doing. I mean, literally you have cases where people go in, some guidance counselor sends them for one session with some rubber stamper who then goes and gets the girl&#8217;s breasts cut off. It&#8217;s shocking and outrageous. You have to go through more hassle to get liposuction, I believe, than to get your breasts cut off as a young girl. So, it&#8217;s insane and it needs to stop. We shouldn&#8217;t rely on the courts and lawyers. We should ask Republican legislatures — and Democrat legislatures, frankly, if they care about humans — to stop this practice.
JOHN: Well, we&#8217;ve seen decisive action here in <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/tennessee-asks-scotus-to-uphold-ban-on-trans-surgeries-for-minors-amid-doj-challenge" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tennessee </a>to shut down these potentially permanent procedures for children – that’s been really heartening for those working to end it. We’ll see what other states follow suit. Harmeet Dhillon, thank you so much for joining us.
* * *
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/videos/what-is-a-woman" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: Matt Walsh&#8217;s groundbreaking documentary &#8220;What Is A Woman?&#8221;</a></h3>

1Harmeet_Dhillon_(53067415294) copy

‘It’s Shocking And Outrageous’: Harmeet Dhillon On Why Trans Issues Were Top Of Mind For Voters

'It's Shocking And Outrageous': Harmeet Dhillon On Why Trans Issues Were Top Of Mind For Voters

2024 Election

Doctors

Harmeet Dhillon

Health Care

The weaponization of the U.S. Department of Justice against purported enemies of the Biden-Harris administration is nothing new. The Department’s persecution of pro-life advocates, praying grandmothers, and fathers of young children under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (while routinely ignoring arson and vandalism at crisis pregnancy centers chargeable under the same law) is hard to deny.
But the Department’s meritless criminal prosecution of Dr. Eithan Haim, a whistleblowing physician who exposed covert gender medicine procedures inflicted on minors at Texas Children’s Hospital — performed in violation of state law — is an outrageous abuse of its law enforcement authority.
The principal wrongdoer in Dr. Haim’s case — leading the charge in his criminal prosecution for alleged violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) — is Assistant United States Attorney Tina Ansari, a Democratic donor who targeted Haim in part during a time when her law license had been suspended by the Texas Bar for failure to pay her bar dues.
As legal scholar Ed Whelan has correctly <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/dojs-false-pretenses-prosecution-of-whistleblower-dr-eithan-haim/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pointed</a> out, the only reason Haim was targeted was because “he ran afoul of the transgender ideology that dominates” the current presidential administration.
But now, in <a href="https://eppc.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/179145791960.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pleadings</a> filed by Dr. Haim’s lawyers and in separate complaints filed by a former DOJ lawyer with both the State Bar of Texas and the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, Ansari is accused of having “knowingly sponsored false information” to the federal grand jury that indicted Haim and of having “knowingly misled a tribunal and presented deliberately misleading information to a grand jury.”
In other words, she wasn’t just practicing law on a suspended license. She is charged with lying to the grand jury to get Haim indicted — itself a violation of federal law.
As journalist Christopher Rufo <a href="https://www.city-journal.org/article/sex-change-procedures-at-texas-childrens-hospital" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a>, Dr. Haim knew the hospital “secretly continued to perform transgender medical interventions, including the use of implantable puberty blockers, on minor children” after it assured the public it was no longer engaging in such medically dangerous and risky actions. Haim did not disclose the name of any patients, or any personally identifiable medical information protected by federal law under HIPAA (<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1320d-6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">42 U.S.C. §§1320d-6</a>).
The Justice Department didn’t care. It charged Haim with criminally violating HIPAA anyway, arguing that he had disclosed “individually identifiable health information,” something explicitly prohibited by HIPAA.
The punishment for such a conviction? Up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
The original grand jury indictment claimed he had obtained HIPAA-protected patient medical information through “false pretenses.” Haim had, allegedly, accessed the medical records after he completed his surgical rotation at Texas Children’s Hospital in January 2021 and had no more patients there. But, according to the ethics complaints and a motion for grand jury material filed by Haim’s lawyers, Haim did still have patients at the hospital, and Ansari and other government prosecutors knew it. That would have made his access of patient records entirely legal under HIPAA.
The hospital provided records to the government showing that Haim continued to treat patients at the hospital after his residency was over, during the time when the grand jury indictment claims he wasn’t treating any patients and had no legal right to access patient records. All of this is also apparent in a “<a href="https://eppc.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/DOC.76.Superseding-Indictment.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Superseding Indictment</a>” Ansari filed on Oct. 10 that, as the defense points out, deletes all references to Haim accessing patient records when he was supposedly no longer treating patients at the hospital. Yet the new indictment still claims he obtained those records under “false pretenses.”
As a result, Haim’s lawyers asked the court to provide them with access to all of the materials the grand jury considered when it issued the original indictment.
Why? Because the documents would likely show that the hospital told Ansari that Haim was continuing to treat patients at the hospital when she was making presentations to the grand jury claiming the opposite.
Grand jury materials are secret under <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">applicable</a> federal rules of criminal procedure. But the grand jury materials should be released in this case, says Haim’s lawyers, under the exceptions provided in the rules, to determine if the government “knowingly” sponsored “false information before the grand jury” and if that false information was “capable” of “influencing the grand jury’s decision.”
The lawyers are right when they tell the court that if “the government has made material misleading statements to the grand jury, the defense should be permitted to review the relevant grand jury material.”
Haim has also filed a “Show Cause” motion asking the court to issue an order against Ansari for “engaging in the practice of law with a suspended law license.” The motion says she was administratively suspended on Sept. 1 for not paying her bar dues. She responded that she remedied this problem as of Sept. 19.
But as Haim’s attorneys point out, Ansari was signing and filing pleadings in the case during her suspension, which violates the Texas Code of Professional Conduct, the court’s own rules, and the internal rules of the Justice Department that direct DOJ lawyers to immediately cease their representation of the government during such a lapse.
Not surprisingly, Ansari is a big donor to Democrat candidates, having contributed a total of $11,350, which is quite a bit of money for a career civil service employee. Mind you, there is nothing illegal about those donations, but as the complaint filed against her with the Office of Professional Responsibility at DOJ states, it raises serious questions on whether “her specific ideological or political view as it related to the highly controversial issues in this prosecution” biased her judgment and prompted her to mislead a federal grand jury.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: Election Wire on DailyWire+</a></h3>
The pursuit of Dr. Haim is simply outrageous. As one of Haim’s principal lawyers, Marcella Burke, told us, “DOJ has charged Dr. Haim with a non-existent crime. At a charitable minimum, this is a reckless prosecution and at its extreme, it is malicious prosecution.”
The fact that the indictment hasn’t been dropped indicates what’s really going on here. Because Haim didn’t release any personal medical information about any patient, something HIPAA prevents, the new indictment now charges him with allegedly acting to “cause malicious harm” to the hospital and its physicians.
And what is the “malicious harm” Haim caused? Apparently, the Justice Department believes that he inflicted “malicious harm” by letting the public know that a children’s hospital was lying when it claimed it was no longer inflicting transgender medical abuse on its minor patients and that the hospital was violating Texas law.
That is a prosecution based on politics and ideology, not the law and the interests of justice or, for that matter, of the public at large. While the prosecution continues against Dr. Haim, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has <a href="https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/paxton-announces-second-investigation-texas-hospital-potentially-unlawfully-performing-gender" target="_blank" rel="noopener">launched</a> an investigation into Texas Children’s Hospital for performing gender “affirming” medicine in violation of state law.
The Lonestar State has outlawed hormone replacement therapy for minors and other forms of “gender-affirming care,” if that type of mistreatment can be called “care.” AG Paxton has <a href="https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/attorney-general-ken-paxton-sues-doctor-illegally-providing-harmful-gender-transition-treatments" target="_blank" rel="noopener">warned</a> that “doctors who continue to provide these harmful ‘gender transition’ drugs and treatments will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.”
If his claim is true, Dr. Haim should be praised for exposing wrongdoing at Texas Children’s Hospital. Instead, he faces a federal criminal indictment. Sadly, the U.S. Justice Department’s view of law enforcement now appears to be driven by politics, not justice.
* * *
Hans von Spakovsky and Sarah Parshall Perry are senior legal fellows in The Heritage Foundation’s Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Biden-Harris DOJ Prosecutor Targets Trans Whistleblower Doctor Again

Federal Government

Ken Paxton

Opinion

Menu