Tipsheet

Even After SCOTUS Loss, Advocates of Mutilating Minors Are Still Doubling Down

Rebecca Downs
Rebecca Downs  |  June 18, 2025 9:00 PM

Earlier on Wednesday, as Jeff covered, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's ban on so-called "gender affirming care" for minors. Despite a majority of the Court in this 6-3 decision recognizing the state's legitimate interest in protecting minors from procedures they cannot legally consent to, which may involve not only powerful hormones but also genital mutilation and sterilization, as well as the science behind such a decision, critics continue to double on their woefully out of touch views against biology and the wellbeing of children. 

Not long after the decision was handed down, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) put out a ratioed post with far-fetched claims. 

The post included a portion of a longer statement shared in a press release, all which is problematic:

“The Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Skrmetti will have profound and far-reaching consequences for the health and well-being of transgender youth across this country and for the doctors who care for them. To be clear—regardless of today’s legal ruling—the science still supports gender-affirming care, children will still need it.

“Nothing in this decision explicitly bans such care.

“The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) remains unwavering in our support for transgender and gender-diverse youth and their access to the same standard of compassionate, evidence-based care as every other child.

“Gender-affirming care is medically necessary for treating gender dysphoria and is backed by decades of peer-reviewed research, clinical experience, and scientific consensus. Too often mischaracterized as exclusively involving surgery and hormones, this care is provided thoughtfully and with the involvement of multidisciplinary teams of physicians, mental health professionals, families, and most importantly, young people themselves. Denying patients access to this care not only undermines their health and safety, it robs them of basic human dignity.

“The ruling also sets a dangerous precedent for legislative interference in the practice of medicine and the patient-physician relationship that is at the core of our health system.

“The AAP stands firmly with pediatricians and families making healthcare decisions together and free from political interference. We remain committed to advancing care that protects the health, safety, and dignity of all children.“

Studies actually show that most children who think they may be transgender grow out of it. Other children are pressured into transitioning by parents or other adults, such as at school. There's also concerns about children being too young to consent, yet the press release claims that "this care is provided thoughtfully and with the involvement of multidisciplinary teams of physicians, mental health professionals, families, and most importantly, young people themselves."

When surgery and hormones are so involving and destructive, with long-term effects, it's curious that the press release would try to downplay such a role. 

Recommended

Jerry Nadler Tries and Fails to Get Into ICE Facility, and It Gets Worse for Him From There Rebecca Downs
Watch Trump's Reaction When This Reporter Revealed Who She Worked for Matt Vespa

We also have the stories of those who transitioned as minors and regret it, including detransitioner Chloe Cole, as well as those whistleblowers who were involved in this so-called "care," or at facilities that were part of performing these procedures on minor children. 

If the AAP cared so much about science and "the health, safety, and dignity of all children," as it claims to, with the point of "dignity" referenced multiple times, they wouldn't be pushing this so-called "care" so heavily. 

The AAP is not the only one with quite the false view on the topic, but there have even been doctors admitting to covering up the data that would not look too good for their side. Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy admitted to The New York Times last October that she withheld a $10 million taxpayer-funded study on the impact of puberty blockers on children, reportedly because it would not look too good for those who advocate for such surgeries. 

Speaking of detransitioners like Cole, she celebrated the decision with a picture of herself outside of the Court. "The highest court in the land ruled that there is, in fact, no such thing as a transgender child," she pointed out, adding, "I’m still in shock."

Others, like our own Kurt Schlichter, took the opportunity to also called out Democratic members doubling down on their losing stance, including Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM). Protecting minors from the transgender agenda is particularly popular, even among Democrats, but members like Stansbury, still stick to such a position. There were losing candidates in 2024 who learned this the hard way, including now former Rep. Colin Allred (D-TX) and now former Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), though it was a losing issue for the party overall. 

In a post from earlier on Wednesday, Stansbury also likened the issue of transgender youth to being able to abort children before they're born, as she brought up the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson case on abortion, which sent the issue back to the people through their elected representatives. 

"Today’s SCOTUS decision is heartbreaking for our trans community. But, let us not forget that this is the same Court that handed down the Dobbs Decision just three years ago. We cannot lose hope. We must keep fighting," Stansbury posted. "I am proud to be from a state where we have protected LGBTQ+ and trans rights in statute and will continue to fight every step of the way at the national level," she continued, which is an odd thing to brag about, especially when New Mexico is failing in many areas.

In a quoted repost of the congresswoman, Schlichter noted that "When Democrat women can’t kill babies, they wanna castrate little boys." Notably, Schlichter's post received more likes than Stansbury's post did.

The Babylon Bee made a similar point in similar posts, using humor to highlight the absurdity of such a losing issue when it comes to transing minor children.

In contrast to those like Stansbury and the AAP is the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds), which applauded the decision. 

"The American College of Pediatricians was honored to support the state of Tennessee in this case by filing an amicus brief presenting scientific, evidence-based analysis on the risks of sex-rejecting interventions in minors. Our brief offered the Court essential medical context to support state efforts to protect vulnerable children by focusing on what is truly best—pediatric care free from transgender ideology," said Dr. Jill Simons, the group's executive director.

In contrast to claims from the AAP, as a press release from ACPeds mentioned, is also Justice Clarence Thomas' mention of studies showing how the efforts to "transition a child" can indeed cause harm. 

As the press release further mentioned: 

While the majority clearly notes the strong debate over these issues, we especially appreciate Justice Thomas’s thorough review of recent scientific studies, highlighting the serious harms of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical efforts to “transition a child.” 

In addition to citing specific harms, including those noted by Dr. Michelle Cretella, chair of the ACPeds Adolescent Sexuality Committee—such as decreased bone density and impaired brain development—Justice Thomas also calls out the political bias behind WPATH’s so-called “standards of care.” Internal WPATH files reveal that the scientific evidence not only fails to support but often conflicts with its own published guidance.

States like Tennessee and more than 20 others should be commended for acting to protect children amid rising rates of gender confusion. Their efforts demonstrate a commitment to ensuring that sound science, not ideology, drives medical care.

Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court in United States v. Skrmetti, while Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion and also signed onto a concurring opinion from Justice Amy Coney Barrett.