A Texas law that banned abortions in early pregnancy is associated with a stark increase in infant and newborn deaths, a study published Monday in JAMA Pediatrics found.
Lawmakers passed Texas Senate Bill 8, or SB8, in September 2021. The state law banned abortions as soon as a fetal heartbeat is detected, which can be as early as five weeks. This effectively banned abortion in the state, which used to allow abortion up to 22 weeks of pregnancy.
The law did not include exemptions for congenital anomalies, including conditions that will cause a newborn to die soon after birth. Infant deaths in Texas rose by nearly 13% the year after SB8 was passed, from 1,985 in 2021 to 2,240 in 2022. During that same period, infant deaths rose by about 2% nationwide.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s office did not dispute the study’s findings but defended the Republican-controlled state’s anti-abortion record. This effort included the 2021 heartbeat law “to save the innocent unborn, and now thousands of children have been given a chance at life,” Andrew Mahaleris, a spokesperson for Abbott, said in a statement to USA TODAY.
He said the governor has taken “significant action to protect the sanctity of life” and offered resources to expectant mothers “so they can choose life for their child.”
Anti-abortion advocates also didn’t contest the uptick in infant deaths cited in the study. Advocates for the heartbeat law and other legislation to restrict abortions say such bans protect life. They say terminating a fetus with a terminal illness is “choosing to kill that child intentionally.” However, the overwhelming majority of such abortions happen before the fetus is viable.
New: Infant deaths rose after Texas’ 2021 heartbeat law restricted abortions before the SCOTUS Dobbs decision two years ago, per a JAMA Pediatrics study published today out of @JohnsHopkinsSPH. Texas anti-abortion activists don’t dispute the findings. https://t.co/xeNpxrNk1n
Brilliant! This reinforces my assertion that pro-lifers prioritize fetal life above all life on earth. From a theological perspective, they need to be continually challenged on that but never are.
The religious right Republicans don’t give a hoot about the child/infant. It’s all about control. Once the birth has occurred, they quickly forget about the individual. Republicans seek to stop benefits for the poor, provide little to no education unless it is religion based, Let’s not forget about the abundance of guns that can whip out whole classrooms of children and the death penalty. Need I say more?
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday waded into the culture-war debate over gender-affirming care for transgender minors by agreeing to resolve challenges to a law in Tennessee that seeks to restrict it.
The justices will hear a Biden administration appeal of a court ruling that upheld the measure. Oral arguments and a ruling are expected in the court’s next term, which starts in October and ends in June 2025.
The case marks the first time the court will issue a ruling in the battle over transgender rights for teens, which has raged in both the health care and education contexts.
A young person holds a Pride Flag outside the House chambers before a legislative session, on Feb. 26, 2024, in Nashville, TN.George Walker IV / AP
“The future of countless transgender youth in this and future generations rests on this Court adhering to the facts, the Constitution and its own modern precedent,” said Chase Strangio, a lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union, which also challenged the law.
The state measure restricts puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgery for minors.
In a separate case, the court in April allowed Idaho to mostly enforce a similar law.
More than 20 states have enacted similar bans, according to the Movement Advancement Project, an LGBTQ rights think tank. Whatever the court rules will affect those states as well.
Major medical organizations say that gender-affirming treatments are an effective way of treating gender dysphoria, the clinical term given to the distress people can experience when their gender identity is in conflict with the gender assigned to them at birth.
Plaintiffs, including transgender teens and their families, say the law violates the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which requires that the law apply equally to everyone, in part by barring medical treatments for transgender people that are available to others. They also say the law violates the right of parents to make health care decisions for their children.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar urged the Supreme Court to take up the issue, saying that the law “is part of a wave of similar bans preventing transgender adolescents from obtaining medical care that they, their parents, and their doctors have all concluded is necessary.”
A federal judge blocked the Tennessee ban on puberty blockers and hormone therapy but left in place a ban on surgeries.
In a separate Kentucky case the justices did not act on, a federal judge blocked the ban on puberty blockers and hormone therapy. The plaintiffs did not challenge the restrictions on surgery.
In a ruling addressing both laws, the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the states in September.
Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote that no one was questioning “the existence of gender dysphoria or the distress caused by it,” but indicated the question of what treatments should be available to those 17 or under should be left to elected officials.
“This is a relatively new diagnosis with ever-shifting approaches to care over the last decade or two. Under these circumstances, it is difficult for anyone to be sure about predicting the long-term consequences of abandoning age limits of any sort for these treatments,” he wrote.
The plaintiffs then asked the Supreme Court to step in. The court has until now largely stayed out of disputes involving transgender students.
In 2021, the Supreme Court declined to take up a case about the question of whether transgender students can use school bathrooms that correspond with their gender identities as court battles have continued around the country. The court turned away a similar case in January.
On a related issue, the court last year allowed a transgender girl in West Virginia to participate in girls’ sports.
The court’s biggest intervention on trans issues writ large came in a surprise 6-3 ruling in 2020 written by conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch. He concluded that federal law that bars sex discrimination in employment protected transgender and gay people, a ruling that angered conservatives.
The Cass report was a complete ideological bias hit job. Yes, it got great traction at first as the anti-trans haters ran with it. But like all hate driven junk science it withered on the vine. Hugs. Scottie
Many of the largest medical and psychological organizations have rejected the Cass Review’s recommendations on trans youth. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists is the latest.
Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.
Subscribe
Two months ago, the Cass Review was released in the United Kingdom. This review, guided and advised by individuals with ties to SPLC-designated hate groups and who met with Governor Ron DeSantis’ medical board—handpicked to ban care in Florida—has led to severe restrictions in the U.K., including criminalizing the possession of puberty blockers. The response outside the U.K. has been much more critical, with numerous medical organizations and doctors worldwide rejecting its recommendations. The latest major medical body to speak out is the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP), the leading organization for training psychiatrists in both countries.
The Cass Review, a highly criticized evaluation of transgender care, was developed in the United Kingdom by Dr. Hillary Cass, a pediatrician without direct experience in transgender care. Although it was presented as an unbiased and neutral review, intentionally excluding transgender individuals from the decision-making process, it was later revealed that advisors with ties to the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, an SPLC-designated hate group, were involved. Dr. Cass has since controversially blamed being trans on pornography and labeled the American Academy of Pediatrics as a “left-leaning organization” due to its support for the medical care of transgender youth.
Last month, a handful of members of the RANZCP, some of which are notable figures in anti-trans activism in the country, wrote a letter to the organization stating that they had “serious concerns” about gender affirming care for transgender youth. They pointed to the Cass Review as justification for their concerns. The top signature on the letter is that of Jillian Spencer, who stated in an interview that she was fired for “being a danger to trans and gender-diverse children.” Now, the college has responded.
In a response posted to the RANZCP website, the college announced that the Cass Review is one of “a number of reviews,” and that it rejects the call for a “government inquiry” into trans care in the countries it represents. It further states that transgender care should be “patient centered” and individualized to a patient’s needs. Lastly, it expresses a full support for transgender youth and rejects claims that being transgender is a “mental health condition”:
“The College is committed to respectful, sensitive and appropriate mental health care being provided to individuals who identify as LGBTIQ+. Being Trans or Gender Diverse is not a mental health condition, and the RANZCP unequivocally supports the rights of trans and gender diverse people to have equal access to safe and effective mental health care that is underpinned by dignity, empathy and respect.
…
The College emphasises that assessment and treatment should be patient centred, evidence-informed and responsive to and supportive of the child or young person’s needs and that psychiatrists have a responsibility to counter stigma and discrimination directed towards trans and gender diverse people.”
The statement from the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists is the latest in a series of rejections of the Cass Review’s findings by medical organizations worldwide. Last month, the American Academy of Pediatrics responded to the review, disagreeing with many of its claims and asserting that the organization supports “individualized health care for each patient, in consultation with their family and health care team” when it comes to transgender youth. The Endocrine Society also dismissed the recommendations, stating, “Medical evidence, not politics, should inform treatment decisions.”
In Canada, the Canadian Pediatric Society rejected the Cass Review’s recommendations, announcing that “current evidence shows puberty blockers to be safe when used appropriately, and they remain an option to be considered within a wider view of the patient’s mental and psychosocial health.” Children’s Healthcare Canada, which oversees the country’s children’s hospitals, concurred, stating, “Our position remains unchanged on the topic.”
Evidence continues to support the use of gender affirming care for transgender youth. A Cornell review of more than 51 studies found “gender transition is effective in treating gender dysphoria and can significantly improve the well-being of transgender individuals.” Numerous studies show lower suicidality, with as much as a 73% reduction in suicidality for trans youth who are allowed care. In a recent article that was not considered by the Cass Review in the Journal of Adolescent Health, puberty blockers reduced depression and anxiety significantly. In Germany, a recent review by over 27 medical organizations has judged that “not providing treatment can do harm” to transgender youth. Due to strong evidence around transgender care, the American Psychological Association released a historic policy resolution condemning bans on gender affirming care. Notably, they are the largest psychological association in the world, with representatives elected to represent 157,000 members.
The lack of credibility given to the Cass Review outside the United Kingdom, especially in the United States, has frustrated its proponents. In a recent article published in The BMJ titled “Gender medicine in the US: how the Cass review failed to land,” anti-trans writer Jennifer Block laments that Erin Reed, the author of this article, highlighted the review’s anti-trans political ties with DeSantis’ picks, which hampered its acceptance. Although Block incorrectly claims that only a single meeting took place (Cass advisor Dr. Kaltiala attended several meetings and even advocated for the ban as a primary witness), she accurately demonstrates that the document’s political roots have been detrimental to its acceptance among credible scientific organizations. These political roots were recently confirmed when Conservative Women and Equalities Minister, Kemi Badenoch, admitted that “gender critical” individuals were placed in health roles to facilitate the Cass Review—a mechanism remarkably similar to how Florida’s review led to the banning of care in the state, borrowing from DeSantis’ strategy.
Despite its lack of acceptance abroad, the Cass Review continues to do tremendous damage in places predisposed to targeting transgender healthcare. It has already been cited in the United States to ban care in South Carolina, a Republican-controlled state. In the United Kingdom, it has led to the criminalization of possessing puberty blockers. As more medical organizations reject its findings, politicians will undoubtedly use its conclusions to push forward with bans on gender-affirming care for transgender youth, despite having little evidence to justify such decisions.
Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.
What people don’t understand about these fundamentalist Christians is they don’t accept the rights and feelings of anyone else. They are the maximum in selfishness. They cry rivers about their feelings not being respected, such as Jordon Peterson claiming it hurt him to use a person’s preferred pronoun, but he couldn’t give a shit about the pain of the misgendered person he just insulted. The Alito’s are the same, their feelings are very important and must be respected. But not yours, not anyone who disagrees with them, those people are to be disregarded entirely. Hugs. Scottie
“I’m often reminded that the most important thing in my life – which is my marriage, and my family and the two beautiful children that my husband Chasten and I are raising – that that marriage only exists by the grace of the single vote on the United States Supreme Court. That expanded our rights and freedoms back in 2015 and made it possible for somebody like me to get married.
“And, you know, Supreme Court justices have an unbelievable amount of power and – by the nature in the structure, the Supreme Court – there’s no supervision over that power. They are entrusted with it literally for as long as they live. And part of that trust is we expect them to enter into those enormously consequential decisions that that shape our everyday lives with a sense of fairness.
“I also hope that most Americans can understand the difference between a flag that symbolizes you know, love and acceptance and signals to people who have sometimes feared for their safety that they’re going to be okay – and insurrectionists symbology, I’ll just leave it at that.” – Transportation Sec. Pete Buttigieg, on Martha-Ann Alito’s condemnation of “shameful” Pride flags.
The cult is raging.
WATCH: Pete Buttigieg insinuates that Justice Alito and his wife support "insurrection symbology." pic.twitter.com/yRIeVUPhHH
Our Pride flag hangs outside of our house 365 days per year and one day a non-binary teenager who was having a crisis knocked on our door and asked for safety. We hung out with them and chatted and kept them warm and comfortable until they felt ok to go back home.
THAT is what the Pride flag means. Love, safety, and a shoulder to cry on if you need it.
I wish I could do that. However in this neck of the Oklahoma outback, I would be taking my life and putting into their hands — and, at 88, I don’t feel that reckless. My pride flag sits in the drawer beside the door, where it has been for many years – just waiting for the time when it is safe. I know there will be criticism on this site for this, but down here, it is what it is. I am proud — just not stupid.
Those of us who’ve lived through decades of anti-gay violence understand completely.
When you’re in danger of attack from religious assholes for putting up a pride flag – keep safe, and see what other, less public, things you can do to help local LGBT people.
Anyone who criticizes you for this is young and living in a bubble in some big city, and can’t believe the awful things that have been done to many of us over the decades. I hope they’re never beaten up or burned out of their home for being gay. I wish that would end for everyone, but it hasn’t stopped yet in many parts of the country.
Why are we letting a few off the rails people ruin everything for the rest of us normal people. Can anyone tell me why these people are making decisions for everyone else kids when they don’t have children on those schools, that go to those libraries, or are in public office? See how they act behind the scenes to get a law past to “protect the children” so they can then exploit them to push their fundamentalist extreme agenda on everyone. I hate this. We need to find a way to fight back. Hugs. Scottie
A book about book bans has been banned in a Florida school district. Ban This Book, a children’s book written by Alan Gratz, will no longer be available in the Indian River county school district since the school board voted to remove the book last month.
Gratz’s book, which came out in 2017, follows fourth-grader Amy Anne Ollinger as she tries to check out her favorite book. Ollinger is told by the librarian she cannot, because it was banned after a classmate’s parent thought it was inappropriate.
In a peculiar case of life imitating art, Jennifer Pippin, a parent in the coastal community, challenged the book. Pippin is also the chair of the local Moms for Liberty chapter, a far-right organization that has been behind many of the book bans that have swept across the US in recent years.
Gratz, its author, called the Indian River County decision “incredibly ironic.” “They banned the book because it talks about the books that they have banned and because it talks about book banning,” he said in an interview. “It feels like they know exactly what they’re doing and they’re somewhat ashamed of what they’re doing and they don’t want a book on the shelves that calls them out.”
Board members Jacqueline Rosario and Gene Posca, who voted in the majority, were backed by Moms for Liberty during their campaigns, according to Treasure Coast Newspapers. The third “yes” vote came from Kevin McDonald, who was recently appointed by Gov. Ron DeSantis.
“The title itself and the theme challenges our authority. And it even goes so far as to not only to mention books that are deemed inappropriate by school boards, including ours, it not only mentions them but it lists them,” McDonald said.
As you’ll see in the many tweets below, Ms. Pippin is as batshit crazy as you’d expect. She last appeared here in March 2023 when she successfully pressured the same school board to ban a book about a Holocaust survivor.
The @IRCSchools Board voted against the committee decision to retain @AlanGratz’s Ban This Book. They banned a book because it mentions other banned books.
— Florida Freedom to Read Project (@FLFreedomRead) June 2, 2024
Oh, #Florida! School board bans book about school book bans, accusing it of "teaching rebellion of school board authority." The name of the book: "Ban This Book." https://t.co/ubQ4SSUN9p via @DouglasSoule
Jennifer Pippin, the chair of a FL chapter of Moms for Liberty, succeeded in getting Anne Frank’s Diary: The Graphic Adaptation banned. She also appeared on TruNews, an antisemitic livestream, & has since refused to apologize for speaking on the show. https://t.co/FkPoH7FMaqpic.twitter.com/GbYXzp2Sx3
3. As a result, In The Night Kitchen was removed from school libraries. Jennifer Pippin, the local @Moms4Liberty chair who filed the challenge, says she then met with the district Superintendent. They agreed to resolve the complaint by adding clothes to Sendak's drawings. pic.twitter.com/1EqBHTE3QL
Hey look at IRC M4L boss Jennifer Pippin calling school shootings a hoax https://t.co/fTXrAvdwSM
— Jen Cousins 🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️🇵🇸 (@JenCousinsFL) April 20, 2023
A Moms for Liberty chair who previously fought a library for having an adaption of Anne Frank’s diary recently promoted her organization on a network that warns viewers about “seditious Jews,” “Jewish tyrants,” and how Jewish people “have forsaken God” https://t.co/2010q1ogjFpic.twitter.com/kHCc7A72Ep
This @EducationFL library training meeting is wild. M4L Jennifer Pippin, who had her two kids out of wedlock, only wants books in schools that promote abstinence until marriage ☠️ pic.twitter.com/LHcqeMN0Z2
It’s true it’s ironic, to those of us on the outside. But according to the DeSantis appointee to the board, they felt the need to ban the book because it challenged their authority! So they have a completely political agenda, having nothing to do with religion or morality. One wonders if they will next ban the local newspaper that wrote about this incident.
Likewise, kids’ access to books and topics in school that make Christian nationalists and white supremacists uncomfortable, appropriate medical care including reproductive and gender-affirming care, and so on, and so forth, are not about parental rights. They’re about THE KIDS’ RIGHTS as people in their own right, whether or not their individual parents support them.
It should come as no surprise that Alan Gratz, whose book on book banning Pippin wants banned, has won a National Jewish Book Award. So like Anne Frank and Holocaust survivors, he has “forsaken God.”
Get more newson
Scottie's Playtime 