Gender-affirming care, endorsed by leading medical associations as 'medically necessary,' faces bans in multiple states influenced more by political agendas than scientific evidence.
Groups like Do No Harm, which have a history of operating under the guise of medical ethics, are actually promoting political agendas against gender-affirming care.
The Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Skrmetti could significantly impact regulations surrounding gender-affirming care, reflecting a broader struggle between science and political influence.
Critics of gender-affirming care often employ strategies reminiscent of the fossil fuel and tobacco industries, aiming to create doubt and confusion about established medical practices.
Collection
[
|
...
]