Editorial illustration
A federal judge appointed by Joe Biden just handed down a ruling that should make every parent in America pause and ask what kind of country we’re becoming. U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai, who Biden placed on the bench in 2023, has decided that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. somehow overreached when he declared that chemically castrating children and performing irreversible surgeries on minors is neither safe nor effective. Let that sink in. A cabinet secretary using actual medical evidence to protect children from experimental procedures has been blocked by a single unelected judge who apparently believes the administrative state knows better than parents, doctors, and basic biological reality.
RFK Jr. didn’t pull this declaration out of thin air. His assessment was based on comprehensive evidence reviews documenting significant risks of harm, weak evidence of any real benefit, and a growing international consensus among countries that have actually conducted rigorous reviews of this controversial practice. Nations like Sweden, Finland, and the UK have already pumped the brakes on pediatric transition, recognizing that the evidence simply doesn’t support rushing confused children toward irreversible medical interventions. But here in America, a Biden appointee has decided that following the science and protecting kids constitutes some kind of administrative overreach.
The lawsuit was brought by twenty blue states and Washington D.C., all jurisdictions that have decided it’s perfectly acceptable to facilitate the chemical alteration of children’s bodies before they can legally vote, buy cigarettes, or get a tattoo. These same states claim that RFK Jr.’s declaration was an attempt to override established medical standards without proper procedure, as if the standard of care for children should be determined by political consensus rather than biological reality and long-term health outcomes. Judge Kasubhai even accused the administration of a “break it and see what others will do” approach, completely ignoring the mountains of evidence showing that these procedures are causing lifelong harm to vulnerable young people.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, who led this legal assault on child protection, called the ruling a win that protects patients, families, and providers from federal intimidation. What she really means is that it protects the multi-million dollar gender clinic industry and activist medical providers who have built careers on transitioning children. The idea that families need protection from a government trying to stop experimental medical procedures on minors is exactly backward from what any sane society should want. Parents should be asking why their elected officials are fighting so hard to ensure that confused teenagers can access drugs that will sterilize them and surgeries that will mutilate their bodies, all while calling it healthcare.
This ruling comes as the House just approved legislation to criminalize gender transition treatments for minors at the federal level, recognizing what should be obvious: children cannot consent to having their fertility destroyed and their bodies permanently altered. The disconnect between what elected representatives are trying to accomplish and what activist judges are allowing is staggering. One judge in Oregon has decided he knows better than the Secretary of Health and Human Services, better than international medical consensus, and better than the growing chorus of detransitioners who are speaking out about the irreversible harm done to them as minors. When did protecting children become controversial in America?
About The Author
