A transgender rights activist holds a flag during the Trans Day of Visibility rally on the National Mall on March 31, 2025, in Washington, D.C. Photo: Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images

For trans people in the United States, the year is ending much as it began: with a flurry of assaults on their very existence from Donald Trump’s regime. Attacks on trans people, especially trans youth, have been a constant throughout Trump’s second term so far, but the government took advantage of the year-end lull to attempt to push through a series of measures aimed at fully decimating health care provisions for trans youth.

The Department of Health and Human Services in mid-December announced proposals that, if enacted, would be a de facto ban on all gender-affirming medical care for young people in the entire U.S., where this care is already banned or restricted in 27 states. The new rules, which are now in a 60-day comment period, threaten to cut off federal Medicaid and Medicare funding from hospitals that provide gender-affirming care, including puberty blockers and hormone therapy, to minors — effectively forcing hospitals to stop offering it. Without this funding, practically no hospital can survive.

The same week HHS announced its plans, the Food and Drug Administration sent letters to a dozen manufacturers and retailers of chest binders, warning that the products were in violation of federal law since they were not registered as medical devices.

Heading into 2026, we know we can expect more of the relentless same from Republicans. When it comes to making trans lives unlivable, Trump’s party and its anti-trans zealots will throw everything against the wall to see what sticks. The open question is whether Democratic leaders will learn from their mistakes and actually stand up for the trans kids and adults on the front lines of Trump’s fascist onslaught.

[

Related

How to Keep Providing Gender-Affirming Care Despite Anti-Trans Attacks](https://theintercept.com/2025/03/09/abortion-trans-health-care-doctors-trump/)

Indeed, Democrats nationwide have an opportunity right now to show what it looks like to robustly oppose measures deployed by the Trump administration to hack away at essential health care. They can refuse to let HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his quack accomplice, Dr. Mehmet Oz, quietly and unilaterally push through dangerous and blatantly anti-science rules that would affect every hospital in the country. To do this, though, Democratic leaders must unite to support trans youth.

The latest administration moves are devious – using Medicaid and Medicare funding and FDA regulations as cudgels to coerce health care providers and related businesses to stop offering lifesaving services and tools to young people. Journalist and trans rights advocate Erin Reed described the HHS plan as “the single most aggressive attack on transgender healthcare in U.S. history” since “its adoption would likely force every hospital and major clinic that relies on Medicaid to immediately cease providing transgender youth care.”

Even threatening such a policy serves to chill health care providers. The point is to apply constant pressure and add layers of complication and uncertainty so hospitals and health care systems fall in line out of fear. This has been the Republican playbook for years when it comes to hacking away at reproductive and gender-affirming care. Such efforts depend on compliance, and — particularly when it comes to anti-trans policies and laws — have faced all too little serious opposition from Democratic leaders.

It is a good sign that a coalition of 19 states has already sued to challenge the proposed HHS rules. The lawsuit calls the HHS efforts unlawful and based on bunk scientific claims.

“Secretary Kennedy cannot unilaterally change medical standards by posting a document online,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, in a statement. “No one should lose access to medically necessary health care because their federal government tried to interfere in decisions that belong in doctors’ offices.”

While the lawsuit against HHS signals crucial opposition, this last year has made it all too clear that the courts cannot be relied upon to defend trans people’s basic human rights. After all, the far-right Supreme Court in June upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming health care for trans teenagers.

But legal avenues are limited when the highest court in the land is ruled by a majority of right-wing ideologues. This is a struggle on many fronts. As Reed reported, organizations like the Trans Youth Emergency Project and the Campaign for Southern Equality are “actively assisting families with contingency planning for continuity of care” while the implementation of the proposed new policies is challenged. Organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union and brave trans kids and their loved ones, who have fought every unconstitutional and malicious anti-trans law in court, will continue to need vigorous support and direct funding assistance.

It’s also high time that Democratic leaders treat the assault on trans youth for what it is: the attempted eradication of an entire category of persons, against which committed political opposition should be the baseline.

Democrats’ willingness to align with fascists to criminalize lifesaving health care should have no home in a purported opposition party.

Democratic leaders across the country have so far largely failed to stand up for trans people. California Gov. Gavin Newsom revealed himself to be despicably eager to throw trans people under the bus in service of an ill-thought centrist realpolitik and to buoy his larger political ambitions. Three Democrats joined with Republicans in the House of Representatives to support a bill that would imprison health care providers for providing basic gender-affirming care for anyone under 18. Luckily, the bill is highly unlikely to pass the Senate, but Democrats’ willingness to align with fascists to criminalize lifesaving health care should have no home in a purported opposition party.

As sure as Republicans will continue to push their cruel and deadly agenda, centrist pundits and operatives will urge Democrats to sacrifice targeted communities in an effort to appeal to an imagined group of voters. This pandering only serves the far right by treating its talking points as a legitimate political center as Democrats negotiate against themselves.

[

Related

Gavin Newsom’s Cynical Embrace of the Anti-Trans Agenda](https://theintercept.com/2025/03/07/gavin-newsom-trans-democrats/)

The idea that Democrats benefit electorally by bending rightward on key moral issues like trans rights and immigration has by now been thoroughly debunked. With the midterm elections ahead, Democrats would do well to focus on economic issues that serve America’s working class, the material concerns where Trump is roundly failing Americans — which in no way requires throwing trans people and minority rights under the bus.

In reality, it’s quite the opposite: Democrats simply need to push a consistent platform of health care and dignity for all, while refusing to let far-right fearmongering frame the debate. They must start now, using every possible tool at their disposal to block Kennedy’s underhanded health care ban — or risk forever being remembered for slinking back to the wrong side of history.

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/7201364

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/16368

Photo by Jamie Fenn on Unsplash

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.

Every year around this time, I look back and try to make sense of what we’ve lived through. Since I began reporting on LGBTQ+ news, there has never been a shortage of material—years defined by a mix of real victories and relentless harm. In the past, I’ve marked the end of the year by listing the wins, but as 2025 comes to a close, that tradition feels hollow and even dishonest, given how much this year has taken. And yet, beneath the exhaustion, I find myself feeling something unexpected: hope. Not because the danger has passed or because things are about to suddenly get easier, but because even with so many levers of power turned against us, we are still here. We are still finding care. We are still finding one another. We are still surviving. That persistence—the simple fact that we have not been erased—is what gives me hope for the future, even as the forces arrayed against us lash out with what increasingly feels like desperation.

I want to remind readers of what we have lived through this year—especially those who are newer here, who may have found my work because a family member passed it along over the holidays. In 2025 alone, we’ve faced dozens of executive orders and federal policies touching nearly every part of our lives: bans on passport gender marker changes, threats of revocation, and national sports bans spanning everything from darts to figure skating. Colleges have capitulated to Trump’s demands, pledging to bar transgender people from bathrooms, and even the U.S. Capitol building has followed suit. Many people have lost health insurance coverage or had identification documents withheld. Transgender youth, in particular, have been hit hard—dozens of hospitals have stopped offering care, courts have ordered forced outings to parents, and access to stability has been stripped away piece by piece. This is only the tip of a very cruel iceberg we have endured throughout 2025, with three more years of a Trump presidency still ahead.

And yet, we have not met our doom—at least not yet. Gender-affirming care for transgender adults remains available in all 50 states, with Florida imposing some restrictions, ones that transgender people have nevertheless found ways to work around. Many hospital systems continue to offer care to transgender youth, and some are actively fighting to keep doing so. At the same time, private clinics have emerged across the country providing youth care entirely disconnected from federal funding threats. The Trans Youth Emergency Project is helping families bridge the gaps, offering stipends, information, and travel assistance so care can continue. Even after everything that has been thrown at us, they have still failed to stop transgender healthcare in the United States.

Other federal policies are hitting us hard as well. The passport ban remains in effect, and many transgender people are living with uncertainty as the administration waffles on whether it intends to revoke passports issued during the injunction period that briefly allowed gender marker changes after Trump shut the process down. However, for now, those who updated their passports before the crackdown remain unaffected, and many people were able to renew or change their documents just before the presidency began, giving them nearly a decade of safety. As of this moment, passports updated during the injunction still appear to be valid and usable for travel. While some people are nevertheless being deeply impacted by the current policy, this pain is not permanent. In a few years, there will be another election, and because none of these restrictions are federal law, a future administration could reverse them just as easily as they were imposed.

Looking more broadly, there is no national federal bathroom ban. There is no total national ban on transgender youth healthcare. There is no nationwide sports ban enacted through a law passed by Congress—and many states continue to protect transgender participation in sports, despite capitulation by national sports organizations. Numerous states are still maintaining sanctuary-style protections, and people continue to travel across state lines to access the care they need. Quite simply, the administration is failing—often spectacularly—at erasing transgender people. They are making our lives harder, yes, but many of us are finding strength in community, sharing information, and relying on word of mouth to navigate around restrictions that are often riddled with holes and, with enough effort, still bypassable.

There are also more concrete reasons for hope. In Congress, only a small number of Democrats defected on a national sports ban. More recently, when Marjorie Taylor Greene’s national ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth came to a vote, more Republicans crossed the aisle to vote with Democrats than Democrats crossed over to vote with Republicans. The margins were narrow on both sides, to be sure—but they show that the fault lines have not cracked into earthquakes. National Republicans, it turns out, are often less unified on these issues than their state-level counterparts. And amid all of this, sustained pressure—including lobbying by Rep. Sarah McBride, who has faced criticism in the past (including from me) for what some viewed as overly cautious positioning—helped strip anti-trans medical provisions from the NDAA, even after similar policies had passed both the House and Senate. It’s hard to look at this record and not see that we still have a fighting chance.

Going beyond Congress, there are signs that the anti-trans fever that gripped politics over the last several years is beginning to break. In 2024, anti-trans advertising was widely credited with helping Republicans flip key races. A year later, voters are no better off: prices remain high, government dysfunction persists, and inequality continues to deepen. The promised fixes never arrived. As that reality sets in, voters appear increasingly exhausted by the constant effort to pin society’s failures on transgender people. What once functioned as a mobilizing wedge is now being recognized for what it is—a distraction meant to redirect anger away from those actually in power. That distraction is losing its potency. Even among voters who may hold mixed or conservative views on transgender issues, there is growing evidence that they do not see those issues as a governing priority, and may even be turned off by politicians who make anti-trans attacks the centerpiece of their campaigns. The results speak for themselves: sweeping 2025 losses for anti-trans firebrands in Virginia, New Jersey, New York City, and in school board races across the country.

This is no promise that 2026 will be easy. I expect continued regression, particularly in red states that still believe they must deliver cruelty toward transgender people to satisfy their base. We will likely see new and inventive ways to target us, along with further federal attacks from President Trump. Adult care may face threats in some states, or even nationally, before this is over. But the deeper we move into Trump’s presidency, the less time he has to enact the most extreme ambitions of his party. Even when new policies are announced, they are likely to be tied up in court for months, if not longer. And even when the Supreme Court ultimately signs off—as it has repeatedly shown it is willing to do—the clock will be closer to running out. The tunnel is long, but the light at the end of it is still there.

And so, as we move into 2026, my advice to the community I belong to—and write for every single day—is this: there will be hard moments ahead. There will be people who tell you to give up, and there will be days when hope feels distant. My reporting will continue to cover things that are difficult to read, because the truth often is. But it is through understanding the threats we face, maintaining connection with one another, and quietly, relentlessly finding ways around policies meant to erase us that we continue to survive. We carve out space not because it is given to us, but because we insist on it. And when history does bend toward justice—as it always eventually does—it will be because people like us were there, hands on the arc, bending it.

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.

From Erin In The Morning via This RSS Feed.

Photo by Suzy Brooks on Unsplash

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.

On Thursday, the Trump administration’s Department of Health and Human Services, under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., released a new proposed rule that represents the single most aggressive attack on transgender healthcare in U.S. history. The rule—effectively a “nuclear option” from the administration—relies on expansive and legally dubious authority to restrict Medicaid funding through what are known as “conditions of participation.” Rather than directly banning Medicaid reimbursement for transgender care, the rule would bar any hospital that accepts Medicaid funding from providing gender-affirming care for trans youth at all, regardless of whether that care is paid for by Medicaid. By making this a baseline condition for participation in the program, the administration appears to be weaponizing Medicaid itself to enact a de facto national ban on transgender youth care, following the passage of Marjorie Taylor Greene’s bill in the U.S. House and its likely inability to advance in the Senate.

The rule, document 2025-23465, is sweeping in scope. It introduces a new regulatory term, “sex-rejecting procedures,” defined as any medication or surgical procedure that “attempts to align an individual’s physical appearance or body with an asserted identity that differs from the individual’s sex.” Under the proposal, a hospital “must not perform sex-rejecting procedures on any child” in order to participate in Medicaid. This goes far beyond a simple ban on Medicaid reimbursement for transgender youth care. Instead, it functions as a direct threat to any hospital that continues to offer such care at all, regardless of funding source, and its adoption would likely force every hospital and major clinic that relies on Medicaid to immediately cease providing transgender youth care.

The new rule contains no exceptions for patients already receiving care, meaning transgender youth who have remained in treatment even under some red-state bans would immediately see that care cut off. For many, this would amount to forced medical detransition, particularly for those unable to find another provider—an almost impossible task given that no hospital accepting Medicaid could continue offering care under the rule. The document itself openly acknowledges this choice, stating, “In developing this proposed rule, we considered aligning our requirements with those States that already have restrictions on SRPs but with a variety of exceptions they provide as outlined in Section 1.B of this proposed rule. For example, we could have allowed those currently receiving these procedures to continue receiving them. Ultimately, however, we have decided to adopt the proposed provisions with fewer exceptions than are allowed in these States to maximize health and safety for all children.”

This rule appears to violate multiple U.S. statutes and constitutional limits on federal authority. Most notably, Section 1801 of the Social Security Act explicitly bars the federal government from using Medicaid regulations to exercise direct supervision or control over the practice of medicine. The statute states: “Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize any Federal officer or employee to exercise any supervision or control over the practice of medicine or the manner in which medical services are provided, or over the selection, tenure, or compensation of any officer or employee of any institution, agency, or person providing health services; or to exercise any supervision or control over the administration or operation of any such institution, agency, or person.” By conditioning all Medicare participation on the cessation of a specific clinical practice, CMS is exercising direct ‘supervision and control’ over the practice of medicine.

The government attempts to get around this by stating that gender affirming care is not part of “the practice of medicine.” In a section dedicated to this anticipated challenge, the new rule states: “Under Section 1801 of the Act, CMS may not “exercise any supervision or control over the practice of medicine or the manner in which medical services are provided, (42 U.S.C. 1395). However, we believe that providing the SRPs for children is not healthcare and hence are not subsumed under the term of “the practice of medicine.” Therefore, the proposed rule would not regulate the practice of medicine".”

Practice of medicine exception

The rule also likely violates the Constitution in two fundamental ways. First, it disregards the separation of powers. The executive branch cannot simply create a de facto nationwide healthcare ban through regulation when Congress has never authorized such a ban in statute. Agencies are empowered to implement laws, not to invent sweeping new prohibitions that Congress itself has declined to enact. Second, the rule represents a direct assault on states’ rights under the Tenth Amendment. By threatening to strip Medicaid participation from hospitals that comply with state laws requiring the provision of care, the administration would effectively coerce states into abandoning their own democratically enacted protections—or face the collapse of large portions of their healthcare systems.

The proposed rule nevertheless asserts that these guidelines would preempt state laws, placing a direct target on the “shield laws” enacted by states like California, Minnesota, and New York. The text is explicit in its intent to override state sovereignty, declaring that any state statute requiring hospitals to provide gender-affirming care—or protecting the providers who do—would be superseded by this federal regulation. In effect, the administration is claiming that a bureaucratic rule change has the power to nullify the democratically enacted protections of “safe” states, attempting to shatter the legal firewalls these states have built to protect transgender youth and their families from persecution and to ensure that care could be continued to be provided.

Federal preemption of shield laws assertion

“These draft rules comprise a dangerous and unconstitutional attempt to undermine the longstanding right of states to ensure the health and well-being of their residents, the right of parents and caregivers to support and love trans and nonbinary young people, and the guidance of doctors and medical organizations on the well-established standard of care. This draft rule is based on a biased “report” written by anti-trans authors that distorts existing evidence and ignores decades of rigorous research supporting the safety and necessity of gender-affirming care for transgender and nonbinary youth,” says Khadijah M. Silver, JD/MPH, Supervising Attorney for Civil Rights at Lawyers for Good Government.

The ban would leave only a narrow window for transgender youth to access care from providers not affected by the rule. The only entities that could continue offering treatment would be private doctors or clinics that do not accept Medicaid at all. While there has been some discussion about establishing such clinics to fill the gap, those efforts have largely failed to materialize. As a result, most transgender youth would be left without any realistic alternative provider for their care.

The full federal rule can be read in this document. An unpublished version is available here, with the official published version expected to appear Friday. Once published, the rule will enter a 60-day public comment period, during which members of the public can submit feedback. After that period closes, the government is required to review and respond to those comments before the regulation can take effect, a process that can take an unspecified amount of time. Court challenges are all but certain, but if the rule is ultimately allowed to go into force, it would likely spell the end of most transgender youth care in the United States.

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.

TYEP - Used With Permission

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.

Over the last several years, many red states have banned gender-affirming care for transgender youth. Since Trump returned to power, that campaign has shifted to blue states, with the administration threatening hospitals and healthcare systems with the loss of federal funding unless they stopped providing care. This week, those threats escalated sharply: a new federal rule, now in its public comment period, would bar any hospital that provides transgender healthcare from receiving Medicaid funds—a move that would effectively force most major hospital systems to end that care altogether. In response, an organization that has already helped families navigate care bans in red states is stepping in again. The Trans Youth Emergency Project (TYEP), spun up by leaders at the Campaign for Southern Equality, says it has capacity to help parents of transgender youth locate independent clinics that may be less vulnerable to the administration’s current and incoming policies and can provide, in some cases, travel assistance.

TYEP’s latest outreach follows the release of a sweeping new federal rule that would bar any hospital system—and any clinic affiliated with those systems—from providing gender-affirming care if they accept Medicaid. The rule contains no carveouts for patients already receiving care, meaning many transgender youth would be forced into abrupt medical detransition unless they can quickly secure alternative providers, should the rule take effect. It explicitly claims to preempt state shield laws in places like California, Minnesota, and New York. The proposed rule further destabilizes an already fragile healthcare landscape for transgender youth, as hospitals and clinics continue to shutter services in preemptive compliance with the administration’s escalating threats.

The rule does leave one narrow avenue for transgender youth to continue accessing care: private, independent clinics and physicians who do not accept Medicaid. Earlier this year, as hospital systems began shutting down services, advocates spoke about spinning up independent clinics to meet the need. Massachusetts advanced a measure intended to funnel funding toward that kind of care, and in New York City, mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani pledged millions to help preserve treatment capacity. But for many families, the talk of these clinics have felt like vaporware—plans discussed publicly that have yet to translate into accessible appointments. There may, however, be a quieter reality beneath the surface: clinicians and small practices that are not advertising openly but remain prepared to provide care. That is where TYEP steps in, working behind the scenes to connect patients with providers who are still able and willing to treat them.

When asked whether TYEP has the capacity to absorb a surge of families seeking alternatives in the wake of the new rule, organizers said unequivocally that they do. They noted that the organization has repeatedly scaled up during previous waves of clinic and hospital closures without issue. Adam Polaski explained, “At every turn, we have been able to pivot and scale up and show people the reason that this is important. Folks have stepped up with their dollars, and also folks have requested support and spread the word. So right now, I don’t want folks to feel like they shouldn’t reach out because they ‘don’t really need it’ or someone else ‘needs it more than them.’ Everyone needs the support right now, and it’s ok. We have the capacity to take it on.”

Polaski compared what the group is doing to efforts that spun up for abortion access in the wake of recent restrictions and bans. “A lot of folks are recognizing that this kind of, you know, practical support network that the abortion access movement has crafted so powerfully is going to be necessary for trans folks.”

The group is likely to face real stress testing in the coming weeks. While the rule change has not yet taken effect—the process will include a 60-day public comment period, additional time for the administration to review comments and finalize the rule, and near-certain litigation that could delay or block implementation entirely—we have already seen that the mere threat of new anti-trans rules is often enough to prompt hospital systems to fold. Even now, EITM is aware of hospital systems actively discussing the proposed rule and weighing preemptive closures in anticipation of compliance pressures. That means independent clinics may begin seeing an influx of patients well before any rule is finalized. In that environment, organizations like the Trans Youth Emergency Project will be essential in helping families navigate a rapidly shrinking and increasingly opaque care landscape.

Families wishing to contact the TYEP about their situation can do so here by filling out their intake form. The national project offers family navigation through one-on-one phone calls to help identify providers unimpacted by restrictions, as well as travel grants of $500.

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.

By Selena Simmons-Duffin

Updated Thursday, December 18, 2025 • 2:20 PM EST

Health officials from the Trump administration announced several moves Thursday that will have the effect of essentially banning gender-affirming care for transgender young people, even in states where it is still legal.

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Dr. Mehmet Oz, who leads Medicaid and Medicare, announced the measures in a press conference at the headquarters of the Department of Health and Human Services in Washington, D.C.

The ban takes the form of two new proposed rules from Medicaid and Medicare. The first would prohibit doctors and hospitals from receiving federal Medicaid reimbursement for gender-affirming care provided to transgender patients younger than age 18. Medicaid is the health care program that covers low-income Americans.

The second would block all Medicaid and Medicare funding for any services at hospitals that provide pediatric gender-affirming care. Virtually every hospital in the country takes Medicare, which covers older Americans and the disabled. Because hospitals rely on Medicare, the rule would have a wide-ranging effect.

Supporters and opponents of transgender rights agree that, taken together, the forthcoming hospital rules could make access to pediatric gender-affirming care across the country extremely difficult, if not impossible. The care is already banned in 27 states. The proposed rules will be entered into the Federal Register on Friday and that starts a 60-day comment period. The rules would not take effect immediately.

The American Civil Liberties Union has announced plans to sue to stop the rules.

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

As major anti-transgender bills loom and Congress prepares to vote on sweeping restrictions on transgender healthcare over the next two days, Representative Sarah McBride gathered with reporters outside the Capitol to denounce what she called the Republican Party’s “obsession” with transgender people. McBride was joined by Representatives Ocasio-Cortez and Johnson for the press scrum, which comes at a critical moment: two high-profile bills—one proposing a national felony ban on trans youth healthcare and another seeking to bar Medicaid coverage—are expected to receive floor action, alongside anticipated moves by the Trump administration to pressure hospitals nationwide through Medicaid restrictions.

“So, we are two legislative days away from the Affordable Care Act tax credits expiring, when millions of people will see their healthcare premiums skyrocket, And GOP leadership, with that deadline fast approaching, has decided to schedule two votes on anti-trans bills and precisely zero votes on extending the Affordable Care Act tax credits,” started McBride, before turning to Republican obsession on transgender people.

“They would rather have us focus in and debate a misunderstood and vulnerable one percent of the population instead of focusing in on the fact that they are raiding everyone’s healthcare in order to pay for tax breaks for the wealthiest one percent. All Republican politicians care about is making the rich richer and attacking trans people. They are obsessed with trans people. I actually think they think more about trans people than trans people think about trans people. They are consumed with this and they are extreme on it.”

McBride’s comments come as Congress weighs two major anti-transgender bills. The first, introduced by Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, is expected to be heard today. The bill would enact a nationwide ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth, imposing penalties of up to 10 years in prison on those who provide such care. With amendments expected, the bill could extend its reach beyond doctors to parents as well, a move that would be devastating for transgender healthcare nationwide. While the bill is not expected to survive the Senate, it will function as a high-stakes messaging vote—particularly for Democrats facing pressure from political consultants to shift right on transgender issues, and for Republicans representing more moderate districts. Notably, Democrats recently secured major electoral victories in races where transgender rights featured prominently, a political reality that may give some Republicans pause before embracing the measure.

The second bill, introduced by Representative Dan Crenshaw, would ban Medicaid from covering gender-affirming care nationwide. The proposal is expected to be framed as a more “moderate” alternative to Greene’s felony ban—an apparent effort to peel off support from centrist Republicans and potentially even some Democrats. Like many recent Republican proposals, Crenshaw’s bill also embeds a rigid definition of sex, legally grounding it in reproductive capacity, language the party has increasingly attempted to codify across federal legislation related to gender.

McBride focused on the extreme nature of the bills, including the parental jailing provisions, stating, “They are bringing forward a bill that would put parents and providers at risk of being jailed—literally jailed—for affirming their transgender child and following medical best practices. t is already hard enough to raise a family today. It is already hard enough to be a kid today. And families with transgender young people are navigating complicated and complex situations, making deeply personal healthcare decisions. And regardless of what decision you might make as a parent, government should never insert itself into the personal healthcare decisions of patients, parents, and providers. That is a basic principle and a basic right that should be afforded to all Americans, including transgender people and their families.”

The language marked some of the harshest criticism McBride has leveled at Republicans to date over their targeting of transgender people. She has herself been the subject of Republican attacks, including a bathroom ban advanced earlier this year by Rep. Nancy Mace that appeared aimed directly at her. While McBride has faced criticism since her election—over interviews and statements on transgender rights, including from myself—her forceful posture and visible pushback against this legislation are likely to be received as a welcome sign by transgender people who want to see Democrats in Congress meet these attacks with more than quiet resistance.

You can contact your representatives today to urge them to vote against the anti-transgender provisions. At least one Democrat has expressed uncertainty on how she will vote, Representative Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (WA), and several other Democrats have voted for anti-trans provisions this year, including: Henry Cuellar (TX), Donald G. Davis (NC), Cleo Fields (LA), Shomari Figures (AL), Laura Gillen (NY), Jared F. Golden (ME), Vicente Gonzalez (TX), Adam Gray (CA), Susie Lee (NV), John W. Mannion (NY), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (WA), Kim Schrier (WA), and Thomas R. Suozzi (NY).

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The Trans Relocation Guide: Finding Trans Asylum and Safe Havens offers resources to help trans people in the US understand and navigate the relocation process within the U.S. or abroad.

Kill me. I'm so traumatized from the last year that I barely function. I keep trying to do the work but I need psych care that would put me at more risk now that mental healthcare providers are giving data to ICE.

I look out of the window from the room in which I sleep and its raining hard. I'm near Renton Washington and everywhere is flooding, people are dying, and things are getting worse as the weather pummels Washington.

Folks are helping me. The community here is amazing but I am still so afraid of everyone. I put on my best big girl face, hike up my dress, and do the work but it's not helping. Every day I grow more isolated and feel more alone. All these trees remind me of how I survived hanging myself. They remind me how small I am. The terror of scale with no one to hold me is almost unbearable.

The praxis of accepting help is a the hardest labor I've ever done. Nothing feels right. Everything is getting worse and these amazing folks who are showing great love and support need it returned. I can't do that and it hurts in a way that I can't explain.

I keep saying that the parts of me that have been burned away weren't needed. That they weren't important but its not what I feel. I don't have dreams for a future. Those were burned away. So was my success at not self harming for decades. This isn't a forge and I'm meat not metal. I am doing my best but for reals I'm not okay.

I was approved for psych disability so i have more than nothing. I guess that's something for as long as the feds keep paying and I stay out of their grubby little hands.

Maybe I'll wake up and I'll not think im in my car or cry out. The folks here haven't mentioned it but they must hear me having the night terrors.

I can't talk about big stuff that might put the face of yours truly on the public front line of our fight for international asylum. I'm fucking terrified of becoming visible in a way that increases danger for me. I'm hoping I don't fuck it up because trans children and their families need asylum. I can't imagine the consequences of our failure on this front. I can barely stand, psychologically, and I don't want to do any of this. I want to go to sleep for good not take on a truckload more fuckin guilt and responsibility than I already feel.

I need rest. I'll be sure to keep fighting. Not for me because I'm not there yet but tomorrow I'll fight to stay, for Faye. Tomorrow is for Faye.

kthxbye - Opal

Thank you for reading till the end. Have some pics so you can fall in love with me and make me your pretty princess and protect me.

In its decision, organization cites province's bill affecting transgender athletes