On Wednesday, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s prohibition on transgender medical procedures for minors. This contentious issue could see a broader ban if a significant bill pushed by President Trump makes it through the Senate untouched.
Notably, the bill recently passed in the House contains a clause that forbids both minors and adults from using taxpayer funds for what is referred to as “gender-affirming care.”
Supported by Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas), this clause bans Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) from covering adolescent interventions, which could include everything from hormonal treatments to surgical procedures.
The so-called “Crenshaw Amendment” was tacked onto a larger piece of legislation at the last minute. It revises the Social Security Act, stopping federal funds for what is viewed as medically unnecessary treatments.
According to Crenshaw’s office, these regulations could save taxpayers approximately $2.5 billion over the next ten years.
For the provision to be effective, it has to navigate stringent Senate rules, particularly the “bird rules.” These rules prevent unrelated measures from being included in the budget process, which could complicate matters.
Crenshaw’s office has suggested that implementing this provision could result in significant taxpayer savings. They noted that the costs associated with gender transition procedures can reach up to $75,000 per patient, highlighting both financial and health implications.
Recently, Crenshaw claimed his legislative efforts are “long overdue” and asserted that they “will become law.” He described the gender transition procedure as a “lobotomy for our generation,” emphasizing that what some term “gender-affirming care” lacks credible health benefits and poses significant risks.
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling reaffirmed Tennessee’s restrictions on transgender surgeries and treatments for adolescents, part of a wider trend, as many states have enacted similar laws.
Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) praised the ruling, calling it a victory for common sense, medical integrity, and the safety of children. With over 25 years as a doctor, he expressed serious concerns about the potential harm of these treatments, which could lead to irreversible consequences.
Marshall also indicated a long-term commitment to eliminating taxpayer-funded gender procedures for both minors and adults, reinforcing his stance through proposed legislation against these measures.
