Thank you Kristen. Very brave and compelling piece. It’s so interesting when you contrast this narrative with the actions of the medical community and the narrative of “gender affirming care”. Even though the Trump Administration EO should effectively pause the medicalization and mutilation of children and minors as well as the indoctrination in schools, it really hasn’t. Most clinics, hospitals and schools (including many in red states) fight tooth and nail or as has been reported in some outlets ignore the EO entirely and continue to practice. They don’t seem hesitant or confused on that front.
Incentives and institutional backing likely play a large role in that. “Gender-affirming care” has been built into a broader medical, academic, and pharmaceutical framework, so providers often feel reinforced (legally, culturally, and financially) when moving in that direction. Emergency situations like the ones described here are require rapid judgment under pressure, and if there’s any perceived ambiguity, hesitation creeps in.
It does make you wonder what would change if protecting women—especially in pregnancy and motherhood—came with the same level of clarity, backing, and urgency when our lives are on the line.
So true. It should be a priority to protect women when they are most vulnerable. Sadly it’s easier to use them after the fact when it is politically expedient than make sure they are protected from tragic consequences when possible. And that has been true throughout history.
As for the “harder” conversation, though: it strikes me (watching safely from 🇨🇦) that the hospitals/systems in question *have* done risk assessments and the like, and have landed on “delay” as their safest option — that is, the legal landscape is so screwed up right now that they feel the risk is minimized by NOT taking the steps you have outlined.
I’m not suggesting that this is *ethical* - it kicks the moral hazard** down to staff, and of course fails the patient(s). But it may be *rational* given the lack of alternatives & the threats from GOP governments who’ve rendered themselves small enough to fit in any vagina that they have chosen to regulate 🤬
** Full disclosure: I’m a person who has been let down several times by my employers’ legal counsel, and borne similar moral hazard burdens.
It can be soul crushing fighting both against a system & for the right outcome 😢
Thank you Kristen. Very brave and compelling piece. It’s so interesting when you contrast this narrative with the actions of the medical community and the narrative of “gender affirming care”. Even though the Trump Administration EO should effectively pause the medicalization and mutilation of children and minors as well as the indoctrination in schools, it really hasn’t. Most clinics, hospitals and schools (including many in red states) fight tooth and nail or as has been reported in some outlets ignore the EO entirely and continue to practice. They don’t seem hesitant or confused on that front.
Incentives and institutional backing likely play a large role in that. “Gender-affirming care” has been built into a broader medical, academic, and pharmaceutical framework, so providers often feel reinforced (legally, culturally, and financially) when moving in that direction. Emergency situations like the ones described here are require rapid judgment under pressure, and if there’s any perceived ambiguity, hesitation creeps in.
It does make you wonder what would change if protecting women—especially in pregnancy and motherhood—came with the same level of clarity, backing, and urgency when our lives are on the line.
So true. It should be a priority to protect women when they are most vulnerable. Sadly it’s easier to use them after the fact when it is politically expedient than make sure they are protected from tragic consequences when possible. And that has been true throughout history.
Such an important distinction!
As for the “harder” conversation, though: it strikes me (watching safely from 🇨🇦) that the hospitals/systems in question *have* done risk assessments and the like, and have landed on “delay” as their safest option — that is, the legal landscape is so screwed up right now that they feel the risk is minimized by NOT taking the steps you have outlined.
I’m not suggesting that this is *ethical* - it kicks the moral hazard** down to staff, and of course fails the patient(s). But it may be *rational* given the lack of alternatives & the threats from GOP governments who’ve rendered themselves small enough to fit in any vagina that they have chosen to regulate 🤬
** Full disclosure: I’m a person who has been let down several times by my employers’ legal counsel, and borne similar moral hazard burdens.
It can be soul crushing fighting both against a system & for the right outcome 😢