♪ ♪ > > This week in the Wheelhouse the politics of hormones barriers to gender affirming care for kids who are > > and who may break them down to > > for Connecticut Public on Frankie Graziano.

This is the Wheelhouse.

We show that connects politics.

The people we got your weekly dose of politics in Connecticut and beyond right here.

The Trump administration wants to bar hospitals from providing gender affirming care to children who are transgender.

> > What states are fighting back challenging with the lawsuit that ultimately vacated a declaration from the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services to carry out Trump's directives on gender affirming care.

This hour, we're talking about access to gender, affirming care for kids who are trans and looking at how Connecticut lawmakers are responding.

We start with a look at how the White House is targeted, gender affirming care treatments for trans youth and we'll do it with Lindsey Dawson.

She's the director of LGBTQ+ policy at Kff.

Thanks so much for being here.

Lindsey.

Thank you so much for having me.

Folks.

If you have some thoughts on the Trump administration's directives regarding gender affirming care treatments for minors hit us up to date 7 to 0 9, 6, 7, 7, Lindsay since day one, the administration has targeted gender affirming care.

A literally a day after the president was inaugurated.

Cayman executive orders seeking to end what's being deemed.

> > Chemical or surgical mutilation of children, unquote.

That's what they said.

> > Exactly.

So that started even before the president took office.

> > Running and campaigning leading up to that election.

The president really started to make gender affirming care issue that the administration was going take front and center.

There was a day one executive order that sought to define sex as simply male and female effectively erasing transgender people and then about a week after that, the president put out another executive order that really lay out the administration's all hands on deck approach to limiting access to gender, affirming care.

And that's that actually for young people.

> > What are ways they've tried to have it for us.

This these actions that they've made, these executive orders, I understand at one point there was an FBI portal or something like that that launched in sword sort of some way to get civilians to turn in providers in some way.

Was that something that was a thing?

> > That's right.

So I mentioned this has been a real my hands on deck and vote approach, which is quite remarkable, given that such a small share of the population is Cam's and that not all transgender people see gender affirming care.

But the administration is and things like that of an FBI were little where people identify providers offering these services.

But the biggest actions that have been taken have been proposed rulemaking and the declaration that you you already spoke of and that really seeks to dramatically limit gender affirming care and stoke providers as well.

> > Okay.

So that's where we're going to go into next.

Amanda Hope you can spell it out for be in December.

We have the proposed rules and the declaration.

Could you describe each of them for us here?

> > Yes, certainly so mid December, the administration issue to propose rules and the declaration and before I described the content, I think it's important to understand that every whose role is just that a proposal, it doesn't think the media fact that requires a comment period which allow stakeholders to write in the administration say what they think about the goals this important thing, not support it.

And then the government considers those comments.

And then if they issue a final rule, that's the regulation takes effect.

And in doing so.

They also have to respond to the comments.

And and the tools that came out were the first one proposed to prohibit federal Medicaid funding from covering gender-affirming care services for youth.

States can use their own state dollars, but it would be quite sweeping and women, gender affirming care for youth covered by the Medicaid program.

The second proposed rule that came out would be to put private hospitals that receive Medicare and Medicaid payments offering gender affirming care services to youth.

The hospital targeted by this rule is the majority of hospitals and even a hospital wanted to continue to provide this care They can't financially just not going to be able to do so.

You look at all of the health care spending that happens in a hospital, nearly half of that comes from Medicare and Medicaid.

So hospitals are just not fiscally going to be in a position to say we want to follow best practice medicine and offer these medically necessary services that forgo these payments that make our delivery system sustainable.

> > Here in Connecticut, we're told that hospitals have unwound their gender affirming care treatment programs partially in response to this.

And it really actually came in the summer, which was we're closer to the executive action that it was the Sackler, a shuns reached out to prominent gender affirming care programs in Connecticut and reaction to the recent federal court order.

Vacating U.S.

health and Human Services declaration to borrow hospitals from providing gender affirming care children.

Yale, New Haven in Connecticut Children's Hospital did not respond to an email requesting comment.

They announced last summer.

They no longer provide gender affirming care medication to trans children in their care.

We did hear back from Middlesex Hospital.

A spokesperson wouldn't specify the kind of care that they provide in a written statement, Middlesex Hospital says it quote, is monitoring the situation while continuing to provide the safest highest quality health care and the best experience possible for our community.

As you said, a lot of that has been sort of a unwound and rolled back hospitals having a tough time because there are some financial reasons there.

Obviously.

But what are the states doing in response to this declaration?

> > Yeah, I think what you restate it is important to know where the hospitals are going and when they did rule care earlier on even crowded this happen across the country rate.

This wasn't just something that happened in Connecticut and almost every health system in public facing comments including Connecticut, Children's and Yale directly try Tai rolling back that care, too complex and threatening legal environment and to these executive actions and so is that he's been back and forth with states and responding to how their providers are responding to both the executive order.

But also these proposed rules in the declaration which we can get into if you'd like.

Yes.

And and, you know, I think providers are stuck between a rock and a hard place, particularly in states like Connecticut where there might be non discrimination policies you know, providers do not want to be sued and have their entire program to dismantle.

They do want to provide the press pack best practice care and state AGs have that different points in time to push states to re-engage in this care, but are also aware of the environment in which these providers are operating.

And so if it is deeply complex.

> > Yeah, and you talk about individual attorneys, general, it may be Letisha James is somebody that's in New York.

I'm not sure if you have any awareness or idea of that situation versus others because it seems like New York may be some of the care might be more active than it is here in Connecticut.

I'm not sure the scale of access versus the 2, but it seems like it might be a little more care available in New York.

> > And even in New York, we've seen, Carol, that turned their I think the 80's can come out and saying we want you to continue to provide a scare.

You could be in violation of state law that you don't continue to provide this care.

But providers and provider legal counselor.

It is still in a tough place and trying to figure out, you know, what can their providers do and both be in any sort of an N?

> > Not not violating state law, but also without threat from the administration.

And so it's increasingly difficult position for them to navigate.

And and you are seeing states challenge some of this we haven't seen times is to the proposed rules because they are proposed but we will likely see challenges if they were finalized.

We did see challenges to the declaration, including by Connecticut and that order.

The declaration was recently vacated by the court.

That declaration is a little bit different from the proposed rules because actually sought to develop a new standard of medical medical standard for health care, which is deeply unusual.

Usually we see medical standards for professional bodies.

A medical associations, our media guidelines group from organized by the federal government made up of professionals subject matter.

Experts and so to see Senator kind of Secretary Kennedy.

Pursue a decoration and try and develop a standard of care was very unusual.

And the court found that, in fact, he lacked the authority to, you know, you know, that early establish standards of > > This is Oregon V Canada care.

that you mention and this is the decision that you said that vacated the declaration.

But even though that declaration is vacated, we're still in an environment where hospitals are not comfortable providing a full range of > > It seems that right there.

care.

That's The declaration has been vacated.

The proposed rules linger.

But we have seen just continued pressure from from the administration that puts providers and a really difficult position, for example, right after that operation officials started treating the officer inspector general will investigate providers based on that declaration.

And so I think it's a little bit of a cat and mouse where providers are really trying to figure out what what they can do and how they can best serve their client, their patients without being in violation of of certain federal policy.

> > Another recent ruling involving gender affirming care that I want to talk about here that I think you can help me out with here.

The U.S.

Supreme Court decision last month came down against the state of Colorado's ban on conversion therapy.

I want to make sure I have that right.

What does the ruling mean in the landscape where Jennifer Mink, hair treatments for minors are being targeted?

> > Right.

conversion therapy is a widely condemned the practice.

All the major medical associations across the United States, criticize it state last evidence state.

It's an effective and can create harm.

It's providers seeks to change.

Somebody's is that for inpatient.

Typically from being a GB, tq 2 heterosexual or cisgender.

And nearly half of the states have to protect against I health care providers.

In this case, therapists from engaging in conversion therapy, the current of their bus and that they want the governor to provide the services to their clients and sought to challenge the state them so before the Supreme Court was the question, does the current a lot censor speech between the U.S.

and their patients based on viewpoint doesn't violate free speech rights and in order to sort of tease that out, the court had to decide did that and then speak surely or is actually practice or conduct for speeches incident to that conduct.

Interestingly, while the court said that the car was an egregious assault on free speech, technically did not invalidate the law.

The nation's highest court sent the case back to lower courts to apply a stricter standard of scrutiny.

And so we'll see what happens in those lower courts.

But they were pretty clear that they saw the Colorado law does violate and that it was purely about speak.

But it isn't we need to wait and see what happens at this point in time.

> > And could you just at least as we finish up, your try to get into the fear with with that ruling?

Is it that this could be adopted in a larger setting or excuse me and in other states or other cases.

> > Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, it could stand for and these laws are being able to stand in other states.

Importantly, the court did not weigh in on the safety or effectiveness of conversion therapy.

The fear is that these practices could be more widespread without protective laws in states.

And while individuals could still suit against practitioners for individual harm and it is not as as sort of protective as having a state law that protects.

I got to practice.

It is widely seen as harmful.

> > Questions about this case or anything else that is happening in the administration right now related to this topic.

There is a policy tracker at Kff Dot Org which Lindsey Dawson has contributed to Kff director of LGBTQ+.

policy.

Thank you so much for coming on the show.

Lindsay.

> > Thank you so much for having me.

After the break, we zoom into Connecticut and how access.

> > To gender affirming care has changed under the Trump administration.

Questions of what you've heard so far hit us up.

8, 8, 7, to 0, 9, 6, 7, 7, 8, 8, 7, to 0, 9, 6, 7, 7, ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ This is the Wheelhouse from Connecticut Public Radio.

I'm Frankie Graziano.

You heard last segment about the White House's attacks on gender affirming care treatments for minors.

Now, let's talk about how families in Connecticut are impacted.

Combs is an organizer with a clear lead grassroots organization dedicated to LGBTQ+ rights advocacy called Equality, Connecticut.

Listen, thank you so much for being here.

Thank you for having me.

Thank you for coming up here in coming on the show.

I appreciate it.

You own a tangy is the president of glam Agl and a health professionals advancing LGBTQ+ equality.

Good morning, Good morning.

I appreciate you coming on to talk to us as well.

Yona if folks have questions regarding gender affirming care, someone, you know, having to go out of state for their treatment, going to call 8, 8, 7, to 0, 9, 6, 7, 7, asking the first question when transgender children seek care.

Can you help us understand the range of gender affirming care that they may be looking for if they are seeking at all.

> > Yeah, absolutely.

You know, think a lot of the scare has a lot of stigma rather than there's a lot like to speak about it as a lot of misinformation for the majority of trans youth.

It really is actually just had a feeling and mental health support and affirming mental health support.

I think they explore their gender and also just so to seek care for older adolescence.

They're me the hormone therapy or other sort of medical treatments for some of the younger adolescence.

There may be fewer offers.

That is something that definitely also is over in Destin conversations.

It's not something that is necessarily widely used, but it is a very important medical in from a medical intervention for a select number of you.

And then finally, there's surgery, which again, is a very small population, usually older adolescents that are seeking surgery.

But the 3rd of the full range of care in terms of medical treatments and behavioral health treatments that and the really important thing, I think for people to remember is that the most important thing is the access from a mental health services.

And that is usually about utilized the most.

> > What's available?

The focus now for the context of this conversation and what might not be available.

> > Yeah, so I mean, it really depends of the states because the depending on what state you live in, there are different kinds of care brands.

I would say in the current landscape of because that we're mostly seeing as hospitals shut down their programs.

What has really been restricted his access to surgery for those few that are seeking surgery.

But, you know, I'm hospital programs were also some of the largest providers of some of the medical treatments and also counseling to a lot of them had interdisciplinary center is where they had counselors, surgeons and fire department there.

The endocrinologist center all working under one roof.

So with those places closed, a lot of these long-term relationships that these that 10th, you have a clinician that are really important to have those relationships, those good relationships, that great report were injured.

And there are usually still depending on what state you're in, a smaller individual clinics for community health centers that are sort of providing this care.

Some of them were discreetly and they can usually provide some of those mental health services as well as the medical treatments like hormone therapy.

And in some cases blockers, though, that first on the smaller fun, it's actually the blockers is that little bit more difficult to provide the surgery is definitely very with biggest restriction access that just in terms these closures because these hospitals oftentimes provided multiple different kinds of services.

Is it more difficult to find care and also difficult for families to sort of have to translate to a new practice, especially after some very important relationships.

> > Difficult to find that care.

But from a linear perspective to that likely means going private and also paying more money for this care.

> > Often times, yes, but the smaller individual clinic, although there are many community health centers that also oftentimes that would qualify and community health centers that will provide this care but unfortunately, some of the hospitals, a lot of those community health centers are also very vulnerable from some of the threats that are going on.

A lot of them are still trying to find ways to do it.

But I certainly yeah, it could be that it's a private pay systems that can be difficult for families and especially for families that may be using public insurance.

It can be more difficult to find a provider.

And that is that the new patients as well.

And you can also have a light as well because, you know, you kind of get that clinic shut down overnight.

You can't get an appointment next week.

You know, if you see that of an ally there.

So certainly it causes a lot of distress and the whole family when they suddenly become sort of like displaced from medical practices and had to find a solution.

And it's even worse.

Of course, that families can stay for a total ban.

And we are seeing a lot of them displaced families have and actually an incentive safe travel out of state to seek care.

I'm lucky that it's not as much that he's in Connecticut as of I'm certain even went to hospital closed out of pocket.

That can be something that's very difficult for families.

> > Displaced, good word to use.

Thank you for introducing that to us in context of this conversation, Melissa Combs is from a quality Connecticut addition to lobbying on behalf of the Out Accountability Project and Organizing for Equality, Connecticut.

You have a child undergoing gender affirming care treatments.

First and foremost, how's your kid doing at the site?

> > Well, despite the hostile national climate, he is thriving.

But that speaks to the extraordinary effort that all parents and caregivers.

Have to put in.

To ensure that their child is thriving and obviously with the loss of access to care that that.

Made things more difficult.

So but he is in a great school with the great learning environment to supportive learning environment.

As patient of the Yale, we've we've found care and we are actually going out of state to find the care because there is the healthcare doesn't that's been created in the northern half and southeast parts of Connecticut because of what's going on in the past year.

But he's great.

> > Can can can to get certain services in Connecticut and then go out of state for the other ones or is it all pretty much?

> > If you live to Penn's units Ecmc completely shattered their program.

It's just gone.

Yale took a different tack and they stopped prescribing to adolescence.

And that means that their program remains open and they have expanded their mental health supports in addition to some some other things that were part of their program like that, you know, parent support groups, teen support groups, things like that.

So they have remained open.

They just they just can't prescribe so if you have an adolescent.

Puberty blockers were and therapy.

Uber having to go to a different practice to get that you'll hear what we spoke about in the last interview when I talked to Lindsey.

> > The situation that finds hospitals find themselves.

And so it's like that crude method think we were talking on the phone about earlier this week where we have a small subset of of kids here and so much dollars that come in here for Medicaid.

And of course, Medicare.

So that's kind of the situation that kids find themselves in at this time.

Really victim sort of of this crude math.

Would you say?

> > Absolutely.

you know, let's be real for second.

These hospitals faced extremely challenging choices.

Neal's case.

They were looking at losing over 3 billion dollars in patient revenue from Medicare and Medicaid in CCM C we calculated to be somewhere around 700 Million.

Legal counsel at both institutions are the ones who made this decision.

And Israeli army trans kids didn't stand a chance against that.

Before the declaration.

So you want to see him see made changes to their programs in July of 2025, this is about 5 months before the committee declaration came out.

So it's understandable or not understandable, but I guess it's remarkable.

> > That the declaration came out and then there was the vacated order.

But yet it we don't know if anything's changed yet.

> > We'll rate.

I well, the decision of Oregon is glorious and that there's a lot of wonderful language.

Tenet, many thanks to that judge for recognizing that.

Begin.

Again, we have to remember the human CMC me these changes 5 months before and they were inspired by different federal actions that had started, you know, January 20th, as as I believe it was.

Lindsay mentioned.

It wasn't just executive orders.

You know, I would say the provider community, you know, caught wind of the of these potential CMS rules that we're going to be proposed.

And there's a there's a lot of talk about those.

But then really I think the biggest chilling factor was in June of 2025. the Department of Justice issued 20 subpoenas to hospitals, children's hospitals around the country.

Now we know from court documents and just others choosing to talk to the press that Boston Children's got one of those subpoenas and they have doubled down on remaining open.

we know that the Children's Hospital in Philadelphia got one.

We know at the hospital in La got one.

But CCM C got that subpoena to.

Which is not.

> > Widely known.

> > But that is really the I think the motivation for what have a big part of the chilling and that you're saying.

> > Thank you for making that declaration.

A juror that that point.

I just want to make sure that I know that I reached out to try to get some kind of clarity from Yale and Connecticut children's and I didn't hear back.

But nonetheless, I did reach out listening to Melissa's story Yona.

Is this something you're hearing a lot about?

> > there's a lot of fear out there.

And I think I'm in such large hospital systems.

As has been said, it's it's really scary for that.

You know, I think it and there are health care infrastructure just generally is already so strained and they're very risk-averse We're talking about systems that are caring for a lot of people become very many people.

And they're doing so from thin margins.

And thing I also want to highlight those that when a lot of these places have closed their programs, they don't fight changes in medical guidance or evidence where the evidence base and they really are just citing fear of retaliation by the administration or other sort of issues.

And I think they're really just shows that the motivation for this is not changing opinions.

That provider is not a change.

In the clinical evidence and that really is just fear of sort of government action against these different systems.

And so I think that really goes to show with that.

But the main driver about this is > > from Connecticut Public.

This is the Wheelhouse.

I'm Frankie Graziano.

You've been listening to you on a tangy grandma and equality, Connecticut organizer Melissa Combs.

They're not going anywhere after the break.

How are states responding to Trump era action against gender affirming care.

Hit us up comment on our YouTube live stream or give us a call.

8, 8, 7 to 0, 9, 6, 7, 7, 8, 8, 7 to 0, 9, 6, 7, 7, I want to note that first we are in the middle of our spring Fun drive.

A Connecticut Public and you can ensure that the Wheelhouse continues to cover nuanced topics just like this one by donating to Connecticut Public here.

A couple of friends of mine to tell you how to do it.

♪ ♪ Wow, I'm at Wire here with Morning Edition.

News producer Jenny Aarons.

> > We're here to ask you to give us money to support our work.

You can do that by going to CT public Dot org and clicking on the red.

Donate button in the upper right hand corner.

It's heart thing there.

You can also call 800, 584-2788.

I would also mention that this hour's challenge is sponsored by the Greater Hartford Gives Foundation formerly the Hartford Foundation for public giving working with people like you to create a strong foundation for the region.

And I should also mention as well that any of this, this is a special hour here.

We have a dollar-for-dollar match up 2, $1000.

Are.

So there are that's our goal is 7 donations for this hour and we're how are we doing right now?

Jenny?

> > Well, thanks to Rachel in Watertown.

> > We're already one down Jill, thank you, sir.

Rachel, your money literally just doubled.

> > Because of that because of that great sponsorship that that great matching.

> > By Greater Hartford gives foundation.

> > Rachel, thank you so much.

So be Rachel.

You don't need now, OK, I don't know how many if you get that reference.

you know, my generation now and just to Rachel and anyone else used during this pledge drive just want to let you know that you are helping us give award winning.

Coverage of the region up your state of your towns.

This April Connecticut Public received 16 regional Emmy nominations.

Yay, go us.

Yes, Connecticut Public official team earned multiple national honors for the National Press Photographers Association.

And I'm going to continue giving us props generation Bernie, a seven-part podcast from connected public won a bronze at the 4th annual Signal awards.

And I could go on.

But I think that will be a bit.

> > I think so many you are so many words, but we we are able to do that because of you.

And so if you can.

Give at CT Public Dot Org or call us at 1, 805, 8, 4, 2, 7, 8, 8, > > And you know it it seems to me to like, like the we'll have to show that we're listening to right now.

It seems like a very good example of like the kind of show.

That deserves to be supported that we produce here.

I mean, we're Frankie his crew are spending and almost an hour here to take like an in-depth look at the issue of gender affirming care.

Without letting the issue looks kind of like devolve into diatribe, some other places like online they might have It's an issue that can't be done in a TikTok.

Yeah.

It can't be done in a 8.10 second sound bite.

> > And it takes measured.

Calm discussion and that takes what 45 minutes if you if you.

Yeah.

But that takes well, it could take longer, but it at least 45 minutes.

And we give that time.

2 topics that that people care about the producers of the show, they they had to take the time to find the people who know the topic or knowledgeable.

> > People have direct experience and then booked them get them in.

And you that the people that do that work that they need to get paid at least a little bit.

I think it's it's worth supporting that work, you know, to to inform people and give them reliable information and people talking about their personal experiences and that that could be very powerful and informative and any way to support that work.

You can go to CT public Dot org or call 800, 584-2788.

And if you go to the website, just look into the upper right hand corner of the website, a little red button.

The heart.

So so please go there.

Don't look if you're driving.

Yeah, good lawyer.

It's CT Public Dot Org.

805, 8, 4, 2, 7, 8, 8, and thank you.

> > This is the Wheelhouse from Connecticut Public Radio.

I'm Frankie Graziano all hour.

We've talked about the politics of hormones and the access to gender affirming care finish up now by talking about ways, Connecticut officials can preserve care.

Still with us list of Combs organizer with a clear lead organization dedicated to LGBTQ+ rights advocacy called the quality Connecticut.

Thank you so much for being on the show today.

You want to tank.

He is the president of glam, a health professionals advancing LGBTQ+ equality.

Thank you so much for coming on your own and not a lot of time left in the show.

So that's something we want to talk about.

Access to gender, affirming care.

Call us now, but do be brief 8, 8, 8, 7, to 0, 9, 6, 7, 7, 7 to 0, 9, 6, 7, 7, Melissa Connecticut has a shield law to protect reproductive health.

I know that's something you know about and you are actually recently at the Capitol understanding what was going to happen to this law.

Before we talk about its expansion.

What is the law that's in place now?

> > So for context and background in 2022, the Dobbs decision.

It came out from the Supreme Court and it it eliminated federal constitutional protections of abortion care.

And even before the decision was released by the court.

Several states like Texas Putin trigger laws.

In other words, they were anticipating a favorable decision that would, again eliminate access to care.

And so these laws went into effect as soon as the Dobbs decision came out and and eliminated that care.

So it ranges while the their 19 states.

Now that have extreme restrictions on abortion care or outright bans and health providers.

You are providing this care so.

What happened was anticipating here in Connecticut in 2022, they enacted the Shield, the which protects providers from out of state, bad actors attempting to enforce their own state laws.

And so the shield law was enacted in 2022.

Since then, advocates group of advocates have worked together to expand there, sealed by.

And this year, the now includes all legally protected care like gender, affirming care and it also this year we're aiming where the we're expanding the telehealth protections.

I would add that this is an excellent of example of how a state can mitigate the harm done by federal federal actions like this.

And so this seems sort of strategy applies.

Regarding these attacks on gender affirming care.

So it's, you know, we have a duty to protect to protect our providers and access to care for our residents.

I will also add Connecticut was the first state to enact a sealed by and now today, 22 states plus DC have a Silva.

And in practice the best example I can give you the most public example is Dr Kerr punter, New York, Louisiana issued a warrant for her arrest and Attorney General Ken Paxton in Texas came after her as well.

And the New York attorney general was able to use their shield by to reject the extradition request in the request from Texas.

This shield law expansion.

You mentioned Telehealth.

Could you just get in a little bit to the final point to where > > it would protect the telehealth?

At least from from lawsuits, especially if you're an artist, a provider she's year in Connecticut providing to somebody else because you could have a license across multiple states and then there's on the prescription bottle.

There could be a change as well where you wouldn't have somebody named.

Is that correct?

A doctor to protect them from from doxing or something like that?

> > So going back to the example of Dr Carpenter in New York, the Louisiana and Texas got her name because it was on a prescription pill bottle.

There is a bill that's been introduced in Connecticut this to change the requirements for what is on a pill bottle.

So instead it would list the health system like it would say Yale, New Haven Health.

It would not miss the provider name and in the same would be true for, of course, any gender affirming care.

Take prescriptions.

to protect people from doxing and death threats and all of it.

You've been there.

You've been a part of the conversation.

Do we know if this will come up any time soon?

Are those separate bills?

Are they the same thing?

So the show, but is it then bill, that Senate Bill, 295, and we anticipate that it would be called to the Senate floor any day.

So we're at the Capitol every day waiting for that.

The prescription pill bottle Bill is a different bill and I'm not recalling the number.

And it is working its way through the system as well and hope.

We also hope that that will be called to the floor to provide that additional protections, not only to providers but to patients too.

I appreciate that distinction because now we can track up the 2 different bills.

I thought they were one for some reason.

Thank you for making that clear indication restate that.

> > Yoan as we've discussed this hour, the federal government has taken several steps in Trump's second term here to ban gender affirming care.

Attorneys general, including in Connecticut, Sue the Federal Department of Health and Human Services for December declaration to quote and the practice of sex rejecting procedures on children that expose young people to irreversible harm, end quote.

That declaration recently was vacated by a federal judge of Oregon V Kennedy.

So a trans kids would still be able to access everything they need right?

> > I mean, theoretically.

But as the kind of discussed before, all of this is just also fear tactic.

And they're trying to make families afraid and providers afraid.

I think also if they're following the same playbook for gender affirming care that they are also for reproductive health care and 4 times and making providers afraid of providing this care.

And so I think because mentioned it before as things currently stand, the could hospital system still provide this care tend to be seeking depending on where you are?

Yes, but again, so the state that have done that there are very real reasons why they are concerned about this.

There are things coming down the pipeline which even though there will probably be continued legal challenges for every new thing that they actually it still can be the one that really just as create sort of like > > fearful environment for providers and persistence.

And I think also, especially when we think about what could potentially eventually calm and what they've done in some states, for example, for reproductive health care, threatening people's life and says that if things like that, it's again, it's a risk averse to commune a risk adverse providers and then off assistance.

And so yeah, it's just it's the culture of fear that's really going on right now.

> > The Dew talked about providers there.

How are they handling the ruling?

Hear how are providers that you talk to?

How are you doing?

> > There's a lot of fear.

There's a lot of concern and there's a lot of education that needs to happen.

I think that they hear something they don't necessarily.

We're not a legally trained, of course, but that's not our We were trained to provide care.

Now it's on complicated and so people can feel very easily overwhelm.

They don't necessarily understand like the happens that something has to get injections that what the legal landscape is and what actually is and is not a threat to them.

And so we see a lot of the year and a lot of requests for information, which is why and community organizations, illegal organizations are so important and while there's a lot of educational work that is ongoing and needs to continue to happen to providers and 2 systems about what actually is the current state of things.

What are the risks and whether they what are the risks like?

Can you still be providing this care?

Of course, he would hope that more systems with stand up.

And have as mentioned earlier in the show and just really stood by providing this care bat.

It certainly confusing landscape for many.

There's a lot of fear month providers and that's very much intentional.

They want providers insistence said not really feel like they know what's coming next and what's OK to do what's not okay to do because when there's confusion, that's usually what people are just kind of throw their hands that.

> > And the reason why before bringing in the list of the reason why is because there's a people might be worried about losing their license.

There's a lot of the day and there's also doxing, I would imagine.

So help me understand that culture of fear that sort of.

Capturing folks right now at this time.

> > Absolutely.

It's it's about I mean, of all of it just comes down to that money.

It's about funding for clinics and systems.

That, of course, is very important.

there's a lot of patients that we need to take care of.

That providers have attachments to it.

They want to make sure that all of that here is still able to go on.

I know the medical community, one of the reasons is this, the first is that we are very much just people and America and you are a very long time to get a medical license for Santa's life.

The way that you support yourself and you try to help others.

I mean, people are very concerned about that.

It's obviously there's a lot of sort of like the evil things surrounding the licenses.

So I do think that that is actually one of the sources that Piers, well, that doesn't often get name just people are worried about doing something that's going to 3rd of life threatening their livelihood and continue to be able to provide care, not just about the funny systems, on the largest scale, but it's smaller level and people are afraid of what that could mean.

> > Listen, Connecticut is a so-called reproductive rights safe harbor.

This is a lot of the conversation we've had since Dobbs V Jackson was overturned.

And that says that decision was made in 2022.

So.

What does that mean to you?

> > Well, if we truly are a safe harbor, then.

We need to be restoring care.

The northern half and southeast parts of the state.

Many people, many families in Connecticut are traveling to Massachusetts, Vermont and Maine.

For care.

And we shouldn't have to do this.

This is evidence based medically necessary and legally protected care.

And well, I can understand why legal counsel at UNC CMC made the decisions that they did.

Really.

It's time for the state to step in.

And and using the similar playbook related to how the state responded to Dobbs V Jackson really make sure that that no Connecticut resident has to engage in medical tourism for this lifesaving care.

This is the last question.

And tell me what you can hear because I know that there's a lot that sort of in flux.

But > > what recommendations can you give the people?

What would you tell people to do?

I would say if families of parents, caregivers have questions about accessing gender affirming care.

> > And the should contact to call the Connecticut.

We're happy to to talk with families and with adults receiving care if they have questions because many adults have lost their insurance coverage.

Federal employees, veterans at center any questions, contact to Cody, Connecticut.

We're happy to answer questions.

And the website addresses AEK Uct Dot Org Yona 20 seconds.

Tell me what you would recommend really quickly.

> > Yeah, I mean, ideally it.

> > There are families that have lost care.

There is there are directory out there, but you can try and find care on things like the LGBTQ health care directory and others to try and help find other providers.

> > does but also participate in helping families find alternative care if there have been changes that though, I absolutely also I agree with what was said about.

I hope that in the future we hope that more of > > clinics and systems that these the support that they need from the state.

I mean, from legal counsel to reopen their doors, yona taking the president of grandma, health professionals, advancing LGBTQ+ Equality.

Thank you so much for coming on the show.

Melissa Combs organizer with the quality, Connecticut.

Thank you for coming on today.

Show was edited by Patrick scandal.

Dylan Race is our technical producer.

Thank you so much for listening and watching the Wheelhouse today.

Have a good day.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪