Stop SC Lawmakers From Restricting Healthcare for Transgender Youth

Reasons to Oppose Anti-Transgender Healthcare Bills

Lawmakers should not unnecessarily interfere with medical decisions.

Patients and their health care providers, not politicians, should decide what medical care is in the best interest of a patient. Gender-affirming care is medically necessary care that helps transgender people be safe, seen, and comfortable in who they are. Access to this care allows transgender people to thrive and experience joy living as their authentic selves. Expert standards of medical care for transgender youth recommend puberty delay medication, a safe and temporary pause that allows young people to explore and understand their gender. These bills aim to take away their choices and try to prevent young people from having the chance to live as the gender they know they are inside.

Gender-affirming care is safe, medically necessary, and supported by every major professional medical association. 

Discriminatory legislation runs counter to the growing consensus in the medical community that treating trans young people with affirmation and respect is a central means of improving their health outcomes. Major medical associations, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Family Medicine, recognize that supporting transgender youth is critical to their health and well-being.

Denying transgender youth access to medical care is dangerous.

Gender-affirming care reduces reliance on self-prescribed and self-administered hormone use, which can be dangerous without the oversight of a physician. Gender-affirming care saves lives and allows trans young people to thrive.

Restricting access to medical care could increase suicidal ideation.

Survey data from the Trevor Project reveals the frightening reality that 52% of transgender and non-binary youth have considered suicide and 21% have attempted suicide.  Many credible studies of trans youth populations have demonstrated that gender-affirming care is linked to significantly reduced rates of depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and suicide attempts.

These bills would force school districts to “out” students to their parents.

Every LGBTQ person’s journey is unique, and for many, their discovery of self can be a sensitive time. A child’s decision to disclose parts of their identity should remain solely in their hands. Some provisions in these bills would force school officials to betray the trust of students by demanding they “out” students to parents, even if the student is not ready. Pushing school staff to disclose deeply private information to parents breaches trust and creates an uncomfortable school environment for LGBTQ+ youth. This effort to “out” children is unethical and unenforceable. The adults that work in schools are there to educate and protect children, not police their identities and serve as agents for a discriminatory political agenda. 

These policies would destroy trust between students and school staff.

While we agree that important information about a child’s welfare should not be withheld from their parental guardians, we are suspicious of provisions that do not consider the consent of the minor in question. Trust between school staff and students is necessary to provide adequate mental-health support. If students feel that their communications are not confidential, they will be less likely to disclose important information to their school counselors and teachers. 

Passing these bills would violate federal law and provoke costly litigation. 

Under federal law, Americans are protected from anti-LGBTQ discrimination under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits discrimination based on “sex” in education. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which covers South Carolina, has additionally affirmed that “sex”-based discrimination under Title IX prohibits anti-LGBTQ discrimination. The passage of any of these bills would surely provoke litigation and we believe judges would find these bills to violate existing precedent.