#gender-affirming healthcare bans

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

While protesting Tennessee’s drag ban, country music star Maren Morris challenged state officials to arrest her for introducing her almost three-year-old son to some drag queens.

This year, Tennessee became the first state to pass a law restricting drag performances. It also recently passed a particularly chilling ban on gender-affirming healthcare for transgender youth that even requires youth currently receiving gender-affirming care to detransition.

Morris was among a host of celebrities who performed at a benefit concert on Monday to oppose the anti-LGBTQ+ legislation. Afterward, she wrote on Instagram that “Love rose up.”

“Thank you Nashville, the gorgeous Queens and the LGBTQ+ community for showing up last night,” she said, adding that at the concert, “A lot of healing happened and it won’t be forgotten.”

As part of the post, Morris included a video of herself on stage at the concert in which she declared, “and yes, I introduced by son to some drag queens today so Tennessee fuckin’ arrest me.” She was met with thunderous applause.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by 𝙼𝙰𝚁𝙴𝙽 𝙼𝙾𝚁𝚁𝙸𝚂 (@marenmorris)

Commenters thanked her for modeling allyship.

“From the bottom of my heart, thank you for letting your actions match what you say that you believe,” one person wrote. “Thank you for screaming your support from the highest rooftops and modeling what true ‘allyship’ looks like. You’re light and you’re love. Keep on keepin’ on— it’s more appreciated than you’ll ever know.”

“Thank you for being such an inclusive voice for country music and the world!” said another. “Your son is so fortunate to have you for his Mama and we are fortunate to be able to hear your message through your music. Keep up the good fight and love will eventually drown out the hate!”

Morris has long been a warrior for LGBTQ+ rights. Last year, she raised over $100,000 for transgender support organizations after Tucker Carlson mocked her on air for standing up for trans people against transphobic comments made by Brittany Kerr Aldean, a beauty lifestyle influencer married to Grammy-nominated country music artist Jason Aldean.

Carlson called Morris a “lunatic,” and a “fake country music singer” after a Twitter battle between Morris and Aldean in which Morris called Aldean a “scumbag human” and “Insurrection Barbie.” Aldean had tweeted that she was grateful to her parents for “not changing my gender when I went through my tomboy phase” because “I love this girly life.”

Morris responded to the video by writing, “You know, I’m glad she didn’t become a boy either because we really don’t need another asshole dude in the world. Sucks when Karens try to hide their homophobia/transphobia behind their ‘protectiveness of the children.’”

After Carlson took aim at Morris, she immediately mocked his insult by publishing a fake image of herself with a chyron from Carlson’s show declaring her as a “lunatic country music person.”

Morris then published a tweet announcing the sale of a t-shirt with the words, “Marren Morris: Lunatic Country Music Person” on it. The shirt also had the phone number of the Trans Lifeline, a peer support phone service run by trans people for trans and questioning peers. She said all proceeds would be split between Trans Lifeline and the GLAAD Transgender Media Program.

[genderqueerpositivity]

The Campaign for Southern Equality, in partnership with state and local organizations, is providing rapid response support to the families of youth who are impacted by anti-transgender healthcare bans that are passing across the South. We are providing grants, navigation support, and resources to impacted families as they ensure their children can access the care they need and deserve. We are currently providing support to impacted families in Mississippi, Tennessee and South Carolina, and we are preparing to work in other states.

Please join us by donating.

We are honored to work on this project in partnership with The TRANS Program, Mississippi Rising, Inclusion TN, and OUT Memphis.

(ID: text reads "Donate to support the Southern Trans Youth Emergency Fund. Fuel our work to provide direct support to trans youth and families impacted by anti-transgender healthcare bans across the south", below this the Campaign for Southern Equality logo and a link to the fund on their website.)

[gwydionmisha]

Have something you want to tell your Congress Critters? If you can't safely contact them in person, here are some other options:

Call the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask to be connected to the representative of your choice.

Here is one that will send your reps a fax: https://resist.bot/

[dontmean2bepoliticalbut]

[duppyfrsh]

i think that qualifies as trans horror

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Jasper Scherer at Texas Tribune:

State Rep. Shawn Thierry, a Houston Democrat who was defeated in her primary earlier this year, announced Friday she is switching to the Republican Party.

Thierry was ousted by primary challenger Lauren Ashley Simmons in the May runoff after she sided with Republicans last year on a handful of bills opposed by the LGBTQ+ community, including a measure barring gender-transitioning care for minors. She delivered an emotional speech from the House floor explaining why she broke with her party, remarks that went viral. In a statement, Thierry said she switched parties because the Democratic Party “has veered so far left, so deep into the progressive abyss, that it now champions policies that I cannot, in good conscience, support.” “I am leaving the left because the left has abandoned Democrats who feel betrayed by a party that has lost its way, lost its commitment to hard working families,” Thierry said. Thierry was announced earlier this month as the director of political strategy for the U.S. wing of Genspect, an international anti-trans policy group. Founded in 2021 by an Irish psychotherapist, the group is part of a broader network of organizations that oppose gender-transitioning care for minors, and its members have testified in favor of bills across the world that would ban or limit the practice.

The partisan balance in the lower chamber now stands at 87 Republicans and 63 Democrats. Thierry’s term will expire before the Legislature reconvenes in Austin for its next regular session in January, however, and Simmons is heavily favored to win the solidly Democratic seat in November. A number of prominent Houston Democrats lined up behind Simmons for her primary challenge, including some of Thierry’s current and former colleagues in the Texas House — an unusually public show of repudiation from an incumbent’s own party. Thierry countered with her own slate of endorsements from Black church leaders and a handful of Democratic lawmakers. Thierry also broke ranks from her party to support a GOP bill aimed at removing sexually explicit books from school libraries, a designation critics feared would be used to target LGBTQ+ literature. She also voted for a bill requiring transgender college athletes to play on teams that align with their sex assigned at birth.

[...] Aside from her break on LGBTQ+ issues, however, Thierry has consistently sided with the Democratic Party on high-profile issues during her four terms in office. She voted against Texas Republicans' boundary-testing immigration measure last year, Senate Bill 4, that lets any law enforcement officer arrest someone suspected of illegally crossing the border. She has also opposed GOP legislation banning abortion and enacting a private school voucher system, and in 2021 she joined other House Democrats who fled the state in a bid to block a Republican bill overhauling the state's elections.

Texas State Rep. Shawn Thierry, who lost in the Democratic primary runoff to Lauren Ashley Simmons, has formally flipped to Republican from Democratic. Thierry took a job at anti-trans organization Genspect to serve as its director of political strategy.

Thierry got in hot water for voting in favor of bills banning gender-affirming care for trans minors, trans sports participation matching their gender identity instead of the gender assigned at birth, and a book ban bill aimed at LGBTQ+ content.

On other issues, however, she voted with the majority of Democrats.

See Also:

Dallas Voice: Anti-LGBTQ state Rep. Shawn Thierry leaves Democratic Party

HuffPost: Texas State Rep. Shawn Thierry Switches To GOP After Losing Democratic Primary

[neurocophany-theyshe]

TW: extreme transphobia

WATCH OUT FOR RANDOM ADS FOR NEW TRANSPHOBE MOVIE

Has anyone else seen previews for a new movie coming out called G*nder tr*nsform*tion: the unt*ld real*ties?

The preview is very misleading and initially you can’t tell if it’s anti or pro trans lives (which is a big red flag in and of itself)

It’s like the heart of transphobia and anti-gender affirming care. Includes spokespersons who supposedly regret transitioning. It popped up randomly as an ad when I was just looking up YouTube for background noises and I made the mistake of not skipping it. I DO NOT recommend watching the trailer, just that is very triggering.

[poguniversity]

Man. Can we shut the fuck up about hogwarts legacy and talk about shit that actually matters.

[ceilidhtransing]

The discussions around whether or not to vote for Kamala keep being dominated by very loud voices shouting that anyone who advocates for her “just doesn't care about Palestine!” and “is willing to overlook genocide!” and “has no moral backbone at all!” And while some of these voices will be bots, trolls, psyops - we know that this happens; we know that trying to persuade progressives to split the vote or not vote at all is a strategy employed by hostile actors - of course many of them won't be. But what this rhetoric does is continually force the “you should vote for her” crowd onto the back foot of having to go to great lengths writing entire essays justifying their choice, while the “don't vote/vote third party” crowd is basically never asked to justify their choice. It frames voting for Kamala as a deeply morally compromised position that requires extensive justification while framing not voting or voting third party as the neutral and morally clean stance.

So here's another way of looking at it. How much are you willing to accept in order to feel like you're not compromising your morals on one issue?

Are you willing to accept the 24% rise in maternal deaths - and 39% increase for Black women - that is expected under a federal abortion ban, according to the Centre for American Progress? Those percentages represent real people who are alive now who would die if the folks behind Project 2025 get their way with reproductive healthcare.

Are you willing to accept the massive acceleration of climate change that would result from the scrapping of all climate legislation? We don't have time to fuck around with the environment. A gutting of climate policy and a prioritisation of fossil fuel profits, which is explicitly promised by Trump, would set the entire world back years - years that we don't have.

Are you willing to accept the classification of transgender visibility as inherently “pornographic” and thus the removal of trans people from public life? Are you willing to accept the total elimination of legal routes for gender-affirming care? The people behind the Trump campaign want to drive queer and trans people back underground, back into the closet, back into “criminality”. This will kill people. And it's maddening that caring about this gets called “prioritising white gays over brown people abroad” as if it's not BIPOC queer and trans Americans who will suffer the most from legislative queer- and transphobia, as they always do.

Are you willing to accept the domestic deployment of the military to crack down on protests and enforce racist immigration policy? I'm sure it's going to be very easy to convince huge numbers of normal people to turn up to protests and get involved in political organising when doing so may well involve facing down an army deployed by a hardcore authoritarian operating under the precedent that nothing he does as president can ever be illegal.

Are you willing to accept a president who openly talks about wanting to be a dictator, plans on massively expanding presidential powers, dehumanises his political enemies and wants the DOJ to “go after them”, and assures his supporters they won't have to vote again? If you can't see the danger of this staring you right in the face, I don't know what to tell you. Allowing a wannabe dictator to take control of the most powerful country on earth would be absolutely disastrous for the entire world.

Are you willing to accept an enormous uptick in fascism and far-right authoritarianism worldwide? The far right in America has huge influence over an entire international network of “anti-globalists”, hardcore anti-immigrant xenophobes, transphobic extremists, and straight-up fascists. Success in America aids and emboldens these people everywhere.

Are you willing to accept an enormous number of preventable deaths if America faces a crisis in the next four years: a public health emergency, a natural disaster, an ecological catastrophe? We all saw how Trump handled Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico. We all saw how Trump handled Covid-19. He fanned the flames of disaster with a constant flow of medical misinformation and an unspeakably dangerous undermining of public health experts. It's estimated that 40% of US pandemic deaths could have been avoided if the death rates had corresponded to those in other high-income countries. That amounts to nearly half a million people. One study from January 2021 estimated between around 4,200 and 12,200 preventable deaths attributable purely to Trump's statements about masks. We're highly unlikely to face another global pandemic in the next few years but who knows what crises are coming down the pipeline?

Are you willing to accept the attempted deportation of millions - millions - of undocumented people? This is “rounding people up and throwing them into camps where no one ever hears from them again” territory. That's a blueprint for genocide right there and it's a core tenet of both Trump's personal policy and Project 2025. And of course they wouldn't be going after white people. They most likely wouldn't even restrict their tyranny to people who are actually undocumented. Anyone racially othered as an “immigrant” would be at risk from this.

Are you willing to accept not just the continuation of the current situation in Palestine, but the absolute annihilation of Gaza and the obliteration of any hope for imminent peace? There is no way that Trump and the people behind him would not be catastrophically worse for Gaza than Kamala or even Biden. Only recently he was telling donors behind closed doors that he wanted to “set the [Palestinian] movement back 25 or 30 years” and that “any student that protests, I throw them out of the country”. This is not a man who can be pushed in a direction more conducive to peace and justice. This is a man who listens to his wealthy donors, his Christian nationalist Republican allies, and himself.

Are you willing to accept a much heightened risk of nuclear war? Obviously this is hardly a Trump policy promise. But I can't think of a single president since the Cold War who is more likely to deploy nuclear weapons, given how casually he talks about wanting to use them and how erratic and unstable he can be in his dealings with foreign leaders. To quote Foreign Policy only this year, “Trump told a crowd in January that one of the reasons he needed immunity was so that he couldn’t be indicted for using nuclear weapons on a city.” That's reassuring. I'm not even in the US and I remember four years of constant background low-level terror that Trump would take offence at something some foreign leader said or think that he needs to personally intervene in some military situation to “sort it out” and decide to launch the entire world into nuclear war. No one sane on earth wants the most powerful person on the planet to be as trigger-happy and careless with human life as he is, especially if he's running the White House like a dictator with no one ever telling him no. But depending on what Americans do in November, he may well be inflicted again on all of us, and I guess we'll all just have to hope that he doesn't do the worst thing imaginable.

“But I don't want those things! Stop accusing me of supporting things I don't support!” Yes, of course you don't want those things. None of us does. No one's saying that you actively support them. No one's accusing you of wanting Black women to die from ectopic pregnancies or of wanting to throw Hispanic people in immigrant detention centres or of wanting trans people to be outlawed (unlike, I must point out, the extremely emotive and personal accusations that get thrown around about “wanting Palestinian children to die” if you encourage people to vote for Kamala).

But if you're advocating against voting for Kamala, you are clearly willing to accept them as possible consequences of your actions. That is the deal you're making. If a terrible thing happening is the clear and easily foreseeable outcome of your action (or in the case of not voting, inaction), in a way that could have been prevented by taking a different and just as easy action, you are partly responsible for that consequence. (And no, it's not “a fear campaign” to warn people about things he's said, things he wants to do, and plans drawn up by his close allies. This is not “oooh the Democrats are trying to bully you into voting for them by making him out to be really bad so you'll feel scared and vote for Kamala!” He is really bad, in obvious and documented and irrefutable ways.)

And if you believe that “both parties are the same on Gaza” (which, you know, they really aren't, but let's just pretend that they are) then presumably you accept that the horrors being committed there will continue, in the immediate term anyway, regardless of who wins the presidency. Because there really isn't some third option that will appear and do everything we want. It's going to be one of those two. And we can talk all day about wanting a better system or how unfair it is that every presidential election only ever has two viable candidates and how small the Overton window is and all that but hell, we are less than eighty days out from the election; none of that is going to get fixed between now and November. Electoral reform is a long-term (but important!) goal, not something that can be effected in the span of a couple of months by telling people online to vote third party. There is no “instant ceasefire and peace negotiation” button that we're callously overlooking by encouraging people to vote for Kamala. (My god, if there was, we would all be pressing it.)

If we're suggesting people vote for her, it's not that we “are willing to overlook genocide” or “don't care about sacrificing brown people abroad” or whatever. Nothing is being “overlooked” here. It's that we're simply not willing to accept everything else in this post and more on top of continued atrocities in Gaza. We're not willing to take Trump and his godawful far-right authoritarian agenda as an acceptable consequence of feeling like we have the moral high ground on Palestine. I cannot stress enough that if Kamala doesn't win, we - we all, in the whole world - get Trump. Are you willing to accept that?

And one more point to address: I've seen too many people act frighteningly flippant and naïve about terrible things Trump or his campaign want to do, with the idea that people will simply be able to prevent all these bad things by “organising” and “protesting” and “collective action”. “I'm not willing to accept these things; that's why I'll fight them tooth and nail every day of their administration” - OK but if you're not even willing to cast a vote then I have doubts about your ability to form “the Resistance”, which by the way would have to involve cooperation with people of lots of progressive political stripes in order to have the manpower to be effective, and if you're so committed to political purity that you view temporarily lending your support to Kamala at the ballot box as an untenable betrayal of everything you stand for then forgive me for also doubting your ability to productively cooperate with allies on the ground with whom you don't 100% agree. Plus, if the Trump campaign gets its way, American progressives would be kept so busy trying to put out about twenty different fires at once that you'd be able to accomplish very little. Maybe you get them to soften their stance on trans healthcare but oh shit, the climate policies are still in place. But more importantly, how many people do you think will protest for abortion rights if doing so means staring down a gun? Or organise to protect their neighbours from deportation if doing so means being thrown in prison yourself? And OK, maybe you're sure that you will, but history has shown us time and time again that most people won't. Most people aren't willing to face that kind of personal risk. And a tiny number of lefties willing to risk incarceration or death to protect undocumented people or trans people or whatever other groups are targeted is sadly not enough to prevent the horrors from happening. That is small fry compared to the full might of a determined state. Of course if the worst happens and Trump wins then you should do what you can to mitigate the harm; I'm not saying you shouldn't. But really the time to act is now. You have an opportunity right here to mitigate the harm and it's called “not letting him get elected”. Act now to prevent that kind of horrific authoritarian situation from developing in the first place; don't sit this one out under the naïve belief that “we'll be able to stop it if it happens”. You won't.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

The first openly transgender state representative in Montana history is facing either censure or outright expulsion, after she said Republicans would have “blood on their hands” for passing a ban on gender-affirming care for minors.

Rep. Zooey Zephyr was sworn in just three months ago after winning a Missoula-based seat in November. GOP leaders have refused to recognize her in floor debates until she apologizes for the comment. On Monday, supporters rallied on the steps of the state Capitol, and chants of “Let her speak!” shut down proceedings in the House for nearly a half-hour, as Zephyr hoisted her microphone above her head.

On Tuesday, Zephyr tweeted a letter she received from leaders in the Republican-controlled chamber declaring their intention to bring a motion “with respect to the conduct of Representative Zooey Zephyr.”

The House will “determine if [Zephyr]’s conduct on the Floor of the House on April 24, 2023 violated the rules, collective rights, safety, dignity, integrity, or decorum of the House of Representatives, and if so, whether to impose disciplinary consequences for those actions,” according to the letter sent to Zephyr. The House will meet Wednesday afternoon.

“I have been informed that during tomorrow’s floor session there will be a motion to either censure or expel me,” Zephyr said in a Tuesday tweet. “I’ve also been told I’ll get a chance to speak. I will do as I have always done—rise on behalf of my constituents, in defense of my community, & for democracy itself.”

Zephyr’s clash with the GOP began last week when she made the comment during a floor debate on the transition care ban. Since then, Republicans have refused to let her participate in floor debates entirely, even when she’s requested to speak last week, the far-right Montana Freedom Caucus demanded Zephyr’s immediate censure while misgendering her in their statement.

The move to silence Zephyr has been met with fierce protests. On Monday, supporters rallied on the steps of the state Capitol, and chants of “Let her speak!” shut down proceedings in the House for nearly a half-hour, as Zephyr hoisted her microphone above her head.

Riot cops who were called to the chamber arrested seven protesters. Republicans claimed that the protests had turned violent, though the protesters were charged only with criminal trespassing, a misdemeanor. In the letter, Republican leaders said the House gallery, where Montana citizens are able to watch proceedings, will be closed Wednesday during the debate on whether to punish Zephyr.

“It’s not enough for them to get the harmful bills through,” Zephyr told reporters Monday. “When someone stands up and calls out their bills for the harm they cause, for the deaths they cause, they want silence. And we will not be complicit in our eradication.”

Montana House Speaker Matt Regier said in a statement Tuesday that “the choice not to follow House rules is one that Rep. Zephyr has made.”

“The only person silencing Rep. Zephyr is Rep. Zephyr. The Montana House will not be bullied,” Regier said.

Tensions have escalated in state legislatures such as Montana’s this year, as Republicans across the country have used simple rules violations as a pretext to crack down on dissent.

Earlier this month, the Tennessee House of Representatives expelled two young Black lawmakers, Rep. Justin Pearson of Memphis and Rep. Justin Jones of Nashville, and nearly expelled a third white lawmaker from Knoxville, after the trio protested for gun law reforms in the wake of the Covenant School shooting in Nashville in March.

The move, however, backfired spectacularly. Pearson and Jones became national figures overnight, they were quickly re-appointed to the seats they’d been expelled from, and both are expected to run in special elections to determine a replacement for, well, themselves. They met with President Joe Biden at the White House earlier this week.

Tennessee Republicans have also drawn increased scrutiny to themselves, after expelling Jones and Pearson for bringing “disorder and dishonor” to the legislature; a member of the leadership abruptly resigned last week after a complaint that he’d sexually harassed an intern became public, and the Speaker of the Tennessee House, Cameron Sexton, has faced new questions about whether he really resides in his district.

On Tuesday, Pearson offered his support to Zephyr in a tweet.

“Voices across the country continue to rise for justice and expose the anti-democratic behavior of people in Republican led states,” Pearson said. “We will not let our democracy die without fighting for every voice. We are in this fight from Memphis to Montana!”

[genderqueerpositivity]

South Carolina just released a new law that goes beyond trans youth and instead would ban transgender people up to the age of 21 from receiving gender affirming care. It would criminalize doctors from providing gender affirming care for trans youth as well. It doesn’t stop there though. The bill would also ban informed consent hormone therapy, the most common form of hormone therapy for all transgender adults, and would require psychiatrists to sign off on gender affirming care - a model of care that has been outdated since the 1990s. It bans public funds for gender affirming care. It bans comprehensive health programs from encouraging transition for trans students. Lastly, it forces teachers to out students who they even suspect are trans to their parents. This is an absolutely devastating bill, and if it is allowed to go through, it would dramatically harm many trans youth in the state.

[dontmean2bepoliticalbut]

[so-i-did-this-thing]

TRANS OHIOANS - START STOCKPILING YOUR HRT AND PLAN HOW YOU WILL BE ABLE TO CONTINUE YOUR TRANSITION CARE

Ohio has taken a page out of Florida’s book and is proposing to effectively ban adult transition care via the requirements of numerous specialists - a psychiatrist, endocrinologist, and a bioethicist.

Since most trans people get their HRT from nurse practioners via the informed consent model, this will create undue burden on both trans people and the medical system -- the bottlenecks will effectively ban transition care for adults. This is what has happened in Florida, and Ohio's rules look much more draconian and surveiliance-heavy. All trans healthcare will be reported to the state.

These new rules have not taken effect yet. Trans Ohioans should plan for the worst now.

The rules are open to public comment through 5pm Friday, Jan 19, 2024. The full copy of the rules and how to comment are below:

https://mha.ohio.gov/about-us/rules-and-regulations/rules/draft-rules/gender-transition-care

As a Floridian who saw the writing on the wall and fled his state (my clinic hasn't been allowed to fill HRT prescriptions since May 2023 now) -- do not delay on making preparations. If this is approved, the rules will likely catch everyone by surprise. Start talking with your providers now and plan out your options assuming the ban will take place.

Informed folks to follow on Twitter:

Alejandra

Erin

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Trudy Ring at The Advocate:

The Nebraska Supreme Court has upheld a state law banning most abortions after 12 weeks and restricting gender-affirming care for transgender people under 19. Planned Parenthood of the Heartland and its medical director, Dr. Sarah Traxler, had sued over the law. They were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Nebraska, and Powers Law. They argued that the law, Legislative Bill 574, violates the Nebraska constitution, which stipulates that any piece of legislation should deal with one subject only.

Lancaster County District Court Judge Lori Maret dismissed their suit last August, and they appealed to the state Supreme Court. The high court ruled Friday that the law doesn’t violate the constitution because both of its subjects deal with health care. Because the suit was filed at the state level, the Nebraska Supreme Court’s ruling is the final word on it. Asked if there were plans to file a federal suit, ACLU of Nebraska Executive Director Mindy Rush-Chipman said in a Friday press conference that various options were under consideration. The trans care restrictions had been subject to a filibuster led by Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh, who vowed to block every bill pending in Nebraska’s one-chamber, officially nonpartisan legislature in order to keep the anti-trans measure from passing. However, her fellow lawmakers eventually overcame that filibuster. The legislature folded the 12-week abortion ban into the anti-trans bill and passed the combined measure in May 2023. Republican Gov. Jim Pillen signed it into law within days. The abortion ban took effect immediately, and the trans care regulations went into effect October 1.

The anti-trans provisions ban surgery, both genital and nongenital, for the purpose of gender transition for anyone under 19. An earlier form of LB 574 would have banned puberty blockers and hormone treatment as well as surgery. Genital surgeries are almost never performed on minors. However, the legislation gave the state’s chief medical officer, appointed by the governor, the power to regulate use of puberty blockers and hormones. Under Nebraska Chief Medical Officer Timothy Tesmer's regulations, patients under the age of 19 are required to undergo 40 “gender-identity-focused contact hours of therapy” before receiving puberty blockers or hormone therapy. These counseling sessions are supposedly meant to "be clinically objective and non-biased," but are explicitly required to “not merely affirm the patient’s beliefs.” Patients have to undergo further counseling while receiving the treatment.

The Nebraska Supreme Court upholds the state’s ban on gender-affirming care and 12-week abortion ban in Planned Parenthood Of The Heartland v. Hilgers.

[assumptionprime]

"I Just Don't Think That's Going To Happen"

Good news: I finally made a new comic!

Bad news: It's about something that sucks! If the good news here outweighs the bad, maybe support me on Patreon.

In the midst of talking about how much this sucks, I am extremely fortunate to even be able to move to somewhere safer. Please support those who can't, or who need a helping hand to go somewhere they can be themselves. (Give trans people money)

[Image description: Comic, sixteen panels. Panel 1: Robin speaking on her phone, clearly distressed, tears in her eyes: "I'm telling you that I'm scared. These people-- the kind of people you vote for-- want to take my health care, my rights away from me. I'm afraid I'm going to have to leave my home." The voice from the phone answers: "Well," Large dialogue text in a large white space between panels: "I just don't think that's going to happen." Panel 2: Robin, wide eyes still tearing up, stares in disbelief at her phone. Panel 3: A website heading "Home > News" above a headline that reads "Utah just banned gender-affirming healthcare for transgender kids. These 21 other states are considering similar bills in 2023." Panel 4: Another headline reads "Health care for transgender adults becomes new target in 2023 legislative session." sub heading continues: "Lawmakers prefiled many anti-trans bills ahead of state--" Panel 5: Robin looking at a tablet screen, concerned. Panel 6: Robin siting on a couch, watching TV. A speaker on the TV says: "After the anti-LGBTQ+ campaign prompted several protests and bomb threats made against the Boston facility, the group has now turned its gaze toward the Gender Health Program at Vanderbilt Medical Center in Nashville." Panel 7: Several headlines: "New Tennessee bill banning 'male or female impersonators' in public could criminalize drag performers and trans people" "Missouri lawmakers ban transgender care for minors, restrict coverage for adults" "Tennessee has passed a ban on gender affirming health care for trans kids. The bill's exceptions may only exist on paper" They headlines are accompanied by a map showing the severity of anti-transgender legislation in different US states. Panel 8: Robin's spouse Jordan sitting on the couch, looking up from her laptop toward Robin. Robin is gripping her arm tightly, a look of distress and sadness on her face, tears welling in her eyes. Jordan says "That's it. We're leaving." Panel 9: Robin taping the top of a cardboard moving box, looking over her shoulder toward Jordan, who is saying something as she walks away holding another box. More boxes are stacked behind them. Panel 10: Robin sitting at a table with a large stack of paperwork and holding a pen. She is leaning back and groaning: "Eughhhhhh" Panel 11: Robin standing with three friends, embracing as one of them speaks "I'm glad we got to see you before you left. We'll miss you." Panel 12: Jordan and Robin standing by the open trunk of their car. Several bags and suitcases are loading into the back. Jordan is shoving things in tighter and grumbling "It WILL fit!" Robin, holding a vacuum compression bag of full of clothing that has yet to go in the trunk, looks unsure. Panel 13: Robin and Jordan standing in the empty house, lights off, with sunlight coming in from the windows in the back doors and lighting them from behind. Robin looks upset, Jordan has a comforting hand on her shoulder. Panel 14: Jordan and robin sitting in the very full car, their dog in the back seat. Jordan is driving, Robin in the passenger seat looking out the window. Panel 15: Robin, still in the passenger seat of the car, now propping her head up with her hand on her cheek. She is looking down, seeming morose. Large dialogue text in a large white space between panels: "I just don't think that's going to happen." Panel 16: closer shot on Robin. Her gaze has shifted outside the window, her expression is now bitter, with tears gathering in her eyes.]