In a rare and controversial move, New York Attorney General Letitia James has ordered a Manhattan hospital to resume offering gender-transition treatment to transgender youth. NYU Langone had discontinued such treatments after funding threats from the Trump administration. It is now caught between the proverbial rock (HHS) and a hard place (NYAG).
Last year, President Donald Trump signed an executive order entitled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation,” seeking to restrict gender-transition treatment for people under 19. HHS then threatened hospitals with a cut off of federal Medicaid and Medicare funding for continuing such treatment for children.
Various European countries have also halted certain procedures after countervailing studies suggesting that the risks are too high. England’s National Health Service 2024 report on the subject, known as the Cass Report, found concerning evidence of harm for minors and inconclusive benefits.
James threatened “further action” if NYU Langone does not defy the Trump Administration, declaring that the cessation of its Transgender Youth Health Program violates New York anti-discrimination law by “jeopardizing access to medically necessary healthcare for some of the most vulnerable New Yorkers.”
NYU Langone had previously declared that it would no longer provide certain gender-transition treatments for patients under the age of 19.
James’s move could trigger a fascinating challenge. In the Feb. 25 letter signed by the attorney general’s health care bureau chief, Darsana Srinivasan, the state said that the federal regulatory change did not affect a “medical institution’s existing duties and obligations under New York law.” That raises an interesting conflict between state and federal regulations.
The letter gives the hospital until March 11 to comply and resume these treatments.
Effectively, James is ordering the hospital to defy the federal government. However, the hospital, not James or the state, would bear the financial and regulatory consequences.
While James does not state how she will penalize the hospital, the letter is likely sufficient to challenge the move. The question is whether the political costs for the NYU hospital are prohibitive. There is also the question of whether the HHS has standing or interest in challenging the move as a direct threat to federal authority.
The problem with a federal challenge is that nothing in the New York threat prevents the federal government from carrying out its intent to cut off funding. Hospitals would have to choose between penalties in New York or loss of funding in Washington. Nevertheless, New York’s move is a direct attack on the enforcement of federal policy by state hospitals.
Can we say, “Lawsuits?”
This is medical malfeasance and malpractice and will eventually be ripe for the picking in the near future. It will be open season on doctors, politicians and hospitals who participate in this barbaric practice. History will not be kind as it hasn’t been with frontal lobotomies,Thalidomide and shock treatments.
Remember when New York was American?
Remember when they didn’t embrace the most despicable, demonic practices such as sexual mutilation of children and putting men in women’s locker rooms and showers?
Not to mention drag queens for kindergarteners, embracing terrorism, and assassinating people with different political opinions?
Question. Have you ever witnessed a drag queen show among kinder garters?
You’ll say yes, so I.m assuming your were the drag queen.
Dumb comment Ano.
I.m assuming your ARE the drag queen.
Question: Are you seriously denying that such events are real and extremely common, and have been heavily pushed by teachers and librarians who are leftist activists?
Where did Letitia James get her medical degree from? Probably the same place she got her real estate license. Sounds like she’s practicing medicine without the proper license to do so.
Nonconsensual mutilation of a person of majority is a crime.
Mutilation of any minor is a crime.
From “The Mirror US”:
“An outspoken critic of her uncle on her YouTube channel, Mary Trump Media, she claimed that the president has “no interest” in the Iranian people.
In a video titled Trump Declares War to Save Himself, Mary stated: “The Iranian people have suffered long and horribly under the cruel and repressive authoritarian theocracy currently in power. They deserve to be free, and they deserve the ability to determine their own system of governance.”
“But the man who is bombing their country has no interest in them, and he has no plan to create the conditions in which they can become free, or support the efforts to create an alternative to the current regime.”
In her scathing assessment of her uncle, Mary claimed there “never has been a plan” and that Trump “wreaks havoc” and then “expects other people” to pick up the “rubble of his destruction”.
She went on to argue that this approach has worked in his favor, as he “never suffers the consequences” of what she characterized as his “reckless and ill-considered actions”.
She continued: “For Donald, there is one reason and one reason alone. He’s in trouble, and he knows it. This isn’t simply about changing the subject. That, of course, would be bad enough. This is to keep himself and the world from knowing what an inept, depraved, compromised fraud he is.
“This is about his unfathomable desperation to avoid being humiliated. Donald Trump has taken us to war at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Israel. But that wouldn’t have been enough of a reason if doing so didn’t also coincide with his own self-interest.”
Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz characterized the Saturday attacks as a “pre-emptive strike” to “remove threats against the state of Israel” . US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said they were aware of Israeli plans and had to move “pre-emptively” in anticipation of an Iranian attack.
In an address posted on Truth Social, Trump asserted Iran’s “menacing activities directly endanger the United States, our troops, our bases overseas and our allies throughout the world.”
He also alleged, following strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in 2025, the regime had been “developing long-range missiles that can now threaten our very good friends and allies in Europe, our troops stationed overseas, and could soon reach the American homeland.”
However, as reported by CBS News, an assessment by the US Defense Intelligence Agency indicated that Tehran would not possess missiles capable of reaching American soil until 2035.”
Because there has never been any plan, any stated objective, Trump and his cabinet of incompetent syncophants are free to claim success. BTW: DR. Mary Trump is a psychologist.
Dr, Mary Trump is a psychologist dealing with her own “issues” of gender (she’s lesbian), homeliness, unpopularity, ego stabilization, losing on litigation against Trump, and family alienation.
Being a lesbian is not a “gender issue”. Mary’s gender is female, but her sexual orientation is homosexual. You don’t even understand what a “gender issue” is. Regarding your insults over her appearance, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and attractiveness is more than looks, proven by Melania–someone who is admittedly attractive, but she is uneducated, shallow, stands for nothing substantial, and is a mere ornament for a malignant narcissist who cheats on her, brags about assaulting women and has been adjudicated to have sexually assaulted a woman. She exists only to make him look good, according to his assessment. He has been credibly accused of sexually assaulting other women, and is listed throughout the Epstein files, including a report that he sexually assaulted a 13 year old. Melania has accomplished little to nothing notable in her life–she is wifey and Baby Mama #3. King Donald has referred to her as a “good looking piece of axx”. Dr. Trump has written several successful books, and is not “alienated” by any member of her family that counts–King Donald doesn’t count because they never had any relationship. In fact, she writes that he never really had any deep relationships with anyone because he is a narcissist and no one counts more than he does. He is sociopathic, lacks empathy and his life is devoted to self-aggrandizement. Dr. Mary Trump is a mother, has a podcast and is a frequent guest on various media programs.
But, most of all, Dr. Mary Trump is not wrong in her assessment of her uncle. So, all of the name-calling and personal insults aren’t going to change that. She is right about Donald being desperate to avoid humiliation, which is the reason for the Big Lie. Facts don’t matter–the apperance of success and superiority and avoiding humiliation are all that DO matter, and Trump and the syncophants in his “administration” are going to claim “victory” no matter what. We are already paying more for gas and the cost of all goods that have to be delivered will go up too, like groceries, consumer goods, etc.. because of Trump’s war. We are in for a rough year because Republicans are really going to have to pull out all of the stops to try to cheat to win, as polls show Americans souring on the Republican Party and MAGA. She’s also correct that The Donald doesn’t care about the Iranian people at all. Claiming that he started this war to benefit them is just another lie. The Iranian people do not have weapons, and while there are some who do want drastic change, not all of them want the theocracy abolished. There is no clear opposition leader, and no plan by America to help opponents of the former leader to succeed in establishing a new government. It’s interesting that France, Spain and England told King Donald he was on his own. They aren’t wrong, either.
clown, her SEX is female, you have NO idea what gender she identifies with.
To add insult to injury, Trump intends to show up at Dover AFB to waddle his fat can in front of those cameras upon the arrival of the remains of those Americans killed in the war he started based on ever changing lies. He will pretend to care about the deaths of our brave service members and will lie about the real reasons he started this war—spouting nonsense about threats to America, a nonexistent nuclear threat, nonexistent ballistic missiles, caring about helping the Iranian people….blah, blah…blah. …all lies. He is literally stealing their valor by trading on their deaths for personal aggrandizement. It is disgusting.
If he had a shred of decency, he wouldn’t show up at all. But he can’t resist those cameras and playing “POTUS”, pretending to be worthy to be in the same room as our brave service members who are better quality people than he could ever hope to be.
Yawn…. tell us how Biden kept checking his watch when our dead were brought home.
While she indeed has a doctorate in psychology, Mary Trump has never been licensed to practice on New York or any other state. Why not? We can only speculate. Psychological problems? Not unlikely.
This inability to earn a living in a field she spent so many years studying could explain why, after receiving the same share of her grandfather’s estate as all the other grandchildren, she felt entitled to more, and sued for half ofvwhat wouls have been her father’s intestate share.
You are incorrect. Dr. Mary Trump is licensed in the State of New York as a clinical psychologist. Why does MAGA constantly lie about everything?
First of all, “Clinicsl psychologist” is not the title of the profession in NYS. Second, the brother of a good friend of mine IS a licensed Psychologist in NYS (He went to SUNY Buffalo, and practiced in the Adirondacks.) He’s on the list, while nobody named Trump is.
Third, why do TDS victims constantly lie about everything?
Search By
Licensee Name
Profession
Psychologist (068)
Mary Trump
Select the license, permit or registration # of any result listed below for additional information.
This information is current as of March 04, 2026 06:13 PM
License #
Name
Profession
Address
Date of Licensure
No matching records found
You are absolutely correct. Moreover, this may be why she does not appear to actually practice in clinical psychology, but rather in lifestyle coaching, etc..
Who the f*** cares what Mary Trump has to say, about anything? She’s a miserable loser, a lunatic, has no inside information or any other advantage over any random person. And she’s insanely jealous of her uncle because she thinks she deserves more of her grandfather’s inheritance than she got. So why do you think we should be so fascinated by her insane ranting?
I do not believe that several commenters here today understand the issue(s) at stake.
I refer to Comments like “Oh Professor Turley, you sly dog you…[and what follows].”
In truth, Turley WISELY and CAUTIOUSLY limited his commentary because there are several levels of fluid and influx events/litigation pending in this area.
Here are some basics (for those interested):
(1) Trump’s E.O. 14187 outlines directives for federal agencies to take regarding gender transitions.
(2) The Federal government pays for not only Medicare, but also shares payment for Medicaid. It also funds payments for TRICARE (military), and other insurance forms/plans/carriers. It also has broad implications for Obama’s Affordable Care Act (ACA).
(3) Contrary to the above commenter, The REFERENCED REGULATION that implements the E.O among agencies became FINAL in August 2025 after the open comment phase expired. That regulation ADDED a new classification of EHBs, (essential health benefits, see (d). https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/45/156.115, which states:
“For plan years beginning on any day in calendar year 2026, an issuer of a plan offering EHB may not include routine non-pediatric dental services, routine non-pediatric eye exam services, long-term/custodial nursing home care benefits, non-medically necessary orthodontia, or specified sex-trait modification procedures [as defined under § 156.400 definitions].”
(4) That FINAL RULE was immediately challenged by several blue states, WHICH CASE IS STILL PENDING. The latest pleading was just filed a few weeks ago, see in particular, p. 28, IX (addressing challenges to sex trait modification procedures.
https://litigationtracker.law.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/State-of-California-et-al.-v.-Centers-for-Medicare-Medicaid-Services-et-al_2_27_2026_DEFENDANTS-RESPONSE-AND-CROSS-MOTION-FOR-SUMMARY-JUDGMENT.pdf
(5) Parallel to the above are two other related fronts:
(a) SCOTUS has lifted the injunction barring the military from removing transgenders; the military also is withholding medical transition of current transgenders not yet removed (I suspect many joined the military for the very reason of having their “transition” paid for by the military). Remand to lower courts, still pending final rulings.
(b) the American Medical Association (AMA) just two weeks ago released its position on gender affirming surgeries for children, adopting a NEGATIVE position on same for those under the age of 19, thus affirming the Trump administration’s concerns.
I’m hopeful that this information will remove the pending issues from specious comments and into actual documentary understanding of complexity of different planes of controversy.
Links for (a) and (b) are attached below, as I am limited to two and I’ve already used those up!
https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/health-policy/positions/2026-gender-surgery-children-adolescents.pdf
https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/united-states-v-shilling/
(New York is one of the Plaintiff states.)^^^
slight correction, sorry.
(3) above, should read, “That regulation ADDED a new classification of EHB exceptions,” (I backed up the cursor to add an ‘s” and took out a whole word!)
I read every word of your “comment.”
(I’m sorry it was so lengthy and again apologize for backing up cursor and removing the single word “exceptions.”)
Thank you Lin, because your comment provides a doorway for people in these cases. These cases are difficult for ordinary people because I couldn’t find a way to approach this at all seeing no reason these cases are part of any educational program.
That the government pays money makes it accessible. It can be seen as a limitation of the government interest.
Thanks
(b), supra. American Society of Plastic Surgeons, not AMA:
“ASPS recommends that surgeons delay gender-related breast/chest, genital, and facial surgery until a patient is at least 19 years old.”
(actually, it’s both AMA and ASPS, -but I was quoting ASPS)
here’s from AMA
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2026-02-06/american-medical-association-says-gender-surgeries-for-minors-should-wait
Lin,
“Contrary to the above commenter, The REFERENCED REGULATION that implements the E.O among agencies became FINAL in August 2025 after the open comment phase expired. That regulation ADDED a new classification of EHBs, (essential health benefits,
Huh, nope. That has nothing to do with the Hospital.
In August 2025, a rule was finalized regarding Essential Health Benefits (EHBs) for PRIVATE INSURERS under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which removed certain gender-affirming care from the “essential” list.
This EHB rule simply means the federal government no longer requires private plans to cover the care; it does not prohibit a hospital from providing it, nor does it prohibit a state like New York from requiring it under state law. New York state law (GENDA) remains the active legal standard for providers within the state’s borders.
As of March 4, 2026, the Executive Order is not currently enforceable while litigation continues. Therefore, any hospital claiming they are “forced” by federal law to stop care is technically incorrect; they are reacting to a threatened change that is currently blocked by the judiciary. AG James is telling hospitals they are still bound by NY law. Not Trump’s EO.
On December 18, 2025, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and CMS announced new proposed rules to bar hospitals from performing these procedures as a condition of participation in Medicare and Medicaid.
These rules were only PROPOSED in December 2025, they could not have been “final” in August 2025. They are currently in a “notice and comment” period that is expected to run through early 2026. Until finalized, they do not carry the force of law to override New York’s anti-discrimination statutes.
George/X:
Glad I turned on my Internet this a.m. in the rain,’
I stand by everything I said, and I regret that you do not understand it.
And I regret that I again must tell you that you are, unfortunately, wrong. …Again.
(1)The August FINAL RULE is precisely what I cited in (3) above. Did you think you were adding something new?
And, btw, please see below re: the DECEMBER one you cite.
(2) You erred in concluding that this has nothing to do with private hospitals or private plans. -But that doesn’t matter because, NYU Langone is not a private hospital and is the recipient of federal funding, so your posture/argument is not even accurate or applicable. Any private health provider accepting federal funds and/or part of the ACA marketplace/list of providers is subject. Did you notice my express reference to ACA in (2) above?
WHY DO YOU THINK THE GOOD PROFESSOR ENTITLED HIS ARTICLE/POST AS STUCK BETWEEN “A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE?”
(3) I also said that the E.O. and subsequent rule were currently TIED UP IN LITIGATION in (4) above. Did you think you were telling readers something new even though I had already pointed that out?
(4) To beef up your comment, you made humorous arguments against things I never said. For example, I never said private health providers could not choose between federal funding assistance or rejecting it. Again, I repeat, WHY DO YOU THINK THE GOOD PROFESSOR ENTITLED HIS ARTICLE/POST AS STUCK BETWEEN “A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE?”
That’s pretty amusing in and of itself.
(5) Most importantly, you severely misunderstand and misrepresent what the December 18 proposed rule was all about.
In essence, the CoP (Conditions of Participation) Proposed Rule is both an expansion and a clarification of what could affect federal funding/grants. It does NOT negate or void either the E.O. or the August Rule.
Specifically, it ADDED new language addressing “gender dysphoria.” Notice the language “Conditions of Participation.” Try to understand what that means, George.
And please be reminded that there is NO federal law prohibiting sex-rejecting procedures for children and adolescents. As I pointed out, the AMA and ASPS as well as HHS do NOT adopt and decline to adopt certain procedures for those under 19; HHS merely wishes to clarify/contain/control federal funding for them. If you had read what I originally referenced, pg. 28 in the pending lawsuit I cited, you might have a better handle on things.
Please try to utilize your own comprehension and context rules that you have laid out for others. Thank you anyway.
(NYU can be technically considered a private university hospital but has and does accept federal funding for its programs.)
AI Overview
“The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly mention parents or children, but the Supreme Court has long interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause as protecting a fundamental right of parents to direct the “care, custody, and control” of their children.”
________________________________________________________________________________________________
2. There really is no question about schools taking action regarding a minor, such as any segment of the process of transgender transition, when the fact that the child is a minor is a clear legal statement that the child is under the control of the parent, in the exclusion of schools or any other entity.
AI Overview
“That is the precise argument at the heart of current constitutional litigation: if a minor is legally defined by their lack of autonomy and their presence under parental dominion, then a school
‘transitioning’ a child in secret constitutes a direct seizure of the parent’s 14th Amendment liberty.”
“MINOR”
1. Does the Constitution confer authority over or control of children to parents or the government?
Displacement of #1 caused by bizarre WordPress confusion; WordPress must stop its censorship of freedom of speech.
The two Truley posts today are in conflict. One promotes parental rights to the point that it will cause minors to be abused and/or kicked out of their house. The second post is saying that parents do not have the right to provide medical care to their children. The only consistant theme is anti-LGBT and hurting minors.
On the contrary, the theme is protecting children from lifelong harm, and protecting the constitutional rights of their parents from an overbearing state intent on harming children without the parents knowing about it.
I agree Oldman, I don’t see the two posts as being in conflict. Both are really asking the same constitutional question: where is the line between parental authority, the welfare of minors, and the power of the state.
That question shows up all over the law already in areas like medical consent, child protection laws, and parental rights cases.
The issue isn’t whether one side “cares about children” more than the other. The issue is where the Constitution draws the boundary between family authority and government power.
Once the debate turns into motives and labels, the constitutional question usually disappears. That’s the part worth focusing on.
How’s this for conflicts: Every single American child not made wards of a Democrat state are abused and/or thrown out of the family home. ALSO: Democrat unionized teachers encouraging young children to ask to be sterilized through surgical and/or chemical castration and neutering is NOT abuse of those children.
2026 Democrat Election Theme: HELP OUR TEACHERS’ UNION DONORS TRANNY YOUR CHILDREN AGAIN!
Brief for Petitioners: Equal Protection Forbids Penalizing the Exercise of Fundamental Parental Rights Under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Ninth Amendment and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution secure the fundamental right of parents to direct the education and upbringing of their children. The State may not condition the exercise of that right on the surrender of equal treatment. By compelling all parents to fund public schools through taxation, yet conferring the full benefit of that funding only upon those who utilize the government system, the State imposes a unique and unequal financial burden on parents who lawfully choose private education. Because the Constitution forbids penalizing the exercise of a fundamental right or discriminating among similarly situated citizens without sufficient justification, such a scheme cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny.
Sex-Drugs-Rock –in-Roll morphed into allowances that modify meanings of biological sex to anything the imagination can dream of. I once was a lonely Loon flitting here and there, then discovered I was nothing more than a Pigeon lost in a dream of having such a beautiful call. The generation of SDRR educated psychologists/psychiatrists’ who changed basic understanding of biology, thinking they had a solution to [WHATEVER ALIELS YOU] let’s just fix it, I’ll convince the surgeon to remove those little pinkies who are always crying, you’ll see how much better you’ll feel, problem solved.
And just think, the illiberal leftists swallowed it hook, line and sinker to the point even a Supreme Court Justice could not state the fact of biological sex.
Oh Professor Turley, you sly dog you. You mention Trump’s executive order which you know has no legal weigh in state matters until it’s either made into law by Congress or deemed enforceable by the Supreme Court. It’s funny how Turley segued from “EO” to “federal regulation”.
AG Letitia James is telling the hospital to follow state law which has been on the books longer than the EO or this phantom “federal regulation” he mentions. Trump’s EO, “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation,” is not a valid regulation. Not until it has gone through the regulatory process. EO’s do not override state statutes.
Until a federal regulation is finalized and upheld by the Supreme Court as a valid preemption of state law, the hospital remains legally bound by New York’s anti-discrimination statutes which is what the letter James wrote to the hospital basically says.
HHS, rather than go through the laborious process of creating a new regulation meeting Trump’s EO it chose to threaten funding to force the hospital to choose between following established state law and Trumps. EO which is not enforceable. Basically HHS is using blackmail to force the hospital to do what Trump wants.
Please cite the law passed by congress hat Funds elective sex change surgery for minors ?
Absent such a law – deregulation is trivial. HHS merely removes existing sex change surgery regulations as unauthorized by law.
Poof Gone ! It is not a laborious process.
So say Trump is forcing the hospital – but it sounds more Like James is.
John, you know perfectly well this is not about a law funding elective sex change surgery for minors. First of all such surgeries are extremely rare. They are done after long and careful consideration by both parents and doctors. These kinds of operations are not done on a whim.
“ HHS merely removes existing sex change surgery regulations as unauthorized by law.
Poof Gone ! It is not a laborious process.”
Removes? Trump’s EO directs HHS to issue regulations banning the procedure to minors. Because creating a new regulation requires a legal process that is lengthy and complicated HHS chose to threaten to withhold funds. Calling it “unauthorized” does not change the fact that the EO or HHS’s threat has no legal standing. Just like Trump’s use of an EO to stop NYC’s “congestion charge” to alleviate traffic in downtown.
Trump IS forcing the hospital to make a choice by issuing the EO which has no legal weight against state statutes.
As of March 4, 2026, the specific federal proposals to cut funding for hospitals providing gender-affirming care have not officially changed federal law. New York’s Attorney General Letitia James argues that because these are only “proposals,” they do not absolve hospitals of their existing duties under New York State Human Rights Law. The ACTUAL law as you’re fond of saying.
Because of this Trump’s HHS is relying on the threat to force the hospital to comply instead of actually complying with an ACTUAL law.
“John, you know perfectly well ”
I know perfectly well that those of you on the left are liars.
Jasmine crocket is busy blaming her loss last night on Republicans – despite the fact that Republicans badly wanted her to defeat Talerico – because Any republican can defeat her. Regardless she is ranting about stolen elections.
I would be HAPPY to find that Democrats engaged in Fraud to defeat her.
“this is not about a law funding elective sex change surgery for minors. First of all such surgeries are extremely rare. They are done after long and careful consideration by both parents and doctors. These kinds of operations are not done on a whim.”
Irrelevant.
“Removes? Trump’s EO directs HHS to issue regulations banning the procedure to minors.”
Here is the EO – please cite the text that doe as you claim ? Regardless it is not within the Federal Governments power to ban elective medical procedures.
It is within their power to stop Funding them.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defending-women-from-gender-ideology-extremism-and-restoring-biological-truth-to-the-federal-government/
” Because creating a new regulation requires a legal process that is lengthy and complicated HHS chose to threaten to withhold funds. ”
False. Removing regulations – especially those not CLEARLY authorized by congress is trivial and SCOTUS recently made it even easier.
Curring Funding where funding is not explicitly authorized by congress is also trivial.
Do you have a federal law that requires HHS to promote or fund sexual reassignment surgery ?
“Calling it “unauthorized” does not change the fact that the EO or HHS’s threat has no legal standing. ”
Legal Standing ? They are not suing anyone, they are cutting off funds for services not authorized by law.
“Just like Trump’s use of an EO to stop NYC’s “congestion charge” to alleviate traffic in downtown.”
I have no idea what you are talking about – nor do you.
Regardless you are ranting about a straw man.
“Trump IS forcing the hospital to make a choice by issuing the EO which has no legal weight against state statutes.”
No he is just cutting off funding for something congress did not explicitly authorize.
I am 100% for that NO MATTER WHAT. If the federal government is spending money – it must be clearly authorized by congress.
I do not care if he is cutting off unauthorized Highway funding.
But more broadly – neither the federal government not the state of NY has any legitimate business funding elective surgery.
“As of March 4, 2026, the specific federal proposals to cut funding for hospitals providing gender-affirming care have not officially changed federal law.”
HHS does not need to change anything to stop something that was never authorized by congress in the first place.
” New York’s Attorney General Letitia James argues that because these are only “proposals,” they do not absolve hospitals of their existing duties under New York State Human Rights Law. The ACTUAL law as you’re fond of saying.”
I highly doubt that there is an HYS law requiring that hospitals perform elective surgery with Federal Funds.
Pretty sure the constitution frowns on that.
If NYS wishes to FORCE Hospitals to do this – they NYS must pass laws REQUIRING IT and PAYING FOR IT.
Can you cite those laws ?
Even if such laws existed – they would be challenged and likely struck down as unconstitutional.
Your off in lala land.
Your trying to substitute left wing spin for law.
Congress has NEVER authorized HHS spending for elective surgery – sex related or otherwise.
HHS cutting off federal funding for services congress never authorized is a no brainer.
I would note my entire argument does not rest on anything Gender related,
It would be the same if HHS was funding face lifts.
YOUR argument rests on claims about laws and regulations that do not exist – and if they did would be unconstitutional.
I have not addressed what Turley notes – which is pretty much the entire world has found “gender interventions” in teens to be essentially medical malpractice.
The hypocratic oath starts with “first do no harm”
I will conceed that it is POSSIBLE that in a tiny number of instances there MIGHT be a benefit to these interventions.
But logic, wisdom and history across europe which has tried this nonsense is that for every hypothetical beneficiary that are dozens possibly hundreds that are harmed
ONE of the many OBVIOUS reasons is called MORAL HAZARD. If you offer people something that you promise will fix everything wrong in their lives, and you do not impose a cost on that thing – it will with certainty be consumed when it has no benefit and causes actual harm.
If you tell people that a facelift will make them feel better about themselves and you provide facelifts for free. You will get massive numbers of facelifts. many of which will be botched, and few of which will actually make people fell better about themselves.
The idiocy of free elective medical sevices is not confined to Trans nonsense.
“Because of this Trump’s HHS is relying on the threat to force the hospital to comply instead of actually complying with an ACTUAL law.”
What FORCE ? Is HHS sending in “men with guns” ? No, they are cutting funding.
Unless that funding is explicitly authorized by congress – it can be cut. PERIOD.
There is no need for a laborious process to remove regulations that do not have foundation in the actual law.
John Say,
“John, you know perfectly well ”
I know perfectly well that those of you on the left are liars.
Jasmine crocket is busy blaming her loss last night on Republicans – despite the fact that Republicans badly wanted her to defeat Talerico – because Any republican can defeat her. Regardless she is ranting about stolen elections.
I would be HAPPY to find that Democrats engaged in Fraud to defeat her.”
What? What does that have to do with the discussion about Trump’s EO and James’s letter? You’re ranting.
“ this is not about a law funding elective sex change surgery for minors. First of all such surgeries are extremely rare. They are done after long and careful consideration by both parents and doctors. These kinds of operations are not done on a whim.”
Irrelevant.“
Very relevant. Because Trump and republicans are forcing a hospital to violate state laws so they can feel good about “protecting children”.
“I highly doubt that there is an HYS law requiring that hospitals perform elective surgery with Federal Funds.
Pretty sure the constitution frowns on that.
If NYS wishes to FORCE Hospitals to do this – they NYS must pass laws REQUIRING IT and PAYING FOR IT.”
You’re showing some reading comprehension problems. NY state laws don’t require hospitals to perform anything. They merely protect patients from discrimination. HHS was directed to cut off all Medicare/medicaid funding to force the hospital to stop doing one procedure or healthcare to a particular subset of people. The Supreme Court already ruled this is unconstitutional.
“ What FORCE ? Is HHS sending in “men with guns” ? No, they are cutting funding.
Unless that funding is explicitly authorized by congress – it can be cut. PERIOD.“
What force? Coercion. The funding IS explicitly authorized by Congress. It’s Medicare/medicaid funding. The ACA prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. Funds can’t be denied for that reason.
“Congress has NEVER authorized HHS spending for elective surgery – sex related or otherwise.
HHS cutting off federal funding for services congress never authorized is a no brainer.”
It’s not elective surgery. In those extremely rare cases it’s medically necessary.
“ I will conceed that it is POSSIBLE that in a tiny number of instances there MIGHT be a benefit to these interventions.“
That feels like a hard “possible”. Which IS the whole point. As long as there IS a possible benefit it should be allowed. Not banned.
X says: you know perfectly well this is not about a law funding elective sex change surgery for minors.
Oh X, we know perfectly well that you are a vicious, lying Democrat communist.
Why don’t you have articles by author X on the Marxists Internet Archive?
https://www.marxists.org/admin/janitor/faq.htm
The writer is alive and well and politically active. The MIA’s Charter forbids us from building an archive for a writer who is still politically active. There are several reasons for this:
(1) It ensures that the MIA stays out of current disputes and
(2) remains independent of all political parties and groups; Also,
(3) if a writer is still alive, they can build their own web site. This does not prevent the MIA from using material also from politically active writers in an editorial role or in support of a subject section, so long as we have the author’s permission.
“You mention Trump’s executive order which you know has no legal weigh in state matters until it’s either made into law by Congress or deemed enforceable by the Supreme Court. ”
False. The EO requires HHS to stop funding for these actions – absent a sucessful court challenges – and SCOTUS has pretty much telegraphed you will not get that.
Ending these services is a condition for federal funding.
You are absolutely correct that EO’s have absolutely no power outside the Executive branch – but Federal Funding to states comes through the executive branch.
“It’s funny how Turley segued from “EO” to “federal regulation”.”
EOs can be federal regulations, and they can drive the creation of federal regulations.
“AG Letitia James is telling the hospital to follow state law which has been on the books longer than the EO or this phantom “federal regulation” he mentions.”
Any state law that requires hospitals to perform gender transition surgeries would be unconstitutional.
“”Trump’s EO, “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation,” is not a valid regulation. ”
Correct, it is a valid EO and it drives Valid Regulations.
“Not until it has gone through the regulatory process.”
That process when driven by an EO is pretty trivial.
I am sure HHS already has regulations barring funding to institutions that perform gender transition surgeries on minors.
” EO’s do not override state statutes.”
Correct and the state can not force hospitals to provide and pay for elective medical services that
the world no longer recognizes as having any value.
“Until a federal regulation is finalized and upheld by the Supreme Court as a valid preemption of state law, the hospital remains legally bound by New York’s anti-discrimination statutes which is what the letter James wrote to the hospital basically says.”
There is no discrimination issue – HHS bars gender transition surgery for Trans minors and for straight ones.
It is not discrimination to stop a special interest group from getting something unnecescary that no one else gets.
John Say,
“ You mention Trump’s executive order which you know has no legal weigh in state matters until it’s either made into law by Congress or deemed enforceable by the Supreme Court. ”
False. The EO requires HHS to stop funding for these actions – absent a sucessful court challenges – and SCOTUS has pretty much telegraphed you will not get that.
Ending these services is a condition for federal funding.”
False? In your very next paragraph you confirm what I said is true.
SCOTUS “pretty much telegraphed”? You mean SCOTUS has not ruled on the issue at all. Pretty much, LOL.
“ You are absolutely correct that EO’s have absolutely no power outside the Executive branch – but Federal Funding to states comes through the executive branch.”
Of course, but the executive branch is also required to execute the wishes of Congress which means the executive branch can’t use funds to strong arm a hospital to do what it is not legally required to do.
This is the same issue when the federal government threatened to withhold funding to states if they did not expand Medicaid. NFIB v. Sebelius.
Chief Justice Roberts famously called such a threat “a gun to the head”. If the Trump administration threatens to cut a hospital’s entire Medicare/Medicaid budget (which often makes up the majority of a hospital’s revenue) over one specific procedure, it may be viewed as unconstitutional coercion.
A federal judge in Seattle blocked similar plans, finding that the administration’s attempt to condition lawfully appropriated funds on the cessation of medical care violated the Separation of Powers. The court ruled the executive branch cannot unilaterally “cancel” or redirect funds already authorized by Congress.
Judges have pointed out that if a hospital provides puberty blockers for a cisgender child (e.g., for cancer treatment) but is forced by federal threat to deny them to a transgender child, that is “textbook sex discrimination”
Courts have noted that withholding funds to stop transgender care might actually force hospitals to violate other federal laws. Like section 1557 of the ACA. Which bars discrimination on the basis of sex
In any federal healthcare program.
“The EO requires HHS to stop funding for these actions ”
Among many other this correct.
And unless you can cite explicit law passed by congress authorizing that funding,
then HHS is free to do so.
“SCOTUS “pretty much telegraphed”? You mean SCOTUS has not ruled on the issue at all. Pretty much, LOL.”
SCOTUS has ruled on the general proposition that absent SPECIFIC authorization by congress, the executive is NOT obligated to do anything in prcisely the way a prior administration did.
And in fact SCOTUS has been repeatedly finding that the executive acting without clear direction from Congress is unconstitutional.
While there are more narrowly on point examples EVERYONE here is familiar with the fact that SCOTUS struct down Trump’s power to Tariff under IEEPA.
How is that different from HHS funding something that Congress did not explicitly authorize ?
You can win this argument trivially – provide the text of a law passed by congress funding medical interventions for trans teens.
Find that and Trump is screwed.
But you will not, and what that means is that not only is James screwed – but that HHS was acting UNLAWFULLY and UNCONSTITUTIONALLY when it DID fund these.
” the executive branch is also required to execute the wishes of Congress which means the executive branch”
False. The executive branch is required to follow the laws as congress wrote them.
This is not about guesses as to wishes. Congress is constitutionally required to CLEARLY direct the executive,
and the executive is required to follow the CLEAR directions of congress.
Again – cite law that CEARLY requires finding medical interventions for sex confused teens ?
“can’t use funds to strong arm a hospital to do what it is not legally required to do.”
Correct, there is no power to blackmail. HHS simply can not fund this at all.
I have problems with Trump threatening colleges.
There should be no threat. The funding should just be stopped.
“This is the same issue when the federal government threatened to withhold funding to states if they did not expand Medicaid. NFIB v. Sebelius.”
Pretty much the opposite. SCOTUS said that congress (not the president) could not use the law or funding to FORCE states to expand benefits.
That is a very fundimental constitutional issue. The vast majority of federal laws and regulations are completely unconstitutional.
The federal government gets around that by Paying the states to do what it can not do directly.
“Chief Justice Roberts famously called such a threat “a gun to the head”. ”
Don;t expect help from roberts here. You re trying to massively over generalize and unrelated decision that operates on the oposite side of a different problems.
“A federal judge in Seattle blocked similar plans”
There are about 900 federal judge – the left can always find one willing to buck SCOTUS.
Regardless this is a decided issue.
“Judges have pointed out that if a hospital provides puberty blockers for a cisgender child (e.g., for cancer treatment) but is forced by federal threat to deny them to a transgender child, that is “textbook sex discrimination””
Only in the mind of a left wing loon.
If you turn sex into a choice then you END protection for discrimination on the basis of sex.
We have laws that clearly discriminate against pedophiles. Are you saying those are unconstitutional ?
The FACT is that we have massively over expanded discrimination laws – stupidly and created a legal mess.
Discrimination is just another name for Choose. When you start playing the games you are playing about what choices are lawful and what are not, you create a mess that no one can figure out.
YOUR example about requiring government to provide a drug to teens for sex transitions when the drug is also used for cancer treatment is a perfect example.
You have defined discrimination so broadly as to be limitless.
“Courts have”
repeatedly jumped into areas they do not belong.
Courts follow the law and constitution and require the govenrment to follow the law and constitution.
It is NOT their job to engage in policy choices.
The constitution – and federal law can bar GOVERNMENT discrimination. It can bar discrimination by Government actors.
It can not legitimately bar private discrimination – without creating the idiotic mess we have today – with morons like you trying to argue that Cancer Treatment somehow creates a basis for a claim of sex discrimination in a completely unrelated domain.
Guns do not kill people – people do. Guns can be used lawfully and unlawfully.
A drug can be used for good or evil.
You can not reason from the legitimacy of an unrelated use to anything in an unrelated area.
That is a logical fallacy.
So you cited a court that made an obvious – logic 101 logical error.
And pretend that is meaningful.
BTW there are no such thing as CIS teens – they are just teens. We do not require adjectives to further describe NORMAL. Adjectives are used to highlight the unusual. not the normal.
Why is it that you think ANYONE should be forced to pay for elective medical care for others ?
If it were possible to give you a brain transplant – should the rest of us be forced to pay ?
In what world do you beleive that other people can be forced to pay because nature did not create you the way you would have prefered ?
X says: Oh Professor Turley, you sly dog you.
Oh X, you vicious lying communist you… did the commies toss you out of the Marxist house?
Why don’t you have articles by author X on the Marxists Internet Archive?
https://www.marxists.org/admin/janitor/faq.htm
The writer is alive and well and politically active. The MIA’s Charter forbids us from building an archive for a writer who is still politically active. There are several reasons for this:
(1) It ensures that the MIA stays out of current disputes and
(2) remains independent of all political parties and groups; Also,
(3) if a writer is still alive, they can build their own web site. This does not prevent the MIA from using material also from politically active writers in an editorial role or in support of a subject section, so long as we have the author’s permission.
Turley didn’t’ say anything to contradict this or to imply that the EO has any authority over state law. The author of the EO, however, does have the ability to pull federal funding from the hospital should they continue these treatments, at least for as long as he is in office and the EO is in effect. The hospital’s choice is not whether to follow “federal law” or state law, since there is not a federal law but an EO. The hospital’s choice is whether to follow NT State law to resume mutilating children and forgo the federal funding that will be withheld under the EO, or to follow the EO and accept the NY State sanctions. They’d be wise to follow the EO and fight the AG’s claims of “discrimination” because it’s not discriminatory to not perform such surgeries for any child under the age of 19. If they were performing such surgeries for only female children or only make children, at the exclusion of the opposite sex, the AG may have a discrimination claim to make,but since no such surgeries are being performed for anyone under 18, who is being discriminated against?
This illustrates the limit to which the Executive branch can direct policy in the absence of clear legislation. If cosmetic surgery to permanently further a child’s delusion is to be banned, the state legislators and Congress need to step in. The same is true for any pharmaceuticals that are not necessary for a child’s health but are used only to reinforce a child’s delusions.
The legislative process is slow and uncertain. But to settle these types of issues they are necessary.
OT: There is now empirical evidence that God is real!
Jasmine Crockett NOT reelected!
😊
Have nice day
She was never going to be reelected, because she chose not to run for reelection. She decided to run for the senate instead, and she lost. Which is not proof of God, unless God is a Democrat, because her loss is exactly what the Democrats were praying for.
JT, Thanks for ignoring the elephant in the room. Nobody wants to hear how corrupt trump and JD Vance are.
Hegseth said. “We’ve taken control of Iran’s airspace and waterways without boots on the ground, but when a few drones get through or tragic things happen, it’s front page news. I get it, the press only wants to make the president look bad. But try for once to report the reality.”
What reality does JD live in? 6 Americans dead from a war trump started is not a news item?
@Anonymous
We have all been alive long enough to know you are salient like a toothache. Spare us. More than six people were harmed in the Hamas attack alone, that is before we even get into the Obama-Hillary-Biden years, and hey! Your buddy the ayatollah murdered thousands just over the past little bit of time for having the audacity to disagree with him and say the regime might not be the greatest thing.
You are vile and you aren’t fooling anyone. Even the pixels on this page are going, ‘Sigh.’.
Americans died in TX as a result of an islamic terrorist.
Trump did not kill these US servicemen.
Iran did. Those servicemen were not In Iran at the time.
They were in another sovereign country – one of a dozen that Iran has committed acts of war against.
We should be upset about 6 sevicemen. We should also be upset about the 30+K of its own people Iran has murdered for protesting.
I thought those of you on the left went ballistic when protestors get killed.
Or what of the hundreds of others Iran is killing in neighboring countries that are not at war with Iran ?
Letitia James is an object lesson, and one to pay attention to: this will be our judiciary and legal system if we don’t keep the dems out of majority power; they have changed exactly zero from the Biden years, if anything, they are more radical and unhinged now than before, and also desperate. Pay very, very close attention: many of them are beginning to run as conservatives and independents, and Spanberger has shown they will happily lie their way into office and then resume everything from 2020-2024. Their lack of respect for the law, and worse, for our intelligence, has never been more profound. This IS their platform as a party. There are no moderate dems running for office.
Every single election from now on is the most important ever, and the DNC knows they can’t win honestly, so it will be a never ending stream of ever dirtier tricks. We are no longer dealing with an American, Constitutional party on the modern left, period.
PS – Don’t know why my AV changed again. 🤷🏻♂️
Stop speaking as if MAGA is the majority–e.g. “if WE don’t keep the dems out of majority power”. The majority of Americans are opposed to MAGA, to Trump, to Project 2025, to Trump’s immigration policies, to the ICE killing and abusing people, and now, fighting Israel’s war for them, based on ever-shifting rationales without being honest about paying back Jewish campaign donors and UAE, Saudi Arabia and Qatar for the cash they gave the Trumps and diversion away from the Epstein scandal. So, it is indeed ironic that you accuse Democrats of “lying their way into office”, which is exactly what Trump did, and of being “radical and unhinged” as well as “desperate”. It’s desperate Republicans who are poised to take a shellacking in November. It’s Republicans who support taking school lunches and SNAP benefits away from needy Americans to pay for massive tax cuts to benefit the wealthiest. It’s Republicans who are trying to redistrict to create more red districts, and who will do everything to prevent probable Democrats from voting, just like the BS they pulled yesterday in Texas, so it is indeed ironic that you accuse Democrats of “knowing they can’t win honestly”–a phrase that accurately describes Republicans, as poll after poll proves. MAGA continues to spout the 2020 Big Lie, and MAGAs like you continue to spout the drivel above. X is correct- our laws are not made by Executive Orders, which cannot and do not over-ride state laws. And if you want to complain about a radical and unhinged legal system, look no further than the DOJ, which openly flaunts court orders, openly refuses to comply with the Epstein Transparency Act, ignores Constitutional protections and lies to Courts over and over. They try to shove unqualified and inexperienced people into US Attorney jobs and fight to keep them, in contravention of federal law.
“Stop speaking as if MAGA is the majority”
MAGA in the broadest sense is th plurality of americans – maybe 40-45%.
But a more narrow defintion would make them only about 20%.
Regardless so long as your defintions are equally broad or narrow they are today the single largest political identity in the country.
Absolutely the majority of Americans disprove of almost everyone. Trump. MAGA, ICE, Democrats, Republicans, Oma, Schumer, …..
But on policies they are strongly behined most of Trump’s Agenda 47.
And they remain so despite various other polling cycles.
Well hello, Gigi! Early afternoon business slow behind your neighborhood dive bars?
Why is mortgage fraudster James still in office? Why is mortgage fraud prosecuted when Trump associates like Manafort and Cohen practice it, but not when Trump adversaries like James and Schiff do it?
And Trump didn’t even “practice it.” For it to be fraud, the deception had to be material to the transaction.* It was not material given that the bank was well aware of the value of the property and in fact suffered no loss whatsoever since the loan was paid back in full.
*Under New York law, the five elements of a fraud claim are: (1) a material misrepresentation or omission of fact (2) made by defendant with knowledge of its falsity (3) and intent to defraud; (4) reasonable reliance on the part of the plaintiff; and (5) resulting damage to the plaintiff. See Schlaifer Nance & Co. v. Estate of Warhol, 119 F.3d 91, 98 (2d Cir.1997); Centro Empresarial Cempresa S.A. v. América Móvil, S.A.B. de C.V., 17 N.Y.3d 269, 276 (2011)
There was NO “mortgage fraud” by Letitia James. Trump is the one who tripled the size of his apartment to use the value as collateral to get a loan on more favorable terms–that was proven in Court. MAGA can’t change the facts, but it tries.
Interest rates for loans on owner-occupied homes are lower. James claimed on mortgage loan applications that both her New York house and her Virginia houses were her “primary residences.”
At least one of thise claims is a lie, and thus fraud, bc it would have been physically impossible. Most likely the Virginia one, bc James is not the AG of Virginia.
And I was referring to the federal prosecutions of two of Trump’s ASSOCIATES, namely Manafort and Cohen, for mortgage fraud. Both served prison time for this crime. Why not James?
Trans and trans-ing is a fetish.
My fetish is crying screeching libs.
Even if the state pressures the hospital to offer the program, that raises another question: what happens to individual physicians who object on conscience or medical judgment? Hospitals can set policies, but compelling individual doctors to perform a procedure is a different legal question. Is it not?
Different legal question.? Not at all. So why don’t you make the legal argument then?
You say it’s not a different legal question. Fine. Explain why. How is compelling a doctor to perform a procedure the same thing as regulating discrimination?
Olly – whether the hospital has to offer the procedures, and whether an individual physician has to do them, are distinct issues, as you rightly observed. The anonymous commenter who responded to you is quite clearly a troll either paid to stir the pot, or a very low-IQ individual who gets their jollies out of saying stupid things.
I agree that those are two separate issues. The hospital offering a service and an individual physician performing it are not the same question.
And I’d rather keep the discussion on that distinction. That’s where the real legal and constitutional questions are.
It’ll probably align with the ER docs and mifepristone SCOTUS case? Accommodations , mitigation for docs but ultimately they lose their jobs. There is a difference – federal law has supremacy so James loses for now.
That may be how it plays out. Federal law does carry supremacy when there’s a direct conflict. But the practical question still seems to be what happens at the doctor level. A hospital might decide to offer the program, but individual doctors still have to decide whether they are willing to perform the procedure.
That’s where conscience and professional judgment come in. Which brings it back to the same line: regulating access to a service is one thing.
Compelling a doctor to perform it is another.
The article seems concerned about whether a court challenge could be brought based on the idea that the feds might not have standing (because nothing stops them from withholding the money). But the more obvious plaintiff is the hospital, no? I can’t see any reason why the hospital would lack standing. If I’m wrong please explain why. Thanks in advance.
The hospital should amend its reason for canceling the programs by adding that there is no reasonably good reason to do the treatments in the first place. There’s no peer reviewed study that shows that any of this helps. There are several of them that show that it does not and they are in fact harmful. They could easily justify stopping this by simply stating that there’s no evidence that these treatments help and there’s plenty of evidence that they do harm. Then it would be up to the Attorney General to argue the medical facts of this, which she would most certainly lose
That would definitely be advisable in the context of a lawsuit initiated by the hospital seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. So you agree the hospital would have standing?
Democrat identity politics reaching the bottom of the barrel of division. Not much left and hard times ahead.
Lets see, T’s, commies, AWFUL’s, insane people, suicidal people, paid protestors, and IR supporters. That’s it.
It is the MAGAs who are pushing identity politics hard. They are the ones who have it at the top of their list. The Ds are just playing defense.
Yes, Republicans have enabled XY ppl to use the Ladies Room, and required all and sundry to use our preferred pronouns. Because the right to identify aa a woman supersedes all others’ rights.