transgender

Supreme Court to Decide if Washington State Can ‘Transition’ Runaway Children

The U.S. Supreme Court will take up a challenge to Washington state laws that allow the state to help runaway children receive abortions and “transgender” medical interventions – puberty blockers, hormones and surgeries – without parental consent or knowledge.

The Court announced on June 29, 2026, that it was granting certiorari in the case International Partners for Ethical Care, Inc. (IPEC) v. Ferguson, which presents the question:

Whether parents have standing to challenge a law or policy that deliberately displaces their decision-making role as to “gender transitions” of their children, and in so doing creates present and likely future impediments to their ability to parent their children as they deem best for them.

The case began in April 2023 when Governor Bob Ferguson signed SB 5999, “Supporting youth and young adults seeking protected health care services,” into law, as the Family Policy Institute of Washington (FPIW) reported.

The Focus on the Family ally explained:

SB 5599, as signed by the Governor, allows shelters to assist children in obtaining abortions, puberty blockers, gender “reassignment” surgeries, or any other health services prescribed by a doctor to treat “dysphoria,” without contacting police, CPS, or the child’s parents. 
The bill report states that a shelter can be classified as “any person, unlicensed youth shelter, or runaway and homeless youth program.” This means that a child could seek shelter at any stranger’s house and that person would not need to alert police that they were harboring a runaway child. This opens the door for countless threats to the safety of minors across the state. (Their emphasis.)

The bill defined “protective health care services” as “gender-affirming treatment and reproductive healthcare services that are lawful in the state of Washington.”

“Gender affirming treatment” is a euphemism for body-damaging, experimental, irreversible medical interventions like puberty blockers, opposite-sex hormones and surgeries that attempt to make a person look like the opposite sex.

“Reproductive health care services” includes abortions and the removal of healthy organs, like “genitals, gonads, the uterus, ovaries, fallopian tubes, and breasts.”

In August 2023, America First Legal filed a lawsuit challenging the legislation against Governor Jay Inslee, Attorney General Robert Ferguson, and Ross Hunter, Secretary of the Washington Department of Children, Youth, and Families. Plaintiffs in the case a group of eight parents and two organizations, IPEC and Advocates Protecting Children.

America First Legal was joined by Schaerr Jaffe LLP, and Joel Ard, who brought the pre-enforcement challenge, arguing the statute deprived some parents “of their fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution to direct the care and upbringing of their children, as well as their rights to the free exercise of religion, due process, free speech, and equal protection.”

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, agreeing with a lower court, held that the parents and organizations did not have standing, meaning they did not have a direct stake in the outcome and had not yet been injured – despite the fact that the parents had children who rejected their sex, including one child who had previously run away from home.

The 9th Circuit ruled, in July 2025, that the plaintiffs had not shown they had “suffered or will imminently suffer an injury in fact.”

Remember, this is a law which allows any person or shelter in Washington to hide children, along with critical mental and psychological health information – from their parents. But the 9th Circuit stated the parents could not challenge this unconstitutional law which deprived them of their right to raise children according to their deeply held beliefs.

The case has ramifications beyond Washington, as California, Minnesota, New Mexico and Illinois have similar laws or executive orders in place.

International Partners for Ethical Care, Inc. (IPEC) v. Ferguson  could also affect cases in Arizona, California, Indiana, Maryland, Montana, Texas and other states which have removed children from parents’ custody because they would not allow damaging transgender medical interventions.

International Partners for Ethical Care, Inc. (IPEC) v. Ferguson will be heard in late 2026 or early 2027. The Daily Citizen will keep you informed about this important parental rights case.

Related articles and resources:

Activist Erin Friday on Protecting Kids and Fighting Gender Ideology

Colorado Bill Would Force Parents to Accept Child’s New ‘Gender Identity’

Erin Friday on Family Courts, ‘Transgender’ Sanctuary States and Fighting to Protect Parental Rights

HHS Tells States Not to Remove Children From Parents Who Affirm Biological Reality

WPATH Pushed Sex-Rejecting Procedures on Kids for Financial Gain, FTC Lawsuit Alleges

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sued the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) last week for making “false and unsubstantiated” statements which enabled the promotion of sex-rejecting procedures to minors.

The lawsuit, which Alaska, Iowa, Nebraska and Texas joined, alleges WPATH’s Standards of Care, Version 8 (SOC-8), the group’s treatment recommendations for transgender-identified people, deceived families about the scientific support for and effectiveness of pediatric sex-rejecting procedures — including puberty blocking drugs, opposite-sex hormones and surgeries.

The FTC isn’t the first to lay out SOC-8’s blatant scientific deficiencies. It is, however, one of the first to assign WPATH an alleged motive for pushing sex-rejecting procedures on American families and children: cold, hard cash.

The filing asserts:

WPATH misrepresents scientific and medical consensus and makes false, deceptive or unsubstantiated claims regarding [sex-rejecting procedures for kids] and related services for a simple reason: WPATH’s members generate significant profit because of the organization’s representations and guidance.

The vast majority of WPATH members work in the “transgender” procedures industry. Some, including three of five members of WPATH’s executive committee, perform sex-rejecting procedures. Others work in related businesses, like “gender-affirming” counseling.

WPATH lines its members’ pockets by legitimizing and expanding access to sex-rejecting procedures. According to the FTC, this has always been WPATH’s purpose, dating back to its inception in 1979.

That year was a disastrous one for the burgeoning “transgender” procedures industry. Johns Hopkins University closed down its “Gender Identity Clinic,” which opened in 1966, after a university psychiatrist published a paper “showing no objective benefit to transition.”

Other clinics followed suit, reflecting general unease over difficulty diagnosing “dissatisfaction with one’s sex traits” and inability to determine which patients would benefit from sex-rejecting procedures.

Lack of academic backing prompted insurance companies to stop covering the experimental interventions — drastically limiting the number of people who could purchase them.

The FTC’s filing claims members of the floundering “transgender” procedures industry created WPATH to recreate a semblance of academic support for their dangerous, experimental medical interventions.

The group published its first Standards of Care in 1981 to establish itself as an academic authority. In the four decades since, it has successfully masqueraded as an expert medical group, rather than a profit-driven industry lobby.

Until very recently, WPATH had nearly unilateral power to determine accepted standards of care for transgender-identified people, including what procedures insurance companies paid for. The Department of Health and Human Services’ 2025 report on the harms of sex-rejecting procedures for minors notes, “Many U.S. public and private health insurers and regulatory bodies rely on SOC-8 when making coverage determinations.”

The FTC alleges WPATH used this power to gradually expand its customer base.

In 2008, for instance, WPATH first declared opposite-sex hormones and sex-rejecting surgeries “medically necessary,” a term which generally triggers insurance coverage.

Less than two decades later, the FTC notes, SOC-8 encourages insurance companies to consider “‘medically necessary’ virtually every pediatric medical transition service that a transition doctor could perform for a fee,” including “gender affirming hair removal.”

WPATH members have also made untold millions by performing sex-rejecting procedures on kids. Lowering age limits on transgender medical interventions gives doctors a chance to cash in on the temporary sexual identity confusion kids often face.

The filing explains.

Pediatric medical transition is a profitable market for [doctors who perform sex-rejecting procedures], because most children will naturally desist, or cease experiencing discomfort with or distress about their sex traits, if clinicians delay medical transition procedures.

Similarly, if a doctor administers puberty blockers to a child, they are significantly more likely receive opposite-sex hormones and sex-rejecting surgical procedures.

The estimated lifetime cost of “transgender” medical interventions for a man ranges from $75,000 to nearly $411,000, according to the filing. For a woman, the range is even wider, spanning from about $67,000 to as much as $606,000.

“WPATH has long represented itself as the final authority for the gender-related treatment of children, advancing profit-driven ideology unsupported by science and withholding crucial information from children, parents and doctors,” Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers wrote in a press release.

“We’re proud to work with the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general to hold WPATH accountable for deceiving parents and medical professionals and causing harm to children and nationwide.”

“Patients and their families have been deceived into believing the organization is an authoritative, medical body, when, in truth, their recommendations are based on politics and ideology,” Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird added.

“Parents and children deserve better.”

The Daily Citizen couldn’t agree more. We thank the FTC, Alaska, Iowa, Nebraska and Texas for bringing this action in service of children and families harmed by WPATH. Please pray justice be done in this case.

Additional Articles and Resources

FTC Begins Investigating ‘Gender Affirming’ Medical Community for Deception, False Advertising

Activist Group WPATH Influences Judgement in Case of Prisoner Receiving Trans Surgery

Suicidal or Stable? WPATH Activist’s Contradictory Evaluation Secures Felon Transgender Surgery

The WPATH Files Exposes ‘Surgical and Hormonal Experiments on Children’

The WPATH Files – Transgender Interventions Are ‘Unethical Medical Experiments’

Transgender Organization Suggests Hormones and Surgeries Should Start Even Earlier for Gender-Confused Teens

Do Not Fall for the ‘Affirm Them or They Will Die’ Lie

Detransitioner to Surgeon: ‘You Killed the Woman I was Supposed to Become’

As a 25-year-old woman, I’m tired of seeing women my age being coerced into rejecting their womanhood as if it were a disease.

Trans ideology has so many women removing healthy body parts and labels it “healthcare” and promotes it as “very safe.”

I just read the following yesterday:

Now, I live every single day with a numb, hollow chest covered in the disfiguring scars you chose to carve into me. I’m left to cope with the constant, agonizing reminders of the damage you inflicted. There is an electrical current that constantly hums and zaps beneath my skin, a manifestation of the trauma you inflicted and sewed into my nerves.

These are the words of Claire Abernathy, a 21-year-old “detransitioner” who recently shared her riveting story in “An Open Letter to the Surgeon Who Removed My Breasts” over at Genspect.

Claire underwent a double mastectomy at just 14 years old.

At that age, I couldn’t foresee my life 10 years ahead, let alone a lifetime.

But despite that an adult willingly chose to mutilate this young girl seemingly without any remorse. It was done by a man who was supposed to be a healer. That is why she will not call him a doctor.

Before I begin, let it be clear that I will not honor you with the title of “doctor.” A doctor is a healer, a protector of life and health who adheres to the sacred oath of doing no harm. You are a sick man who used a medical degree as permission to disfigure children, and I refuse to grant you a title you have so thoroughly disgraced.

How have we gotten to this point? How can a self-proclaimed “expert” deliberately harm a patient? How does that even happen?

The definition of who they are more aligns with a criminal, a manipulator who profits off innocent, vulnerable people for their own gain.

And Gen Z women are being manipulated by the millions. They are being told to bind their chests, take puberty blockers, take testosterone and get double mastectomies because “being” a woman is unbearable. But all of these end in destruction — not just of the body, but the mind and soul.

It was recently found that over 1 in 250 girls were taking testosterone by age 17 in Oregon from 2016 to 2023. The data is staggering and shows just how many young girls are being persuaded to reject their womanhood and become sterilized.

Claire writes that for the last seven years since her “top surgery” she’s lived with “physical and psychological wreckage,” and many detransitioners detail the same thing.

Chloe Cole, who had a double mastectomy at age 15, said that after the procedure her “mental health and suicidality issues worsened significantly” and she has permanent side effects from her nerve endings being severed, just like Claire describes in her writing.

Fox Varian, who had a double mastectomy at age 16, told a New York court in her malpractice suit that the surgery left her with nerve pain and felt like “searing hot … ripping sensations across my chest.”

Earlier this year, the 22-year-old was awarded $2 million in damages, with $1.6 million for past and future pain and suffering and another $400,000 for future medical expenses.

But this is not enough to undo the damage. Because nothing could do that.

This is what “transgender” ideology brings, though. My fellow Gen Z girls and women did not need medications, surgeries and more pain. They needed adults willing to dissent against this damaging ideology and do the work to help them embrace their God-given womanhood. They needed doctors focused on treating their underlying mental health conditions. They needed professionals who cared enough to reject the lies and speak the truth. They needed someone to protect their precious and priceless ability to bear and nurture children.

That is what these emerging women need, and we all share the responsibility to fight for them to have it.

Photo credit: Claire Abernathy / Genspect / Substack

DOJ Announces Cleveland ‘Gender Clinic’ Will Now Offer Help to ‘Detransitioners’

The U.S. Department of Justice announced that the Cleveland Clinic will stop harmful sex-rejecting procedures for minors and will commit $2 million to provide care for victims of chemically and surgically mutilating “transgender” medical interventions. 

The agreement also stipulates that the Cleveland Clinic will pay $308,000 “to resolve allegations regarding false billings submitted to public and private payors to secure insurance coverage for sex-rejecting procedures on minors.” 

The settlement is the second of its kind with a “gender clinic,” coming less than a month after the DOJ announced that Texas Children’s Hospital would pay millions of dollars in civil penalties and establish America’s first ever “detransition” clinic to avoid federal prosecution for alleged fraud.

The agency partnered with Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost to reach the deal, saying the resolution with the Cleveland Clinic was a result of its “ongoing national investigation into violations of federal law in connection with sex-rejecting procedures on minors (often euphemistically referred to as ‘gender-affirming care’).”

The DOJ’s press release explained the settlement: 

The Cleveland Clinic Foundation … has entered into agreements with the Department and the Ohio Attorney General that include a decades-long commitment to not perform or offer sex-rejecting procedures – which includes the administration of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones – for minors.
Cleveland Clinic has also agreed to pay a monetary penalty and, in a landmark commitment, dedicate additional millions to help provide essential medical care for individuals living with the harmful consequences of such misguided medical interventions performed on them as children and adolescents (i.e., “detransitioners”).

The $2 million will now be available “to provide restorative care for detransitioners – the very victims of these predatory and dangerous practices – regardless of their insured status or ability to pay,” the agency said. 

In January 2025 President Donald Trump signed an executive order, “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation.”  

The order directed the attorney general of the United States to:

Prioritize investigations and take appropriate action to end deception of consumers, fraud, and violations of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by any entity that may be misleading the public about long-term side effects of chemical and surgical mutilation.

In June 2025 Attorney General Pam Bondi followed up on the executive order by issuing a departmental directive, “Preventing the Mutilation of American Children.” The memo rebuked the medical community for harming children, saying: 

Between 2019 and 2023, an estimated 14,000 children received “treatment” for gender dysphoria, with more than 5,700 subjected to life-altering surgeries. The practitioners who provided this so-called “care” profited while their patients were left permanently disfigured, scarred and sterilized.
Those children will struggle for the rest of their lives to overcome regret, and their parents will struggle equally to overcome the guilt of ruining their children’s lives on the false and misleading advice of medical providers who told them that surgery or hormone replacement was the best solution to their problems.

The department then began investigating harms to children from sex-rejecting medical interventions, eventually issuing subpoenas to more than 20 doctors and clinics that perpetrate these procedures.

It’s impossible to completely undo the damage done to minors who had their natural growth and development blocked by powerful drugs, were given mind and body-altering opposite sex hormones, and had healthy organs permanently excised from their bodies. 

We grieve for the damage inflicted on them. 

We’re thankful that two medical centers will begin offering some medical help to these wounded children, and we’re grateful for this administration for beginning to put an end to these barbaric practices. 

Related articles and resources: 

18 States Sue HHS for Protecting Children From Sex-Rejecting Procedures

Chloe Cole: Gender Reassignment Surgery Regret

Counseling Consultation & Referrals

DOJ Targets Those Mutilating Children with ‘Transgender’ Drugs and Surgeries

FDA Sends Warning Letters to Companies Promoting Sex-Rejecting Breast Binders

FTC Begins Investigating ‘Gender-Affirming’ Medical Community for Deception, False Advertising

God’s Amazing Grace in a Transgendered Person’s Life

HHS Investigates Seattle Children’s Hospital Over Harmful ‘Transgender’ Procedures

HHS Releases Report on Harms of ‘Transgender’ Medical Interventions for Minors

HHS Will Block Hospitals From Performing Sex-Rejecting, Mutilating Procedures on Children

Responding to a Transgender-Identified Family Member

Support for Parent Whose Adult Child Identifies as Transgender

Texas Children’s Hospital Settles with Feds for Performing Sex-Rejecting Procedures on Minors

Transgender Resources

5 Phrases Christians Should Banish From Their Vocabularies

Estimations vary, but there are approximately one million words in the English language, though most dictionaries include between two hundred thousand and five hundred thousand or so of them. The average person has a vocabulary of between 10,000 and 30,000 words. 

Of those in the available lexicon, there are profane and crass words and terms that Christians should never use, of course, but there are also five more that believers should banish from their vocabulary.

Scripture has something important to say about the power of the words we use, specifically noting that how we choose to communicate can be consequential not only in our own lives, but also influence those around us.

“Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruits,” wrote King Solomon (Proverbs 18:21). He also noted, “The soothing tongue is a tree of life, but a perverse tongue crushes the spirit” (Proverbs 15:4).

Historically, Christians have put a high value on communicating clearly and truthfully. We should say what we mean and mean what we say. Writing to believers in Corinth who were debating the matter of speaking in tongues, the Apostle Paul wisely noted that it’s impossible for anyone to know what you’re saying if you’re not speaking intelligibly. In fact, he likened it to “speaking into the air” (1 Cor. 14:9).

But good communication isn’t simply about being heard audibly, but also about being understood. We can best accomplish that by choosing our words carefully and deliberately. Speaking plainly and truthfully trumps the use of big flowery words that are vague or downright misleading.

Which brings us to five terms Christians should never use:

The first two: “trans man” and/or “trans woman.”

The primary reason we shouldn’t be using these terms is because neither a “trans man” nor a “trans woman” exists. They’re fantastical creations of a delusional ideology. A so-called “trans woman” is a man who thinks he’s a woman. A “trans man” is a woman who thinks she’s a man.

Big media requires their writers to use the terms, so we’re regularly subjected to seeing them in print. Focus on the Family prioritizes God’s truth and the exclusivity of two immutable and unchanging sexes, so you won’t see those terms in any of our publications.

Focus on the Family’s Glenn Stanton has debated this issue on college campuses and has written extensively about it. In a Daily Citizen essay, he noted that many well-meaning folks say the terms should be used to spare the feelings of the sexually confused. But Glenn correctly states, “Compassion doesn’t require saying untrue things.”

He added:

“People do have the right to choose their own identity and live by it the best they can. That is called individual autonomy. However, no one has the right to demand that everyone else agree with that identity.

“Some may choose to use new preferred pronouns and names for the sake of personal relationship. But no one should be forced to say things they know to be untrue. Not even about what it means to be male or female. That is forced speech.”

The other terms Christians should avoid using are an oldie and two emerging new ones – but phrases some believers regularly let slide into their vocabulary: “pro-choice,” “abortion rights,” and “reproductive rights.” 

Prior to the emergence of the “Right to Life” movement following the Supreme Court’s horrific 1973 decision legalizing abortion in all fifty states, advocates for abortion were known as “abortion rights” advocates or “pro-abortion” activists. 

The term “pro-choice” emerged as a public relations ploy to counter the pro-life surge.

In recent years, “abortion rights” and “reproductive rights” are the newest euphemisms used to try and socially soften the reality of what radical activists are defending and championing: the killing of innocent pre-born life.

C.S. Lewis once gave writing advice to a young girl in Florida that applies to Christians as they navigate communication involving both abortion and the sexually confused.

“Always try to use the language so as to make quite clear what you mean, and make sure your sentence couldn’t mean anything else,” Lewis wrote. “Always prefer the plain direct word to the long, vague one.”

In summation, watch and cultivate your words carefully – and avoid these five terms: trans woman, trans man, pro-choice, abortion rights, and reproductive rights.