 |
 |
|
|
Late last month, President Donald Trump signed an executive order restricting “transgender” procedures on youth, including puberty blockers and surgeries such as mastectomies and penile reconstruction. In response, many medical providers including some of the top in the nation for performing them have announced they will comply with the EO.
The EO states that “it is the policy of the United States that it will not fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called 'transition' of a child from one sex to another, and it will rigorously enforce all laws that prohibit or limit these destructive and life-altering procedures.”
Last year, nonprofit Do No Harm unveiled a database reporting that between 2019-2023, there were 13,000 gender reassignment procedures performed throughout the nation on minors; those procedures included both surgeries and prescriptions. Among the top states in the nation for those procedures was Ohio, which has since enacted legislation banning such procedures.
The Center Square reached out to more than two dozen medical providers throughout the country based on data provided by Do No Harm regarding their total billing, prescriptions, and surgeries performed, asking them how they planned to respond to Trump’s EO.
Among those to announce they were suspending all procedures was Seattle-based UW Medicine, which stated in an email that it was “committed to supporting the clinical care needs and well-being of all our patients, as well as complying with state and federal law. We are currently in compliance and are also continuing to provide our full spectrum of services.”
Seattle Children’s Hospital ranked among the top in the nation for puberty blocker prescriptions; though it did not respond to request for comment, there have been reports that it has suspended those services, and its webpage for gender affirmation surgery has since been removed.
MultiCare Mary Bridge Children's Hospital located in Tacoma wrote in an email that while it does not perform gender-affirming surgeries, “we are aware of the executive order that calls for an end to gender-affirming medical treatments for children and adolescents under 19 and are continuing to monitor the situation. Executive orders are directives to federal agencies on how they will operate. Much of what’s been issued has not yet become rules for us to evaluate.”
D.C.-based Children’s National Hospital released a statement that it will no longer prescribe puberty blockers or hormone therapy, noting that prior to the EO it did not perform gender affirming surgeries.
Coolie Dickinson Hospital based out of Massachusetts wrote in an email that it “is reviewing to see what, if any, actual impact the executive orders might have and would follow up, if there is any impact. In the meantime, the care we provide to our community continues as normal at this time.”
University of Michigan Health stated that its “teams are assessing the potential impact of this executive order on our healthcare services and the communities we serve. Our priority remains delivering high-quality, accessible care to our patients while ensuring compliance with the law."
Another medical provider to cease gender transition services for anyone under 19 is VCU Health and Children’s Hospital of Richmond, Virginia, which wrote in a statement that it was “in response to an Executive Order issued by the White House on January 28, 2025, and related state guidance received by VCU on January 30, 2025. Our doors remain open to all patients and their families for screening, counseling, mental health care and all other health care needs.”
UCSF’s Gender Affirming Care in San Francisco has also ended services for patients under 19, a policy also adopted by Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles.
Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York simply wrote in an email that “we will keep you posted once we have an update on this matter.”
Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago and the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia both said they were reviewing their services.
Several hospitals and hospital systems who performed these procedures on minors did not respond to The Center Square's requests for comment on the executive order. The Center Square will continue to seek clarification on whether they plan to comply with the order.
(The Center Square) – A new Wisconsin bill would limit government-sponsored divisions from flying certain flags.
The bill prevents flags other than the U.S. flag, Wisconsin flag, local flags and U.S. armed forces and POW/MIA flags from being flown or hung outside any state or local institution.
The bill was introduced by a group of Republicans including Rep. Jerry L. O’Connor, R-Fond du Lac, Dave Murphy, R- Greenville, Rob Brooks, R-Saukville, Joy Goeben, R-Hobart and State Sens. Dan Feyen, R-Fond du Lac, and Cory Tomczyk, R-Mosinee.
The bill points to particular flags that have led to divisiveness including those of political movements or social causes, such as MAGA, pride, heterosexual, CSA, Second Amendment rights, BLM, ALL Lives Matter, Antifa, Pro-Life, Pro-Choice and others.
The bill doesn’t prohibit any private citizens or Native American tribes from flying any flags.
“Government should not be in the business of choosing sides, or even giving the appearance of choosing sides,” said Feyen. “This bill simply ensures that the first impression of all government buildings and institutions is neutral, offering equal treatment to all Wisconsinites.”
The lawmakers said that they were asked to act on the divisiveness by Wisconsin residents.
“Flags on government buildings are not supposed to be divisive and should not support one ideology over another,” said Sen. Tomczyk, “When the governor uses flags flown over the State Capitol and other taxpayer-funded buildings to divide the people of Wisconsin, it is shameful and frankly, embarrassing. It is time to end this nonsense.”
Immigrants residing illegally within the U.S. could no longer receive child tax credits or tax breaks for low income earners if the Safeguarding American Workers’ Benefits Act becomes law.
Reintroduced by Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith, R-Miss., the legislation would require both parents and children to have Social Security numbers that are valid for employment in order to claim the Child Tax Credit or the Earned Income Tax Credit.
Rep. Clay Higgins, R-La., has introduced a companion bill in the House.
The U.S. Joint Committee on Taxation estimates Hyde-Smith's legislation could save nearly $28 billion over ten years.
“I welcome President [Donald] Trump’s intent to target wasteful spending and enforce immigration laws,” Hyde-Smith said Tuesday. “The environment is certainly friendlier now to adopt legislation that saves billions of dollars and ensures that only U.S citizens and persons authorized to work can benefit from the Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit.”
While the CTC and EITC should only go to those with SSNs valid for employment, certain loopholes allow some people who do not meet the requirements to receive the federal benefits. The bill would close those loopholes.
Only weeks into Trump’s second presidency, Republicans and the Commander in Chief have already implemented or introduced other anti-illegal immigration measures, including reinstating the Remain in Mexico policy and authorizing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to round up and deport migrants residing in the U.S.
The Safeguarding American Workers’ Benefits Act is also part of Republicans’ federal cost-cutting efforts to finance the extension of Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates will cost $4.6 trillion over the next ten years.
“I will work to ensure that [the] Safeguarding American Workers’ Benefits Act is considered as part of the debate to extend and improve on the Trump tax cuts that expire this year,” Hyde-Smith said.
Surveying nearly an equal number of Republicans and Democrats, a poll taken by the New York Times and polling company Ipsos showed that the majority of Americans do not want transgender-identifying men in women’s sports.
Of those surveyed, 79% answered that men “should not” compete in women’s sports when posed with the following question: “thinking about transgender female athletes – meaning athletes who were male at birth but who currently identify as female – do you think they should or should not be allowed to compete in women's sports?”
This number has increased from a 2023 The Center Square Voters' Voice Poll that reported 67% of American voters were collectively against men playing in women’s sports.
When the 2025 New York Times-Ipsos poll is broken up along political divides, 94% of Republicans, 67% of Democrats, and 64% of Independents or “something else” answered that men should not be in women’s sports.
The highest bracket that believes men should be allowed to play in women’s sports are Democrats, equaling 31%.
The results of this poll came just before President Trump declared there are only two sexes in America, male and female. The survey was taken from Jan. 2 to 11.
When reached for comment, Ipsos vice president for public affairs Mallory Newall repeated the question posed to respondents and said “we cannot speculate on what people meant or interpreted beyond the wording of the question.”
Ipsos is a global market research and polling company, according to its description in the poll document.
Men in women’s sports has become an issue in recent years, with high school girls such as Payton McNabb getting injured by a male competitor on a volleyball team and former University of Kentucky swimmer Riley Gaines becoming an activist defending women's-only sports after placing second to a transgender female swimming competitor.
The Independent Women’s Forum senior legal advisor Beth Parlato told The Center Square that “without female-only athletics, the safety of girls and women is endangered, and men will dominate the playing field, which unfairly takes away awards, opportunities, scholarships and roster spots.”
The Independent Women’s Forum (IWF) is a nonprofit women’s organization “dedicated to developing and advancing policies” that “enhance people’s freedom, opportunities, and well-being,” according to its website. IWF has taken a staunch stance against men competing in women’s sports.
“Males and females possess unique and immutable biological differences,” Parlato said. “With respect to sports, males have biological athletic advantages over females, as the average male is stronger, bigger and faster.
“Furthermore, allowing males in female-only spaces is an invasion of a women’s right to privacy and threatens women’s safety and well-being,” Parlato said.
“Defining sex-based terms in law and policy is essential to protect women’s sports and spaces,” Parlato said.
Trump’s executive order on two sexes provides “needed clarity to preserve the legal existence of women as distinct from men,” Parlato said. “Protect women’s sports bills at both the federal and state levels must be codified into law to ensure equal athletic opportunities for women and girls."
The NYT-Ipsos survey was “of the American general population” aged 18 and up, interviewing a total of 2,128 people; 1,022 of those polled were Republican/Lean Republican, 1,025 were Democrat/Lean Democrat, and 81 were Independent or “something else.”
In a vein similar to transgender-identifying men playing in women’s sports, the poll showed that the majority of Americans are not for sex changes in minors, either.
Respondents were asked “thinking about medications used for transgender care, do you think doctors should be able to prescribe puberty-blocking drugs or hormone therapy to minors between the ages of 10 and 18?”
A total of 71% of Americans do not think anyone under 18 should have access to such drugs or therapy.
Shortly after this poll, Trump signed an executive order “restricting transgender drugs and surgeries for minors,” The Center Square previously reported.
