As Americans, we instinctively recoil at the word “ban.” It strikes at our core values of liberty and freedom—and progressives understand this, implicitly. That is why they deliberately attach this loaded term to policies they want to defeat. 

 Want to restrict pornographic content from reaching minors? They call it a “book ban.”  

 Want to ensure only legal citizens vote? A “voting ban.” 

 Want to protect children from irreversible medical procedures before their brains fully develop? You guessed it: a “ban on gender-affirming care.” 

 This word game works amazingly well. When parents hear what some schools and children’s libraries are actually exposing children to, most rightfully oppose it. Yet slap the label “ban” on any restriction, and our American independence kicks in. Who are you to ban anything? 

 The mainstream media eagerly amplifies this deceptive framing. Following the Supreme Court’s recent landmark decision, headlines across major news outlets painted the ruling as an attack on vulnerable youth rather than their protection. On June 18, 2025, in United States v. Skrmetti, the Court ruled 6-3 to uphold Tennessee’s law restricting gender “transition” procedures to adults. The Court correctly determined that SB1 does not violate the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. 

 But notice how both activists and journalists frame it: “banning gender-affirming care for minors.” The terminology is deliberate, combining “ban” (negative) with “affirming” and “care” (positive). How could anyone oppose “care” that “affirms” children? 

 The Daily Wire tracked this media spin in a piece released Wednesday. Virginia Kruta states:  

 “Despite the fact that the majority of Americans, regardless of political party, believe children should not be subject to such irreversible procedures, mainstream media reporters still referred to the High Court’s ruling as a ‘major setback’ or a ‘devastating loss.'” 

 What does the Skrmetti decision actually accomplish? It protects vulnerable children from experimental procedures with permanent consequences. It acknowledges the scientific reality that adolescent brains are not fully developed, especially in areas governing impulse control and long-term decision-making. It recognizes that many children experiencing gender dysphoria eventually reconcile with their biological sex when given appropriate support. 

 This ruling does not “ban care.” It ensures children receive real care that protects them from irreversible decisions they may deeply regret as adults. The language we use matters. When we cut through manipulative terminology and focus on protecting children, the wisdom of the Court’s decision becomes clear—even to the New York Times… 

 The New York Times Confirms Weak Science Behind Skrmetti Case 

In an exhaustive 11,000-word bombshell investigation, The New York Times confirmed what the Supreme Court recognized in Skrmetti: the push for “pediatric gender medicine” (note the language used) rested on “flawed politics and uncertain science.” Despite wrapping their findings in the same misleading “ban” (40 times) and “care” (50 times) packaging, the Times could not conceal what the evidence actually shows. 

In “How the Transgender Rights Movement Bet on the Supreme Court and Lost,” investigative reporter Nicholas Confessore reveals that medical research found “only ‘very low certainty’ evidence that puberty blockers or hormone treatments actually improved patients’ dysphoria…  Even the landmark Dutch studies suffered from ‘high risk of bias.’” 

 European countries were ahead of the U.S. in recognizing these problems. Confessore quotes directly from their findings: 

  “In 2020, citing ‘limited’ research data, Finland’s health agency removed surgery from the treatment protocol for minors with dysphoria and restricted the use of blockers and hormones. In February 2021, an effort to replicate the Dutch studies at Britain’s Tavistock gender clinic failed, finding that puberty blockers had little effect on adolescents’ dysphoria or thoughts of self-harm… Reviews in other countries were yielding similar conclusions. In February 2022, Sweden followed Finland, sharply limiting access to gender-related care for young people.” 

Internal emails show the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) knew this. Their chairman, Eli Coleman, admitted to his colleagues, “all of us are painfully aware that there are many gaps in research to back up our recommendations.” Yet they publicly claimed they had a medical consensus. 

The article details how WPATH responded when their own researcher found damning results. Confessore writes: 

 “The group had contracted with Karen Robinson, an epidemiologist and evidence-based medicine expert at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, to conduct systematic reviews for SOC-8’s authors… In a subsequent email, Robinson told an official at the Department of Health and Human Services that her team’s research had produced ‘little to no evidence about children and adolescents’ and complained that WPATH had been ‘trying to restrict our ability to publish’ the reports.”  

 “WPATH officials circulated the new policy in an email that fall to Robinson and SOC-8 authors, stating that any manuscripts based on her reports would now be ‘scrutinized and reviewed to ensure that publication does not negatively affect the provision of transgender health care.’ At least one manuscript Robinson sought to publish never saw the light of day.”  

Trans activists are also beginning to question their own movement. Dana Beyer, a physician and longtime trans activist, told Confessore: “People know the movement is stuck. They know we’ve gone too far. They know we’ve lost the thread.” And Brianna Wu, a “trans woman” who serves on the board of Rebellion PAC, a Democratic political-action committee, called Skrmetti “one of the biggest mistakes in the history of trans activism.” 

 The Court was not “banning care,” it was protecting children from what the movement’s own activists, and the New York Times, now admit went “too far.”  

 There is hope. 

 The Skrmetti decision clears the way for states to protect children from unethical medical interventions. Yet the broad-based social movement advocating for gender confusion remains a significant challenge. Across Arizona, individuals, families, children, churches are facing the painful consequences of the transgender lie and the denial of biological reality.  

 If you or someone you know is dealing with this issue, please consider checking out this free e-book by Dr. Jeff Myers and Brandon Showalter. This resource is an excellent overview of the problem and the ways families and churches can stand for truth and find healing where there is so much falsehood and brokenness. 

 ICYMI 

• Read Tom Horne’s response to Channel 12’s attack on ESAs 

• See how polls show young adults are increasingly adopting pro-life views 

• Learn about Maricopa County libraries facing scrutiny over sexually explicit books in youth sections 

• Read how Supreme Court tells NY court to revisit decision forcing religious employers to cover abortion